Odocoileus hemionus - (Rafinesque, 1817)
Mule Deer
Other English Common Names: Black-tailed Deer
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Odocoileus hemionus (Rafinesque, 1817) (TSN 180698)
French Common Names: cerf mulet
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101365
Element Code: AMALC02010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Other Mammals
Image 11096

© Jeff Nadler

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Artiodactyla Cervidae Odocoileus
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
Concept Reference Code: B93WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Odocoileus hemionus
Taxonomic Comments: See Cronin (1991) for information on the restricted gene flow that occurs among extant populations of white-tailed deer (O. virginianus), mule deer (O. h. hemionus), and black-tailed deer (O. h. columbianus and O. h. sitkensis); there is a low level of introgressive hybridization of mtDNA from mule deer and black-tailed deer into white-tailed deer populations in a few areas in western North America. MtDNA and serum albumin data indicate that gene flow between white-tailed deer and mule deer in Montana is not extensive (Cronin et al. 1988). See Hughes and Carr (1993, Can. J. Zool. 71:524-530) for information on hybridization between white-tailed and mule deer in western Canada.

In most areas of sympatry between O. virginianus and O. hemionus in the southwestern U.S., there is little evidence of nuclear gene introgression, though electrophoretic data do indicate hybridization in some localities (Derr 1991). Carr and Hughes (1993) documented recent mtDNA gene flow between mule deer and white-tailed deer in western Texas. Carr and Hughes (1993) found that some populations of mule deer are genetically more closely related to white-tailed deer than to other populations of mule deer; see Carr and Hughes for possible interpretations.

See Cronin et al. (1991) for information on genetic differentiation among subpopulations of mule deer. Cronin (1992) found considerable intraspecific variation in mtDNA in O. hemionus; different subspecies (mule deer and black-tailed deer) had distinct genotypes. Mule deer and black-tailed deer interbreed to a limited extent in a zone along the Cascade Range. Cronin (1991) found evidence of considerable interbreeding of mule deer and black-tailed deer in a contact zone in British Columbia.

This species was included in the genus Dama by Hall (1981), in Odocoileus by Jones et al. (1992), Baker et al. (2003), and Grubb (in Wilson and Reeder 1993, 2005).

See Cronin (1991) for a phylogeny of the Cervidae based on mitochondrial-DNA data. See Kraus and Miyamoto (1991) for a phylogenetic analysis of pecoran ruminants (Cervidae, Bovidae, Moschidae, Antilocapridae, and Giraffidae) based on mitochondrial DNA data.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 04Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 19Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Sep1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (01Jan2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alaska (S4), Arizona (S5), California (SNR), Colorado (S4), Idaho (S4), Kansas (S5), Montana (S5), Navajo Nation (S5), Nebraska (S5), Nevada (S5), New Mexico (S5), North Dakota (SNR), Oklahoma (S1), Oregon (S5), South Dakota (S5), Texas (S4), Utah (S5), Washington (S5), Wyoming (S5)
Canada Alberta (S5), British Columbia (S5), Manitoba (S3), Northwest Territories (SU), Saskatchewan (S4), Yukon Territory (S3S4)

Other Statuses

Implied Status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): PS
Comments on USESA: Subspecies cedrosensis of Isla Cedros (Mexico) is listed by USFWS as Endangered.
IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Native range extends from southeastern Alaska south through Canada and most of the western United States and Great Plains, to Baja California (including some islands in the Sea of Cortez) and the southern end of the Mexican Plateau (Sonora and northern Tamaulipas, according to Grubb, in Wilson and Reeder 1993). The species has been introduced in Hawaii (Tomich 1986) and Argentina.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Extensive, intensive land use by humans can reduce, eliminate, or displace local mule deer populations, but many kinds of human activities, particularly those that generate patches of early successional growth in heavily forested areas, may improve the habitat for deer. Grazing/browsing by domestic sheep in dry environments reduces the capacity of the habitat to support deer (e.g., see Hall 1946).

Grinnell (1914) suggested that an absence or extreme scarcity of mule deer along part of the lower Colorado River (Arizona-California) probably was due to "rapid settlement of the river bottom." Presumably this involved habitat loss as well as excessive hunting (Grinnell suggested that hunting by miners eliminated bighorn sheep from Riverside Mountain, also along the lower Colorado River).

