Habitat Use by Columbian White-Tailed Deer

Abstract

Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) were studied to provide information for management of habitat essential to this endangered subspecies. Vegetation was assigned to major community groupings of rush, thistle, grass, horsetail, and forest. Coverage of 85% of the 790-ha study area provided information concerning utilization of the plant communities by these animals that have adopted a diurnal activity pattern. Communities providing both cover and forage were more heavily utilized than were communities providing cover or forage alone. Communities providing forage alone were used most near adjacent cover. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) provided cover in summer and allowed deer to utilize previously unused areas. Browse was not used. Green forage was available throughout the year. Restricting visitors to periphery roads allows continuance of the diurnal activity pattern of the deer and aids public enjoyment. Establishment of patches of permanent woody cover where absent would aid in dispersion of the population throughout the refuge. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 43(3):610-619 This study provided information on habitat use by an endangered ungulate. Published information concerning the Columbian white-tailed deer documents only its discovery (Douglas 1829; Thwaites 1905, vol. 4:209-210; Douglas 1914) and subsequent decrease in numbers (Jewett 1914, Bailey 1936). Douglas (1829) reported white-tailed deer along the lower Columbia River and along the Cowlitz and Willamette rivers in Washington and Oregon, respectively (Fig. 1), and provided the original description of the subspecies. Brushy lands in river valleys and surrounding low foothills from the south end of Puget Sound in Washington to Roseburg, Oregon, were the historical habitat and range of the subspecies (Bailey 1936:91, Cowan 1936). The population was extirpated from most if its range by 1900 (Jewett 1914, Bailey 1936) during clearing and agricultural development of river valleys (Crews 1939:2). Jewett listed a small concentration of white-tailed deer near Roseburg in 1934 (Cowan 1936:203). Scheffer (1940) reported 500700 white-tailed deer along the shores of the lower Columbia River and on islands near Cathlamet, Washington and Westport, Oregon. A more recent estimate places the numbers from 250 to 300 along the lower Columbia River (Office of Endangered Species and International Activities 1973:266). Suring (1974) estimated between 200 and 230 deer on the Washington shore in 1973. The survival of the Columbian white-tailed deer in this area prior to 1940 and to the present implies that favorable habitat conditions exist. Description of the habitat utilization by the deer on the newly created Columbian White-tailed Deer National Wildlife Refuge (CWDNWR) was considered essential to provide a basis for management of this remnant population and possible reestablishment of this subspecies on portions of its former range. 1 Study supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuges and the Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State University, and the Wildlife Management Institute cooperating. Technical paper 4406, Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Corvallis, OR 97331. 2 Present address: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 3530 Pan American Highway, Albuquerque, NM 87107. 3 Present address: Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74074. 610 J. Wildl. Manage. 43(3):1979 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.155 on Tue, 07 Jun 2016 06:29:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HABITAT USE BY COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED DEER* Suring and Vohs 611 We acknowledge D. A. Fisher, former manager, CWDNWR, and the personnel of the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge who gave assistance throughout the study. Funding was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Refuges, through the Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. T. A. Gavin, R. L. Linder, E. C. Meslow, J. A. Bissonette, and F. L. Knopf provided helpful comments on the manuscript.