oriented, and contoured in such a way that topographic 

 diversity and specific exposures were more advantageous to 

 mule deer after mining than before. Erosion potential could 

 be addressed by various techniques with the understanding that 

 some degree of erosion is natural and helps add to diversity 

 of slope and exposure. 



Similarly, planned fires may alter the habitat structure 

 in ways beneficial to mule deer. Burned Douglas fir-juniper 

 habitat type was preferred by mule deer on this area during 

 summer-winter. Only very limited burning of small patches of 

 that type are recommended, however, because mule deer make 

 important use of thickly timbered Douglas fir-juniper habitat 

 during severe winters. Also, Rocky Mountain elk, a species of 

 great interest and concern on the area, require these thickly 

 timbered areas for security during hunting season. 



The planting and maintenance of alfalfa in small patches 

 throughout public lands in arid eastern Montana would probably 

 be beneficial to mule deer. This nutritious legume, with its 

 extremely well developed root system, is competitive for water 

 and generally remains green and succulent longer than most 

 native forage species. The availability of alfalfa would 

 increase the length of time that quality forage was available 

 to mule deer in many areas and years. It also would provide 

 more stable, dependable forage, potentially resulting in less 

 population fluctuation. Additionally, planting alfalfa on 

 public lands within deer habitat and/or at the margin of 

 public deer habitat and adjacent private agricultural lands 

 could act as a lure crop, reducing deer damage to private 

 agricultural crops during dry years. 



Based on the data of Mackie (1970) and this study, we do 

 not believe that further water development within the 

 riverbreaks habitat will benefit mule deer. Adequate water 

 sources seem to exist, and further development could only 

 result in increasing overlap between distributions of cattle 

 and mule deer. Lewis and Clark as well as other "oldtimers" 

 present before 19 05 reported "vast" numbers of mule deer in 

 the riverbreaks before any water development occurred. 



Generally, some degree of cattle grazing has likely been 

 beneficial to mule deer habitat values over the long term. 

 Locally, and for some shorter term periods, it has probably 

 been detrimental. For example, some information presented in 

 this report (Chapters 7, 8, and 9), indicated that heavy early 

 spring grazing by cattle might be detrimental to mule deer. 

 To benefit mule deer, we recommend that spring grazing by 

 cattle be deferred to as late a date as possible. 



Intensity of grazing by domestic livestock has varied 

 tremendously over the years, but stocking rates have generally 



359 



