Wildlife Habitat Management Institute

Mule Deer

(Odocoileus hemionus)

May 2005 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 28

General information

The mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) is a member of 

the family Cervidae, which is characterized by hoofed 

mammals that shed their antlers annually. The mule 

deer is one of only a handful of large herbivores in 

North America that survived the great extinctions of 

about 7,000 to 12,000 years ago.

The name mule deer is in reference to the animal’s 

relatively large ears and robust body form, at least in 

comparison to the more slender structure of its close 

relative, the white-tailed deer. Mature bucks weigh 

150 to 200 pounds on average, though some may exceed 300 pounds. Does are noticeably smaller than 

bucks, ranging from 100 to 150 pounds at maturity. The coat color of the mule deer is seasonal, turning from a reddish-brown in summer to a blue-gray in 

winter. Although shading is variable, mule deer generally have light colored faces, throats, bellies, inner 

leg surfaces, and rump patches. The tail is short, narrow, and white with a black tip and, unlike the whitetailed deer, is not raised when the animal is alarmed. 

Mule deer have good binocular vision, acute senses of hearing and smell, and sensitivity to movement. 

Vocalization is rare in adults, but fawns may bleat on 

occasion.

Age distribution is generally classified as follows: 

fawn, birth to 1 year of age; yearling, from 1 to 2 years 

of age; adult, over 2 years of age, further subdivided 

into prime (3 to 6 years of age) and old (>7 years of 

age). While patterns or characteristics of teeth provide the most accurate indication of age among adult 

mule deer, other factors such as body size, hair color, and, in males, antler growth may provide a general 

indication of maturity. The size and number of antler 

points is highly variable, and depends on a combination of internal and external factors, primarily genetics, age, and nutritional status. Antlers generally increase in size and may increase in number of points 

as a mule deer matures. Bucks tend to produce their 

largest antlers at approximately 5 to 6 years of age.

National Park Service

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

This leaflet is intended to serve as a basic introduction to mule deer habitat requirements and assist private landowners and managers in developing management plans for mule deer. The success of any 

individual species management plan depends on targeting the particular requirements of the species in 

question, evaluating the designated habitat area to ensure that such requirements are met, and determining appropriate management techniques to further improve habitat quality.

Range

Extremely adaptable, mule deer inhabit every principal vegetative ecosystem in western North America 

except tundra, sub-tropic, and extreme desert regions. 

Open grasslands, agricultural land, shrublands, woodlands, mountain forests, semi-deserts, and high mountain ecosystems all support mule deer populations. 

Although mule deer inhabit a wide variety of ecosystems, the species is largely restricted to the region of 

North America west of the 100th meridian from 23 degrees to 60 degrees north. Due to distributional and 

reproductive overlap, there is a lack of consensus on 

the exact number of subspecies, but as many as 11 

have been recognized. Table 1 lists mule deer subspecies and their ranges.
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

Mule deer populations have experienced a steady decline over most of the species’ traditional range. For 

instance, the approximately 600,000 mule deer in 

Colorado represent only about half of the peak population estimated for the state in the 1940s. Likewise, 

the current mule deer population in California is estimated to be less than half of the two million or so that 

roamed the state as recently as the 1950s. Other regions reflect parallel declines: in both Utah and New 

Mexico, populations have been halved in less than 

thirty years. While populations are stable in some regions and even increasing slightly in others, overall 

mule deer trends show a continual decline throughout 

its range.

Mule deer habitat is subject to an extensive and expanding array of external pressures, including urban 

and rural development, agriculture, logging, grazing, 

and oil and gas development. These pressures contribute to the loss of approximately 2,500 acres of 

suitable mule deer habitat every day. Another factor 

in mule deer declines is the introduction of non-native vegetation, which adversely affects native ecosystems and is usually of less nutritional value or often 

wholly unpalatable to mule deer and other wildlife. 

Climatic changes, such as drought and severe winters, 

play a key role in declines in mule deer populations. 