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a transmissable spongiform encephalopathy of mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk, and moose. It is caused by infectious agents known as prions (an abnormal form of a normal protein). Symptoms include lesions on the central nervous system, behavioral abnormalities, and, most obviously, chronic weight loss.CWD is always fatal. First recognized in captive mule deer in Colorado, CWD now occurs in the wild and has spread to at least dozen states and two Canadian provinces. It may be spread from one animal to another via saliva, feces, or possibly other body fluids. CWD does not cause rapid, widespread die-offs of deer, but there is concern about the long-term effects of the disease. No practical methods of CWD eradication are known; the focus thus far has been on learning more about CWD and how it is transmitted, and on preventing the disease from spreading by banning the transportation of live cervids across state lines.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Native range extends from southeastern Alaska south through Canada and most of the western United States and Great Plains, to Baja California (including some islands in the Sea of Cortez) and the southern end of the Mexican Plateau (Sonora and northern Tamaulipas, according to Grubb, in Wilson and Reeder 1993). The species has been introduced in Hawaii (Tomich 1986) and Argentina.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, KS, MT, ND, NE, NM, NN, NV, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA, WY
Canada AB, BCnative and exotic, MB, NT, SK, YT

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe 2008


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AZ Apache (04001)
OK Cimarron (40025)*, Comanche (40031), Greer (40055), Harmon (40057)
WA Adams (53001), Asotin (53003), Benton (53005), Chelan (53007), Clark (53011), Columbia (53013), Cowlitz (53015), Douglas (53017), Ferry (53019), Franklin (53021), Garfield (53023), Grant (53025), King (53033), Kittitas (53037), Klickitat (53039), Lewis (53041), Lincoln (53043), Okanogan (53047), Pend Oreille (53051), Pierce (53053), Skagit (53057), Skamania (53059), Snohomish (53061), Spokane (53063), Stevens (53065), Thurston (53067), Walla Walla (53071), Whitman (53075), Yakima (53077)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
11 Cimarron headwaters (11040001)+*, Elm Fork Red (11120304)+, Cache (11130202)+, West Cache (11130203)+, Northern Beaver (11130208)+
14 Chinle (14080204)+
17 Pend Oreille (17010216)+, Upper Spokane (17010305)+, Hangman (17010306)+, Lower Spokane (17010307)+, Little Spokane (17010308)+, Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake (17020001)+, Kettle (17020002)+, Colville (17020003)+, Sanpoil (17020004)+, Chief Joseph (17020005)+, Okanogan (17020006)+, Similkameen (17020007)+, Methow (17020008)+, Lake Chelan (17020009)+, Upper Columbia-Entiat (17020010)+, Wenatchee (17020011)+, Moses Coulee (17020012)+, Upper Crab (17020013)+, Banks Lake (17020014)+, Lower Crab (17020015)+, Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids (17020016)+, Upper Yakima (17030001)+, Naches (17030002)+, Lower Yakima, Washington (17030003)+, Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103)+, Lower Grande Ronde (17060106)+, Lower Snake-Tucannon (17060107)+, Palouse (17060108)+, Rock (17060109)+, Lower Snake (17060110)+, Clearwater (17060306)+, Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula (17070101)+, Walla Walla (17070102)+, Middle Columbia-Hood (17070105)+, Klickitat (17070106)+, Lower Columbia-Sandy (17080001)+, Lewis (17080002)+, Upper Cowlitz (17080004)+, Lower Cowlitz (17080005)+, Sauk (17110006)+, Stillaguamish (17110008)+, Skykomish (17110009)+, Snoqualmie (17110010)+, Snohomish (17110011)+, Nisqually (17110015)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
General Description: Pelage is reddish or yellowish brown in summer, more grayish brown in winter. Ears are large and may move independently. Males have antlers that branch into separate equal beams that fork into two tines (white-tailed deer has only one main beam). Upper side of tail white with a black tip or all black or brown. Juveniles have spotted pelage.
Reproduction Comments: Mule deer mate in autumn, often mainly late November to mid-December. Gestation lasts about 203 days Births occur in late spring, mostly in May-June in much of the range, sometimes as late as July or August. Litter size is 1-2, depending on age and condition of female. Fawns are born with spotted pelage and initially stay hidden. They lose their spots generally by late summer or early fall. Weaning begins at about 5 weeks, usually completed by 16 weeks. Males usually first breed at 2 years, males at 3-4 years.
Ecology Comments: Home range size may be 30-240 hectares or more; directly correlated with availability of food, water and cover. Deep winter snows are major factor limiting population size in Pacific Northwest (Schoen and Kirchhoff 1990). Predators include: mountain lions; coyotes; dogs.

