344 CALIFOKNIA FISH AND GAME 



dangers from such sonrt'cs. Tlic ordinary diseases and parasites of 

 mule deer are relatively difficult to treat and to control, but epizootics 

 of foot-and-mouth disease in our wild deer of California are probably 

 preventable, since they were unknown among our native deer prior 

 to their introduction by infected domestic stock. 



Control and maintenance of the range is of most vital importance. 

 In reality our capital game investment lies in the range or food supply 

 of our mule deer. If the carrying capacity and pi-oductivity of the 

 range is kei)t u]) to a high standard, it will be possible to nuiintain 

 H good annual ci'op. Thei'efore, an equitable division of Torage, i)ai'- 

 ticularly of browse, must be made between doiiu'slie stock and wild 

 deer. If the range is allowed to be depleted as on tlie Kaibab Plateau 

 by both domestic stock and deer, it will take years to i-estore the forage. 

 All of the deer in the world will avail us but little if we lack forage 

 and range to sustain them. 



EXPLANATION OF FOOD TABLES 



In the following tables, I have tried to give in condensed form, 

 the main points of interest relating to some 200 different kinds of trees, 

 shrubs, herbs, sedges, grasses and fungi known to have been eaten by 

 mule deer in California. To some this ma.y seem a large number of 

 food plants for one kind of deer to eat, but several geographic races 

 and several life zones are involved. Although the data here presented 

 represent many years of close observation of food habits, I doubt if 1 

 have discovered half of the plant species tliat are eaten by mule deer 

 in California. 



I expect that the experience of other observers may vary from 

 mine. 1 have several times been ready, after months of observation, 

 to conclude that a certain plant was rarely, if ever, eaten by mule deer. 

 Then going out at some unusual season, 1 have found this same ])lant 

 highly utilized as food. To get a true estimate of relative values of 

 food plants, the observer must follow the deer every month in the year. 



In compiling these tables I have followed: Sudworth, Check List 

 of the Forest Trees of the United States, U. S. D. A., Misc. Circ. No. 

 92, March, 1927, with supplemental list for trees. For all other plants, 

 I have tried to follow Jepson's Memueil of Ihe Flowering Plants of 

 California, 1925. Among the herbs, it frequently happened that Jepson 

 gave only the scientific name of the plant, no common name being 

 given. In a few instances of this sort, I have had to use the best 

 common name that I could find. In one or two instances, notably in 

 the genus Lotus I have rebelled and have used the name "deervetch" 

 because of the great importance of this genus as forage for mule deer 

 in California. 



In the tables, "Chief Seasonal Use" does not mean that the plant 

 is not used at other seasons. Availability is based upon relative 

 abundance and accessibility of a given plant within the range of the 

 mule deer in California. Thus an annual that might be abundant in 

 summer on the winter range of mule deer might have little importance 