In addition, poorly conceived woodland management 

programs may impact mule deer populations. For instance, fire suppression may have led to a decline in 

both food availability and quality by limiting mule 

deer access through litter accumulation and by impeding the growth of new forage.

Table 1 Mule deer subspecies and ranges

Common name (scientific name) Range

Rocky Mountain mule deer Southwestern Saskatchewan west through southern Alberta and British 

(Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) Columbia, extending south throughout WA, OR, ND, SD, KS, NE, MT, WY, CO, 

UT, and ID, and into northeast CA, sections of NV, AZ, NM, TX, OK, and northern Mexico

Desert mule deer (O. h. crooki) Semi-arid areas of CA, NV, AZ, NM, TX, and northern Mexico.

California mule deer Ranging throughout CA, but particularly common in High Sierra

(O. h. californicus)

Southern mule deer (O. h. fuliginatus) Ranging from northern Baja CA into southwestern CA.

Black-tailed deer (Columbian) Wet-forest coastal areas of WA, OR, and southern British Columbia, and relative-

(O. h. colubianus) ly common throughout CA

Black-tailed deer (Sitka) Southeast AK, Yukon, and the north coast of British Columbia

(O. h. sitkensis)

Reproduction

Mule deer breeding season (commonly referred to 

as the rut) varies considerably from region to region. The rut typically begins in the fall and extends 

through mid-winter, peaking in December or January. 

Antler growth begins as soon as the old antlers have 

been shed (late January through early March), with 

full development completed by the end of August. 

With their antlers fully developed in the fall, males 

of reproductive age begin to form competitive dominance hierarchies for access to reproductive females. 

Once accepted by a female in estrus, a dominant buck 

will tend the doe until mating is completed or the 

buck is displaced by another male. Mule deer bucks 

are serially polygynous, that is, they will mate with 

any female willing to accept them.

Male dominance is largely a function of both body 

size and correlated antler size, with the largest males 

performing the majority of mating. Mule deer does remain in estrus for about 24 hours and continue to cycle approximately every 28 days if they do not mate 

successfully. Mule deer, both male and female, generally do not reach sexual maturity until approximately 1.5 years of age. Does rarely breed during their first 

year and average less than one fawn per doe during 

their second fawning season, becoming more productive at 3 years or older. Does will frequently produce 

twins when habitat conditions are favorable. The majority of reproductive-age females breed in any given 

year, although reproductive success is highly dependent on habitat conditions.

2
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

Gestation lasts on average around 200 days (~ 7 

months), but may vary by as much as plus or minus 30 

days. When they are ready, pregnant does leave their 

herds to find isolated thickets in which to give birth. 

Fawns are born in May through July, although timing 

may vary somewhat depending on both environmental 

conditions and geographic location. Fawning occurs 

primarily in areas that offer protective cover, such as 

moderately dense shrublands and forest, thick herbaceous stands, or high-elevation riparian and mountain shrub habitats that offer both access to water and 

abundant nutritious spring forage. Fawn survival rates 

depend on environmental conditions, exposure to disease, and predation. Research in Colorado concluded that fawn mortality rates in the summer following 

birth may be as high as 50 percent, and that fawn survival rate impacts long-term population trends more 

so than adult survival rate.

On average fawns weigh 6 to 8 pounds at birth and 

are reddish-brown with white spots that give a cryptic mottled effect. Fawns are able to stand and move 

about on their own within 12 hours of birth, but generally remain hidden and motionless for protection. 

Fawns have little or no scent and does habitually 

stay away from their young except to nurse so as to 

minimize the risk of attracting predators. Fawns begin feeding on vegetation at 2 to 3 weeks and are fully weaned at 2 to 3 months of age. Fawns grow rapidly over the summer as they take advantage of the 

abundance of highly nutritious forage and often reach 

weights of 70 to 80 pounds by the fall. A typical family 

group may consist of one or more females with their 

young, accompanied on occasion by a yearling buck. 

