68 



with 1.5 and 2.0 mule deer per observation in 1980 and 198l 

 respectively. 



The most deer observed per unit of effort was 41.4 mule deer 

 per hour of aerial survey in April 198I (Table 25). Pall and 

 spring (1981) mule deer densities were nearly equal with 31.2 deer 

 observed per hour. Winter densities were lower than expected 

 due to the lack of snow and above average temoeratures. 



Mule deer population structure and reproduction data is given 

 in Table 26. In 198O, the number of fawns per 100 does observed 

 increased from 29.4 in August to 70.8 in November. Obviously 

 many young deer were not traveling with the adults in the earlier 

 months of this survey. The number of fawns per 100 does was 

 115.9 in August 1981. This amounts to a nearly 400 percent 

 Increase over the Auetust 198O data and over 16O percent above 

 November^ data. The Greenleaf-Miller deer herd seems to have 

 remained stable in 1980 as the percentage of fawns fell into the 

 30-35 percent range needed (Swenson 1978) for maintenance and 

 apparently Increased in numbers in 198I as 52.4 percent of the 

 population was composed of fawns in August. A very low percentage 

 of bucks was observed in August I981, 2.4 percent. This is 

 opposite the situation observed in the Sweeney-Snyder study area 

 and is explained by the presence of the Rosebud Creek bottoms in ^ 

 the northern portion of the Greenleaf-Miller area. Practically 

 all of the fawns and does were observed on the creek bottom 

 agricultural and "riparian" habitat types. As mentioned earlier, 

 the Sweeney-Snyder study area had no creek bottom habitat 

 which the doe-fawn segment of the population seems to prefer. 



Distribution: Spring distribution is shown in Figure 45. A 

 major concentration area is evident in the northwest portion of 

 the study area alonp Rosebud Creek at the mouth of Lee Coulee. 

 This area with its combination of creek bottoms, agriculture and 

 adiacent uplands is exceptional mule deer habitat. In the southeast 

 quarter of the study area along the upper portions of Miller, 

 Creenleaf, Bean and Lay creeks is another important mule deer 

 area. The deer were evenly distributed within this section of the 

 study area. One third of these observations were in the 9-15 

 group size category. Two other areas, located in the northeast 

 and southwest portions of the study, were clusters of smaller 

 sized groups of mule deer. The center of the study area, along 

 Miller and Bean creeks supported very few mule deer. 



Summer distribution (Figure 46) again reveals the importance 

 of the Lee Coulee-Downey Coulee-Rosebud Creek section of the study 

 area. Mule deer density is extremely high in this vicinity. A 

 band of observations was evident stretching across the area from 

 the head of Downey Coulee to Greenleaf Creek. This includes the , 

 buttes and represents the edge between the ponderosa pine uplands 

 and sagebrush-grassland habitat types. Mule deer were widely 

 dispersed across the remainder of the study area. 



During the fall season (Figure 47), most mule deer moved out of 

 the bottoms of Rosebud Creek. The major concentration of deer 