See Hatter and Janz (1994) for information on apparent demographic changes associated with wolf control on northern Vancouver Island.

Mule deer males use glands on their forehead to apply scent marks to trees. These scent posts communicate the presence and physiological status of the deer and seem to be important in the social and reproductive biology of the species.

Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: In mountainous regions, mule deer tend to migrate (up to 100+ km) from high summer range to lower winter range. For example, in Nevada, deer migrate in autumn from areas where snow lies deeply in winter (e.g., higher mountains) to areas where there is little or no snow (generally lower elevations); in some areas the climate is mild enough to allow deer to occupy the same locations all year (Hall 1946). In southeastern Alaska, deer migrated from low elevation heavily forested winter range to higher elevation summer range in open canopy subalpine and alpine habitats (Schoen and Kirchhoff 1990). In the arid southwest, deer reportedly migrate in response to rainfall patterns (Longhurst and Chattin 1941), but this has not been documented. In southwestern Arizona, some mule deer were nonmigratory whereas others migrated seasonally between summer-dry-season ranges that had permanent water sources to other areas that lacked permanent water (Rautenstrauch and Krausman 1989). Mule deer are not migratory in many plains regions. They exhibit high fidelity to individual seasonal ranges (e.g, see Kucera 1992).

Dispersal distances range up to around 100-200 km (Anderson and Wallmo 1984).

Home range size varies with season, gender, age, body mass, habitat, and other factors. Within a single season, home range size may be as small as around 30-40 hectares or as large as several hundred hectares; generally, mule deer do not move very far on a daily basis (Mackie et al., in Chapman and Fledhamer 1983).

Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Desert, Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Grassland/herbaceous, Old field, Savanna, Shrubland/chaparral, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Mule deer occupy many types of habitats in mountains and lowlands, including various forests and woodlands, forest edges, shrublands, grasslands with shrubs, and residential areas. They are often associated with successional vegetation, especially near agricultural lands, but in southeastern Alaska they use old growth forests almost exclusively in winter and spring (Schoen and Kirchhoff 1990). Mule deer are scarce or absent in portions of the Mohave and Sonoran deserts, particularly where permanent water is absent during the summer dry season (Rautenstrauch and Krausman 1989). In southern Arizona, mean distance of mule deer from permanent water in July was less than 3 km (most females averaged less than 2 km) (Hervert and Krausman 1986); in early and late summer mule deer averaged 1.1-1.2 km from permanent water (compared to about 1.3 km for random locations) (Ordway and Krausman 1986). In winter, mule deer tend to be on warmer slopes or other areas with minimal snow cover. Snow depth in excess of 25-30 cm can impede movement, and snow depths greater than 51-60 cm discourage continuous occupation (Loveless 1967, Gilbert et al. 1970). Populations in Hawaii occur in moderately dry native and introduced forest.

In Nevada, mule deer inhabit most areas above the Lower Sonoran Life-zone; Hall (1946) observed that areas heavily grazed by domestic sheep have far fewer deer than those utilized only by cattle (possibly a result of competition for browse).

In northern Arizona, mule deer live in areas vegetated by yellow pine, buckbrush, snowberry, and aspen; elsehere in Arizona they inhabit chaparral and more xeric habitats, except those in the far southwestern portion of the state (Hoffmeister 1986). Deer that occur in yellow pine and spruce-fir habitats in spring and summer migrate to lower elevations (pinyon-juniper) for winter (Hoffmeister 1986).

In southern Arizona, mule deer used and preferred mountainous vegetative associations, but males also used nonmountainous associations (Ordway and Krausman 1986).

A survey along the lower Colorado River (California-Arizona border) in 1910 yielded no evidence at all of mule deer, but in earlier years deer apparently were numerous "both in the river bottom and back through certain desert ranges, where there are springs which the deer could visit regularly for water" (Grinnell 1914). In 1902 deer were said to be common on both sides of the river near Cibola (Grinnell 1914).