Fawns usually remain within the family group for a 

year, after which female yearlings may be allowed to 

remain while bucks of the same age are either forced 

to leave or depart on their own. Life expectancy for 

mule deer in the wild is approximately 7 to 10 years, 

National Park Service

Fawns are born in May through July.

although captive individuals are known to live much 

longer.

Research in Texas revealed fawn survival rates of 35 

to 45 fawns per 100 does. Biologists estimate that early winter fawn crops of at least 30 to 35 are needed 

to maintain population stability, while fawn crops exceeding 50 result in population increases. Populations 

decline when fawn crops fall below 25.

Habitat requirements

General

Basic mule deer habitat requirements include an 

abundance of herbaceous forage, vegetation and landforms that provide hiding and thermal cover, and access to sources of water. Mule deer generally summer 

at higher elevations and migrate to lower woodlands 

or shrublands in winter to find food, avoid predators, 

and seek cover from harsh weather. Therefore, preservation of summer, winter, and transitional habitat is 

essential to sustaining mule deer populations.

Food

As small ruminants with limited ability to digest 

fibrous roughage, mule deer require soft, high-protein, 

easily digestible forage in order to extract sufficient 

energy for growth, maintenance, and reproduction. 

Mule deer eat a great diversity of living, wilted, dry, 

or decaying vegetation, including leaves, needles, 

succulent stems, fruits, and nuts, shrubs, forbs (nonwoody herbaceous undergrowth), domestic crops, 

and grasses.

The feeding habits of mule deer are highly seasonal. In late spring to early fall, deer quickly gain weight 

and build up fat reserves by foraging heavily on the 

mast, leaves, and stems of trees and shrubs, as well 

as forbs and grasses. Succulents provide a valuable 

source of water for individuals living in more arid 

regions. In late fall, winter, and early spring, deer 

consume the leaves and stems of shrubs and trees. 

Studies in the Alberta foothills have shown that during the fall, winter, and early spring, mule deer consume naturally curing plants (silage), which are 

frost-killed forbs that dry, fall to the ground, and decompose. During this time, deer also depend on the 

mobilization of energy from body fat stored over the 

summer. Data collected on mule deer feeding choice 

in Colorado reflected seasonal feeding adjustments 

(table 2).

Mule deer alter feeding behavior in seasonal areas according to the form of vegetation available. Like many 

browsers and grazers, mule deer experience a varia3
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mule deer reach sexual maturity at 1 to 2 years of age.

tion of metabolic requirements depending on the season; using less energy in winter enables deer to survive on the relatively poor-quality forage available, 

while abundant high-quality forage in spring and summer allow for increased energy expenditures, growth, 

and fat storage. The amassing of excess fat is essential for mule deer survival in winter, as individuals 

may lose up to 20 percent of total body weight during 

an ordinary winter and more during particularly long 

or severe winters. Fat is also particularly important to 

sustain the rutting activities of mature bucks.

Human incursions also impact mule deer foraging 

habits. In developed areas, domestic crops may form 

a large percentage of mule deer diet, reportedly as 

high as 51 percent in some instances. Corn and soybeans constitute the bulk of mule deer diet in such 

areas, but oats, wheat, rye, barley, and sorghum may 

also be selected, as well as fruit crops such as apples, 

grapes, and citrus.

Hiding cover

One of the most important habitat components for 

mule deer is hiding cover, as they are very sensitive 

to predation. Suitable mule deer habitat must contain vegetational cover or terrain that provides opportunities to escape from predators. Mule deer will 

search out and concentrate in areas that are void of 

predators. They will readily settle in human habitaTable 2 Seasonal feeding adjustments

Vegetation Spring Summer Fall Winter

Shrubs and 49% 49% 60% 74%

trees

Forbs 25% 46% 30% 15%

Grasses 26% 3% 9% 11%

tions, which are avoided by predators. In areas that 

are not void of predators, mule deer will choose to 

live in proximity to obstacles, usually steep slopes 

or broken terrain, such as mountains, sand dunes, or 

steep gorges. Mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, black 

bears, grizzly bears, lynx, bobcats, and golden eagles 

are the major natural predators of mule deer. While 

cryptic coloration and immobility when alarmed frequently allow the deer to escape initial detection, 

fleeing to cover is the primary form of predator evasion. To escape from predators, mule deer bound off 

in long, high bounds, called stotting. They can easily 

stott straight uphill, a feat most predators cannot duplicate. Mule deer place obstacles (tall bushes, windfalls, gorges, steep slopes, uneven terrain) in the way 

of pursuing predators. Mule deer are much more adept at maneuvering among these obstacles than their 

predators, allowing them to escape.

