Although the percentage of deer observed within 0.805 km 

 of water in the current analysis was lower than reported for 

 1960-1963, this was expected based on changes in visibility 

 bias between the 2 periods. The percentages of deer observed 

 within 1.61 km of water was nearly the same throughout. 



The high percentage of deer observed within 0.805 and 

 1.61 km of water during most seasons and years was not 

 different from a random distribution. Very little of the 

 study area was more than 1.61 km from water. During wet 

 years, when all sources held water, 44.9 % of the 953 28.8-ha 

 blocks were within 0.805 km of water and 89.0% were within 

 1.61 km. In addition, ephemeral water sources occurred 

 throughout the area. During dry years, 31.9% and 74.4% of the 

 blocks were within 0.805 km and 1.61 km, respectively, of a 

 known water source and ephemeral water rarely occurred. The 

 observed distribution of deer relative to distance from water 

 was not different from that expected based on a random 

 distribution during wet summers (X 2 = 0.76, 1 df, P = 0.40), 

 wet autumns (X 2 = 2.30, 1 df, P = 0.14), or dry autumns (X 2 = 

 0.94, 1 df, P = 0.36). During dry summers, however, the 

 observed distribution of distances at which deer were observed 

 from water was significantly non-random (X 2 = 107.6, 1 df, P 

 < 0.001). Examination of cell contribution to the total 

 chi-square value indicated that significantly fewer deer than 

 expected were observed in blocks within 0.805 km from a water 

 source and significantly more than expected occurred in blocks 

 more than 1.61 km distant from water. 



Overall, proportions of deer observed at various 

 distances from water were significantly different between wet 

 and dry years both in summer (X 2 = 141.2, 3 df, P < 0.005) and 

 autumn (X 2 = 64.3, 3 df, P < 0.005). Deer were distributed 

 further from water during dry years than wet years. This 

 indicated that deer did not move toward remaining water 

 sources as reservoirs dried up as also was the case with deer 

 distribution between the very dry year of 1961 as compared 

 with 1960 (Mackie 1970). 



This does not mean that free water was not important to 

 mule deer. Rather, deer apparently can easily move 2.41 km or 

 more to obtain free water if needed and water was sufficiently 

 abundant and distributed to meet all seasonal and annual needs 

 even during driest periods. During such periods, several 

 marked deer were seen drinking from reservoirs up to 3.2 km 

 from their normal home range. When disturbed they immediately 

 returned to that home range. Thus, though deer may 

 occasionally move long distance to water during dry periods, 

 such movements are specific to that purpose and do not signify 

 a general shift in home range closer to water sources. 



255 