Adult Food Habits: Herbivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Browses on wide variety of woody plants and grazes on grasses and forbs. May feed on agricultural crops. Also commonly consumes mushrooms, especially in late summer and fall (Great Basin Nat. 52:321). In northern California, reproductive success apparently was reduced due to selenium deficiency (Flueck, 1994, Ecology 75:807-812).
Adult Phenology: Circadian, Crepuscular
Immature Phenology: Circadian, Crepuscular
Phenology Comments: Throughout the year most activity occurs at dawn and dusk, though nocturnal and daytime activity is common.

Males grow antlers from late winter (March) through summer and into fall (October). Antler shedding occurs from December through April (mostly January-February).

Length: 199 centimeters
Weight: 215000 grams
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: Browsing on juvenile fruit trees in northern Utah had no effect on tree growth or initial fruit production (Great Basin Nat. 52:352).
Management Summary
Help
Management Requirements: Cattle grazing results in loss of hiding cover for fawns, possibly may increase rate of loss of fawns to predation (Loft et al. 1987). On summer range in the Sierra Nevada in California, cattle evidently competed with deer, particularly at high stocking rates and during a year of below-average precipitation; adverse effects could be reduced by reducing or eliminating cattle grazing during early summer on all or part of a grazing allotment (Kie 1991; see also Loft et al. 1991 for further evidence of cattle-induced habitat shifts by mule deer).

See Wood and Wolfe (1988) for discussion of viability of intercept feeding to reduce deer-vehicle collisions.

See Andelt et al. (1991) for information on the relative effectiveness of various repellents for reducing damage to plants (when the deer were moderately hungry, even the best repellents failed to deter browsing).

Monitoring Requirements: See Mitchell (1986) for a description of a spotlight census method.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Not applicable
Subtype(s): Migration route, Summer range, Winter range
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals in appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding.
Separation Barriers: None.
Alternate Separation Procedure: Occurrence separations should be based on populations that exhibit specific migration patterns, or on appropriate resource agency management units, rather than on specific prescribed distances.
Separation Justification: Home ranges vary from 30 to over 3000 hectares (Anderson and Wallmo 1984). Males usually occupy home ranges of about 500 hectares, females usually 250 hectares (McCullough, in Wilson and Ruff 1999).

Mule deer are good swimmers; water is not normally a barrier. Unsuitable habitat, however, includes waters that do not freeze regularly, as well as urban centers (not suburban areas) and extremely rugged mountain terrain.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 2.5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a home range of 500 hectares (McCullough, in Wilson and Ruff 1999).
Date: 23Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 22Aug2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 21Aug2011
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Alvo, R. 1998. National status evaluation of 20 selected animal species inhabiting Canada's forests. Final Report prepared for the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Biodiversity Convention Office and the Canadian Forest Service. 328 pp.

  • Andelt, W. F., K. P. Burnham, and J. A. Manning. 1991. Relative effectiveness of repellents for reducing mule deer damage. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:341-347.

  • Anderson, A. E., and O. C. Wallmo. 1984. Odocoileus hemionus. Mammalian Species 219:1-9.

  • BEE, J.W., G.E. GLASS, R.S. HOFFMANN, AND R.R. PATTERSON. 1981. MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV.KANS.MUS.NAT.HIST., PUB.ED. SERIES NO.7.

  • Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. Hoffman, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229:1-23.

  • Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

  • Beck, W.H. 1958. A guide to Saskatchewan mammals. Special Publication No. 1. Saskatchewan Natural History Society, Regina, Saskatchewan.

  • Blood, D.A. 2000. Mule and Black-tailed Deer in British Columbia, Ecology, Conservation and Management. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. 6pp.

  • Bradley, R.D., L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A. Cook. R.C. Dowler, C. Jones, D.J. Schmidly, F.B. Stangl Jr., R.A. Van den Bussche and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 327:1-28. Available at: http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/OP327.pdf

  • CARR, STEVEN M. AND GLENYS A. HUGHES. 1993. DIRECTION OF INTROGRESSIVE HYBRIDIZATION BETWEEN SPECIES OF NORTH AMERICAN DEER (ODOCOILEUS) AS INFERRED FROM MITOCHONDRIAL-CYTOCHROME-B SEQUENCES. J. MAMM. 74(2):331-342.

  • Caire, W., J. D. Tyler, B. P. Glass, and M. A. Mares. 1989. Mammals of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Oklahoma. 567 pp.