Thermal cover

Mule deer herds require the presence of accessible 

stands of brush and tree thickets to provide protection from the elements. Cover vegetation is vital for 

seasonal thermal regulation, helping to moderate heat 

in the summer and chill in the winter. Thermal cover can reduce wind speed and wind chill and provide 

shelter from snowfall. Additionally, vegetative cover 

can reduce ground snow accumulation and provide 

a constant source of forage, thereby improving both 

mobility and food availability during the winter. 

Estimates for the extent of cover required vary, but it 

is reasonable to approximate that 40 to 60 percent of 

a deer’s home range will provide cover, roughly half 

of which is composed of hiding cover and half thermal cover (although there is of course considerable 

overlap between the two). Researchers studying mule 

Bruce Hanson, NRCS

In some areas, mule deer require the presence of brush 

and tree thickets to provide thermal cover.

4
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

deer populations in the Great Basin region estimated that optimal habitats consisted of 55 percent forage, 20 percent hiding cover, 10 percent thermal cover, and 15 percent fawn rearing cover. Thermal cover 

requirements vary significantly between northern and 

southern regions of the species range, however, complicating attempts at generalizing proportional cover 

requirements. Regardless, it has been clearly demonstrated that both thermal and hiding cover are most 

effective when adequately distributed throughout the 

home range.

Water

Mule deer acquire water from numerous sources, 

notably springs, lakes, wetland ponds, rivers, and 

streams. Metabolic water may also be produced from 

browsed succulent vegetation, while snow pack 

and melt may be consumed in winter. Mule deer require approximately 0.5 gallons of water per day per 

100 pounds of body weight; an average-sized animal 

would need to drink approximately 1.5 gallons of water per day. Field studies have shown that mule deer 

home range patterns are closely associated with water availability; research in Texas and New Mexico 

has shown that desert mule deer numbers increase 

markedly in habitats where a permanent source of 

water is introduced. This pattern is particularly noticeable in more arid segments of the mule deer 

range. Researchers at Craters of the Moon National 

Monument in New Mexico, for instance, determined 

that an unusual but regular summer migration of the 

resident herd was linked directly to the correlation 

between water requirements and availability. The tendency of mule deer to congregate around stable water sources often results in excessive grazing of forage plants in the immediate area of the watercourse, a 

problem most apparent in semi-arid regions.

Summer range

Mule deer inhabit a variety of environments in summer months. In the mountainous areas of the northwest, deer generally migrate to higher elevations following the retreat of the snow line, primarily to take 

advantage of new plant growth. Bucks are usually 

more active and often move to higher elevations than 

does, particularly those with fawns that must seek 

protective cover. In the southwest, most mule deer 

herds are non-migratory, though they may move in response to changes in vegetation and moisture conditions. Deer tend to roam widely during the summer, but may also concentrate around water sources 

where green vegetation is most abundant. Regardless 

of location, mule deer generally exhibit crepuscular 

behavior, remaining largely inactive during the day, althe day or night. During the summer, mule deer may 

be found in a variety of ecosystems, including alpine, 

montane, semi-desert, riparian, and foothill zones.

Winter range

Mule deer in mountainous regions migrate to lower elevations to escape snow and low temperatures. 

Winter conditions reduce mobility and food availability; as such, mortality rates are on average considerably higher in winter than in summer. While snow 

depths of 18 to 24 inches are tolerable, lower levels 

are sought in order to conserve energy. A 100-pound 

deer expends seven to eight times as much energy 

moving through 20 inches of snow than moving on 

bare ground.

