Even within one study area or one broad ecological zone, 

 topography, vegetation and habitat types, microclimates, other 

 land uses, and the presence and activities of other animals 

 may vary widely. Either a verbal or quantified description of 

 an area varies depending on the resolution used in examination 

 and description. Grossly, all parts of our study area were 

 more similar to each other than to western mountainous areas 

 or more eastern plains. However, at medium to fine 

 resolution, no 2 parts of the area were exactly alike. All 

 deer home ranges within the study area differed structurally, 

 in the kind, amount and quality of resources available, in the 

 juxtaposition of resources, and in the manner in which 

 individual deer exploited the area and its resources. Thus, 

 the habitat was heterogeneous and deer behavior, performance, 

 and fates were heterogeneous (an individual deer was not equal 

 to l/N) . 



Mule deer distribution, movements, food habits, and 

 habitat use were determined by the interaction of social 

 organization and other aspects of behavior with topography, 

 climate, vegetation production, and land use. That 

 interaction and annual variations in weather, vegetation 

 production, and human and coyote predation influenced the 

 occurrence and densities of deer as well as patterns of 

 reproduction and mortality. Examination of interactions 

 helped explain not only annual variations in deer density 

 within place, but why "average" density varies from 

 place-to-place . 



Our data indicated that mule deer preferred relatively 

 steep terrain to areas of low relief. Some habitat types, 

 such as the Douglas-fir juniper types, were preferred over 

 others and some types were used more during one time of the 

 year than during others. Overall, mule deer preferred areas 

 that were the most topographically and vegetationally diverse. 

 Movement strategies and home range size and pattern of use 

 varied by sex, reproductive status, area occupied, and annual 

 and seasonal variation in weather. Distribution of deer 

 density (dispersion) varied across the area, with total deer 

 numbers, by sex, and by reproductive status. Data on mule 

 deer distribution, home ranges, and habitat use, along with 

 data on reproduction and mortality, indicated that not all 

 parts of the area were equal in their ability to provide for 

 the long-term needs of deer. Some areas provided relative 

 stability in deer density and performance, while others varied 

 considerably from year to year in their ability to support 

 deer as weather and other factors varied. Annual changes in 

 density, reproduction, and mortality recorded for the 

 population as a whole were made up of a composite of histories 

 and fates of individual deer (Fig. 1.4), each of which faced 

 somewhat different circumstances. 



285 



