monitoring of animal-habitat relationships and confusion about 

 those relationships. For example, despite millions of dollars 

 spent on years of habitat manipulation including burning, 

 cutting, chaining, spraying, plowing, planting, and etc., we 

 are not aware of published data documenting benefits to big 

 game populations in terms of survival or increased numbers . 

 The lack of published information may indicate little or no 

 monitoring of animal populations; perhaps it also indicates 

 that beneficial results were not observed. 



Some studies have shown that various animal populations 

 have made increased or decreased use of treated areas, at 

 least for a time. If increased use occurs, the assumption has 

 usually been that the animals have benefitted. Documentation 

 has remained lacking, however. Even much of the usage data is 

 at best neutral or even negative about the effects of habitat 

 manipulation on deer (Clarly et al . 1974, Short et al. 1977, 

 McCulloch 1974). Cost effectiveness of these habitat 

 manipulation projects is also guestionable (Regelin 1975, 

 Nellis 1977). In one of the few studies that measured 

 population response to habitat manipulation, Klinger et al . 

 (1989) found that, although black-tailed deer use of burned 

 chaparral was temporarily higher, there was no significant 

 change either in population density or fawn survival resulting 

 from the burn. 



The lack of definitive results from habitat management 

 for deer may be related to multiple causes. Factors may 

 include: 1.) lack of accurate knowledge about species habitat 

 requirements; 2.) assuming too much knowledge (e.g., exclusive 

 concentration on winter habitat/forage); 3.) larger home 

 ranges of large mammals than small game result in 

 manipulations impacting only a few animals; 4.) much of our 

 effort is spent in trying to maintain existing habitat; and 

 5.) it is difficult to balance the requirements of multiple 

 species and at the same time make changes sufficient to result 

 in measurable benefits for 1 species. 



Essentials of Mule Deer Habitat 



Traditionally, the essence of habitat has been summarized 

 as the amount and distribution of food, water, and cover 

 (Dasmann 1971). For deer, emphasis has been almost entirely 

 on food and most often on winter forage (see Chapter 1). Our 

 data clearly show that plant phenology and forage quality are 

 important to deer population dynamics. However, density- 

 independent, rather than density-dependent factors played the 

 greatest role in deer-nutritional relationships. Also, winter 

 forage relationships were not of overriding importance; forage 

 relationships during other seasons were of at least equal, and 

 possibly greater importance. In this respect, Short (1981: p. 

 127) has summarized seasonal forage requirements well: 



354 