On occasion, mule deer will exhibit yarding behavior, congregating in less affected areas in order to 

conserve energy, although there is also evidence that 

assemblage behavior is an evolutionary response 

to increased predatory pressures experienced during winter as opposed to shelter requirements. 

Oftentimes, however, these gathering areas include 

nearby developed areas such as farms and residential areas, thereby, increasing the potential for conflict 

with humans.

Deep snows tend to reduce usable range to a fraction 

of the total. In eastern Washington, for example, studies showed that deer find approximately 1 acre of usable winter range for each 15 to 20 acres of summer 

range. Densities may also increase as heavy snow cover concentrates individuals into areas where food is 

most accessible, a circumstance that may also lead to 

local overgrazing on the few food items available during this time.

though individuals may be active at any time during U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mule deer can tolerate snow depths of 18 to 24 inches.

5
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

Mule deer in northern regions may also tend to concentrate on southern facing slopes in order to gain as 

much exposure to sunlight as possible. Estimates of 

resting energy requirements alone may exceed 2,000 

kcal per 24 hours at an average temperature of -4°F 

for an adult deer, an energy drain that may be alleviated somewhat by maximizing exposure to sunshine. 

While lowland areas in general are sought as wintering grounds, riparian ecosystems that provide a measure of thermal and protective cover, as well as a relatively consistent and accessible food supply are 

particularly favorable winter habitats.

In essence, the most important factors in the selection of a wintering area are the presence of a sufficient overhead canopy to trap heat and an abundance 

of understory to provide both wind shelter and food. 

Lowland areas such as riparian ecosystems are preferred as they provide the essentials needed for mule 

deer to survive the winter.

Transitional range

Mule deer in northern latitudes generally summer at 

higher elevations and move to lower elevations at 

the onset of winter, and back again in spring. Such 

semi-annual migrations require the presence of adequate transitional habitats, as deer may travel as 

much as 80 miles between summer and winter ranges. Transitional ranges may be composed of a variety 

of habitat types depending on geographical location, 

but usually have several factors in common — abundant palatable vegetation, water, a measure of protective cover, and suitable fawning habitat. Generally 

mule deer seek out mixed woodland/open meadow 

habitat that provides high quality herbaceous forage, 

enabling them to begin the process of rebuilding body 

fat stores as soon as possible. Transitional areas are 

of particular importance to gestating does that need 

to locate suitable fawning habitat – moderately dense 

shrublands and forest, interspersed with dense stands 

of herbaceous material, and access to reliable sources 

of water. Moderate-elevation riparian areas and low 

mountain shrublands are ideal fawning grounds.

Mule deer inhabiting areas that lack range variation 

are generally non-migratory, although there is some 

evidence that movements in drier areas correlate with 

rainfall patterns.

Mineral licks

Natural mineral licks — dry earth exposures, muck 

licks, streambanks, and rock face licks — are often utilized by mule deer to obtain essential minerals lacking in their normal diet. In addition to sodium, 

deer may be seeking potassium, iron, phosphorous, 

magnesium, manganese, and copper. Calcium and other minerals are required for lactation and are thus of 

great importance for expectant does, while calcium 

and phosphorous are required by bucks for new antler growth. It is also believed that licks help to replace 

electrolytes lost by deer when scouring for fresh 

green growth in spring. As a result, mineral licks tend 

to be most commonly visited by mule deer in early 

spring and throughout the summer.

Interspersion of habitat components

The arrangement of habitat types found within a given area is termed interspersion. For many wildlife 

species, the greater the degree of habitat interspersion, the higher the habitat quality. In the case of mule 

deer, ideal habitat interspersion would consist of an 

assortment of vegetation types of varying maturity, including forest, dense brush or shrubland, open grassland, meadow and associated herbaceous areas, and 

a source of minerals and accessible water. As a general rule of thumb, a 60:40 ratio of forage to cover is 

considered optimal mule deer habitat. These elements 

provide mule deer with the basic requirements on 

which they depend for survival.

