Summary and Discussion 



Mule deer made use of most of the area in some way at 

 some time during the study. Habitat diversity, by itself, 

 appeared to be a good predictor of long-term intensity of use 

 by mule deer. Over time, intensity of use was highest for 

 areas with the most topographic and vegetational diversity. 

 Vegetational diversity often followed from topographic 

 diversity; thus, topographic diversity may be the major or 

 ultimate factor influencing mule deer use of an area. 



The Douglas fir-juniper vegetation cover types were most 

 preferred. These types provided hiding cover and succulent 

 forage during summer and autumn and thermal cover during 

 winter. They received minimal use during spring when deer 

 preferred more phenologically advanced non-timbered types for 

 feeding. The Douglas fir types generally occurred on steep 

 north-facing slopes and were usually bordered by pine- juniper- 

 shale and shale-longleaf sage types on the adjacent south- 

 facing slopes. Although lacking in forage, these south-facing 

 slopes provided lesser snow depths and warm resting areas 

 during sunny winter days. No types provided yearlong habitat 

 by themselves, so diversity within small areas was important 

 in determining quality mule deer habitat. 



Habitat use by productive females and their fawns 

 differed from that of mature males during summer and autumn. 

 Females and their fawns made more intensive use of areas and 

 vegetation cover types that provided the best forage and 

 cover. Similar findings were reported by King and Smith 

 (1980), Bowyer (1984), and Ordway and Kransman (1986). The 

 reduced competition between males and their offspring was 

 predictable based on kin selection and breeding strategy. 



Although the relative use of preferred vegetation cover 

 types did not change between low and high deer densities, deer 

 made increased use of areas with lower overall diversity at 

 high densities. This indicated that although sagebrush- 

 grassland was still not a preferred type at high deer 

 densities, deer made increased use of areas near large patches 

 of sagebrush-grassland at population highs. At low deer 

 densities, most use of sagebrush-grasslands was of small 

 patches interspersed among other types. Also, little 

 difference in use of vegetation cover types was apparent 

 between low and high densities because even at high densities, 

 the majority of the deer were still in areas dominated by 

 preferred vegetation cover types. 



Distribution of water sources apparently was not 

 extremely important in determining mule deer distribution and 

 habitat selection. At the least, the current distribution of 

 water is adequate for the needs of deer. Further water 



275 