  • Carr, S. M., and G. A. Hughes. 1993. Direction of introgressive hybridization between species of North American deer (ODOCOILEUS) as inferred from mitochondrial-cytochrome-b sequences. J. Mamm. 74:331-342.

  • Chapman, J. A., and G. A. Feldhamer, editors. 1982. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

  • Clark, Tim W. and Mark R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence, Kansas.

  • Coombs, E. M. [no date-1977?]. Wildlife observations of the hot desert region, Washington County, Utah, with emphasis on reptilian species and their habitat in relation to livestock grazing. A report to the Cedar City District, BLM by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

  • Cronin, M. A. 1991a. Mitochondrial-DNA phylogeny of deer (Cervidae). J. Mamm. 72:533-566.

  • Cronin, M. A. 1991b. Mitochondrial and nuclear genetic relationships of deer (ODOCOILEUS spp.) in western North America. Can. J. Zool. 69:1270-1279.

  • Cronin, M. A. 1992. Intraspecific variation in mitochondrial DNA of North American cervids. J. Mammalogy 73:70-82.

  • Cronin, M. A., E. R. Vyse, and D. G. Cameron. 1988. Genetic relationships between mule deer and white-tailed deer in Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 52:320-328.

  • Cronin, M. A., M. E. Nelson, and D. F. Pac. 1991. Spatial heterogeneity of mitochondrial DNA and allozymes among populations of white-tailed deer and mule deer. J. Heredity 82:118-127.

  • Derr, J. N. 1991. Genetic interactions between white-tailed and mule deer in the southwestern United States. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:228-237.

  • Fitzgerald, J. P. et al. 1992. Mammals of Colorado. Review manuscript.

  • Gilbert, P. F., O. C. Wallmo, and R. B. Gill. 1970. Effect of snow depth on mule deer in Middle Park, Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 34:15-23.

  • Grinnell, J. 1914. An account of the mammals and birds of the lower Colorado valley, with especial reference to the distributional problems presented. Univ. California Publication Zoology 12:51-294.

  • HALL,E. 1955. HANDBOOK OF MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV KS MUS NAT HIST AND KBS.

  • HALL,E. AND K.KELSON. 1959. THE MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA, VOL 1 & 2.

  • Hall, E. R. 1946. Mammals of Nevada. The University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

  • Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.

  • Hatter, I. W., and D. W. Janz. 1994. Apparent demographic changes in black-tailed deer associated with wolf control on northern Vancouver Island. Canadian J. Zoology 72:878-884.

  • Hawaii Ecosystems at Risk Project. 2005. Information index for selected alien vertebrates in Hawaii. Internet resource available at http://www.hear.org/alienspeciesinhawaii/InfoIndexVertebrates.htm. Downloaded 31 March 2005.

  • Hervert, J. J., and P. R. Krausman. 1986. Desert mule deer use of water developments in Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:670-676.

  • Hoefs, M. 2001. Mule, Odocoileus hemionus, and White-tailed, O. virginianus, deer in the Yukon. Canadian Field-Naturalist 115:296-300.

  • Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press and Arizona Game and Fish Department. 602 pp.

  • Ingles, L. G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr. and C. Jones. 1992. Revised checklist of recent land mammals of Texas, with annotations. The Texas Journal of Science 44(1):53-74.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., C. Jones, and D. J. Schmidly. 1988. Annotated checklist of recent land mammals of Texas. Occasional Papers The Museum Texas Tech University 119:1-26.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., D. M. Armstrong, R. S. Hoffmann, and C. Jones. 1983. Mammals of the Northern Great Plains. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, 146:1-23.

  • Jones, J. K., S. Demarais, and C. T. McAllister. 1995. Contribution to a bibliography of recent Texas mammals 1981-1990. Special Publications, The Museum Texas Tech University 38:1-64.

  • Kie, J. G. 1991. Foraging behavior by mule deer: the influence of cattle grazing. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:665-674.

  • Kramer, R. J. 1971. Hawaiian land mammals. Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc., Rutland, Vermont, and Tokyo, Japan. 347 pp.

  • Kraus, F., and M. M. Miyamoto. 1991. Rapid cladogenesis among the pecoran ruminants: evidence from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Systematic Zoology 40:117-130.

  • Kucera, T. E. 1992. Influences of sex and weather on migration of mule deer in California. Great Basin Nat. 52:122-130.

