The Need to Improve Mule Deer Populations: HISTORY PART 1 OF 3
By Charlie D. Clements This is the first part of a three-part series focusing on improving mule deer populations on Nevada rangelands. In more recent times, it has been quite obvious that game species such as sage grouse have received enormous attention and financial obligation in an effort to restore and protect this sensitive species. Yet, the only declining big game species in North America, mule deer, are largely absent from the concern of most researchers. The vocal sentiment of many sportsmen and women in northern Nevada, concerning mule deer, is one of frustration. As other big game species such as pronghorn, elk and bighorn sheep continue to experience growth and expansion, mule deer on the other hand continue to struggle overtime. Historically, most authorities agree that at the time of European contact in northern Nevada, mule deer were in fact quite scarce. Early explorers like Jedidiah Smith, Peter Skene Ogden, and John Work journeyed throughout the Great Basin during the second and third decades of the 19th century. Their journals indicate that few mule deer were encountered. Despite these mountain men being the epitome of professional hunters, they often found themselves hungry and sometimes killed their own horses to survive. Early explorers were known to have to survive by drawing blood from their stock and making a blood pudding as well as sticking their hands down ant mounds and licking the ants for much needed protein. John Work described in November 1832 in northwestern Nevada, “few tracks, but no site of deer”. “Crossing the road was a singular barrier, built by Indians, to pen in, probably, large hares when they hunt them, for there is no other game here” reported Bruff on 25 September 1849 while traveling near Soldiers Meadows in northwestern Nevada. These early explorers and trappers noted the abundance of pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep and waterfowl in certain 26 FEBRUARY 2021
areas, but quite often noted the scarcity of mule deer throughout their travels. The areas where these early explorers and trappers traveled and recorded the scarcity of mule deer supported mule deer by the thousands by the mid-1950s and through the 1980s. Now, a half a century later, mule deer are experiencing declining herds. Mule deer are browsers and therefore benefit when shrub species such as big sagebrush, curl leaf mountain mahogany, antelope bitterbrush and other woody species are productive components on their ranges. These woody species are beneficial as they provide desired nutrition and cover. This does not exclude the nutritional importance of forbs and early growth grasses to the well-being of mule deer as these are preferred forages during spring and early summer months. But, as fall and winter months arrive, much needed digestible protein and cover provided by shrub species can be the difference between survival and death (Figure 1).
Among the hypothesis for the mule deer population irruptions of the 1950s, U.S. Forest Service Researcher, George Greull reported in his publication “Post-1900 mule deer irruptions in the Intermountain West; Principle causes and influences” that the environmental changes brought about by domestic livestock grazing resulted in the decrease of herbaceous species, decrease in wildfire frequencies due to decreases in herbaceous fuel loads and the significant increase in shrub species that benefitted mule deer throughout the Great Basin. Pioneer range scientist, James A. Young pointed out that virtually all western Great Basin plant communities that had sagebrush species during this mule deer irruption had sagebrush species under pre-contact conditions. Young also pointed out that even though these shrub species were present during pre-contact time, a very subtle increase in shrub communities could have significant beneficial impacts on browsing ungulates such as mule deer.
Mule deer population estimates reported less than 50,000 animals in the early 1900s, followed by irruptions of an estimated 250,000 animals by 1950 and 240,000 in 1988. Since 1988 there has been a gradual decline in mule deer populations with an estimated population of 92,000 by 2020. With this prolonged and continual decline in mule deer populations has come the numerous justifications for these experienced declines, from multiple habitat issues such as wildfires (Figure 2) and drought to lack of predator management. There is no shortage of finger pointing and emotions are running high, nonetheless, mule deer populations continue to experience declining conditions. The majority of wildlife biologists focus their concern on habitat, as they should, yet concerned sportsmen and women also have voiced their concern on the lack of predator control and the negative impact that predators can have on limiting mule deer populations and recovery.
Figure 1. Mule deer browsing on shrub species during winter months. Healthy shrub communities are critically important to the recovery and growth of mule deer herds throughout Nevada. The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