  • LEOPOLD, B.D. AND P.R. KRAUSMAN. 1991. FACTORS INFLUENCING DESERT MULE DEER DISTRIBUTION AND PRODUCTIVITY IN SOUTHWESTERN TEXAS. SOUTHWEST. NAT. 36:67-74.

  • Loft, E. R., J. W. Menke, and J. G. Kie. 1991. Habitat shifts by mule deer: the influence of cattle grazing. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:16-26.

  • Loft, E. R., et al. 1987. Influence of cattle stocking rate on the structural profile of deer hiding cover. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:655-664.

  • Long, C.A. 1965. The mammals of Wyoming. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History 14: 493-758.

  • Longhurst, W. M., and J. E. Chattin. 1941. The burro deer (Odocoileus hemionus eremicus). California Fish and Game 27:2-12.

  • Loveless, C. M. 1967. Ecological characteristics of a mule deer winter range. Colorado Department of Game, Fish and Parks Technical Publication 20. 125 pp.

  • Mitchell, W. A. 1986a. Deer spotlight census. Section 6.4.3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wildife Resources Management Manual. Tech. Rep. EL-86-53. Waterways Expt. Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

  • Nowak, R. M. 1991. Walker's mammals of the world. Fifth edition. Vols. I and II. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore. 1629 pp.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. AN ANALYSIS OF THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF MAMMALIAN DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS IN TEXAS. ECOLOGY 71(5):1823-1832.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. PATTERNS OF MAMMALIAN SPECIES RICHNESS IN RELATION TO TEMPERATURE, PRODUCTIVITY, AND VARIANCE IN ELEVATION. J. MAMM. 71(1):1-13.

  • Odocoileus hemionus/Black-tailed deer (Mule deer ssp.). Copyright Dave Fraser.

  • Ordway, L. L., and P. R. Krausman. 1986. Habitat use by desert mule deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:677-683.

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Rautenstrauch, K. R., and P. R. Krausman. 1989. Influence of water availability and rainfall on movements of desert mule deer. Journal of Mammalogy 70:197-201.

  • Rue, L. L., III. The deer of North America. Updated and expanded edition. Stackpole. 544 pp.

  • Sanchez Rojas, G. and Gallina Tessaro, S. 2016. Odocoileus hemionus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T42393A22162113. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/42393/0. Accessed on July 25, 2017.
     

  • Schoen, J. W., and M. D. Kirchhoff. 1990. Seasonal habitat use by Sitka black-tailed deer on Admiralty Island, Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:371-378.

  • Slough, B. G., and T. S. Jung. 2007. Diversity and distribution of the terrestrial mammals of the Yukon Territory: a review. The Canadian Field-Naturalist, 121(2): 119-127.

  • Stangl, F. B., Jr., W. W. Dalquest, and S. Kuhn. 1993. Mammals from the Beach Mountains of Culberson County, Trans-Pecos Texas. The Texas Journal of Science 45(1):87-96.

  • Sánchez-Rojas, G., and S. Gallina. 2000. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) density in a landscape element of the Chuhuahuan Desert. Mexico. Journal of Arid environments 44:357-368.

  • Tomich, P. Q. 1986. Mammals in Hawai'i. A synopsis and notational bibliography. Second edition. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 375 pp.

  • Wallmo, O.C. 1981. The mule and black-tailed deer of North America. 605 pp.

  • Wemmer, C. M., editor. 1987. Biology and management of theCervidae: proceedings of a symposium. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D. C. 1000 pp.

  • Wildlife Management Information System (WMIS). 2006+. Geo-referenced wildlife datasets (1900 to present) from all projects conducted by Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Canada.  Available at http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/programs/wildlife-research/wildlife-management-information-services

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. Available online at: https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/

  • Wilson, D. E., and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 750 pp.

  • Wood, P., and M. L. Wolfe. 1988. Intercept feeding as a means of reducing deer-vehicle collisions. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:376-380.

  • Yancey II, Franklin D. 1997. The mammals of Big Bend Ranch State Park, Texas. Special Publication 39. 1 October 1997. Texas Tech University. Lubbock. 210 pp.

  • Yeager, B. and B. Masslich. 1995. Biological assessment for the St. George road projects. Prepared for Utah Department of Transportation. Bio/West, Inc., 1063 West 1400 North, Logan, UT 84321.

  • Youngman, P.M. 1975. Mammals of the Yukon Territory. Publications in Zoology, No. 10., National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 192 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.