As mule deer are large social animals that make use 

of substantial land area, the provision of all necessary habitat components for optimal interspersion is 

likely to be beyond the means of individual landholders. Therefore, cooperation among neighboring property owners is essential for maintaining and improving habitat for mule deer. Providing adequate cover 

and water is a relatively simple action that individual 

landowners can undertake to contribute to the maintenance of mule deer habitat.

 National Park Service

Mule deer are migrational at nothern latitudes.

6
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

Minimum habitat area

Mule deer home range size varies depending on the 

region, habitat quality, season, and distribution of vital resources. Mean home range size for adult does 

has been estimated to be 0.3 to 1.2 square miles while 

that of bucks approximately 1.2 to 4 square miles, 

but may be as large as 30 square miles. In addition, 

adult does may defend small areas – approximately 

0.2 to 2 square miles – in late spring and early summer when caring for newborn fawns. Bucks are generally solitary, but may on occasion form small bachelor herds that collectively maintain a small territory 

until the beginning of the rut, at which time individuals disperse and remain solitary. Bucks also usually roam greater distances than does. Generally, mule 

deer with established home ranges use the same summer and winter ranges annually, although mule deer 

herds may migrate a considerable distance between 

seasonal ranges.

Densities of mule deer vary considerably, depending on local environmental conditions and availability 

of required resources. There is a fairly clear average 

density gradient from north to south: northern areas 

tend to be more densely populated than more arid 

southern regions, primarily due to increased food and 

water supplies. Despite these generalities; however, 

note that local densities vary considerably within the 

overall range of mule deer.

Disease

Mule deer are susceptible to a variety of viral, fungal, 

bacterial, and parasitic infections. Under natural conditions disease factors are not believed to cause significant problems for deer and are thought to be responsible for only a small proportion of mortality. 

However, the actual impact of disease is poorly understood, as causes of death are not always obvious. 

The overall influence of disease on mule deer populations must therefore be considered indeterminate. 

Furthermore, external factors also play a role: disease agents and parasites that normally occur at low 

levels may reach abnormally high levels in malnourished or otherwise unhealthy herds. Brucellosis, leptospirosis, vibriosis, and anaplasmosis, abortive diseases that often suppress reproductive success, have 

all been found in mule deer, while gastrointestinal 

nematodes that occur naturally may cause circulatory 

impairments and death.

As such cases are usually indicative of unusually high 

density and nutritional stress, the presence of disease could be symptomatic of more elemental problems with deer habitats or populations. Such factors 

as habitat loss or degradation, livestock encroachment, and an excess of deer relative to range capacity, for example, may result in the establishment and 

spread of diseases that would not be problematic under normal conditions. Exposure to agricultural toxins 

may have an immunosuppressant effect as well, further weakening disease resistance. More seriously, introduced viruses that cause the conditions known as 

bluetongue and epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) 

– in which biting midges act as vectors – are known to 

cause local epidemics. In Colorado, for instance, epidemics of hemorrhagic disease have been intimated as 

the primary cause of upwards of 50 percent mortality 

in some mule deer herds. Both viruses are believed to 

have been introduced into North America through infected cattle and both cattle and white-tailed deer are 

known to serve as reservoirs of the EHD virus. Ticks, 

lice, and nasal bots (the larvae of bot flies) are common parasites that under normal conditions are largely harmless, albeit bothersome, but which may become detrimental to health in stressed individuals or 

herds.

Chronic wasting disease (CWD), a disease similar to 

mad cow disease of cattle, has been identified in some 

mule deer populations in western North America. 

Classed as a member of the transmissible spongiform 

encephalopathies (TSEs), CWD is an untreatable, fatal neurological disease. Although uncertain, transmission most likely occurs through contact with saliva, feces, or urine. Diagnosis is complicated by the fact that 

infected animals may incubate the disease for up to 

three years prior to displaying clinical symptoms.

First noted among captive mule deer in Fort Collins, 

Colorado, in 1967, CWD has since been identified in 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

This elk has been infected with chronic wasting disease, 

which can also affect mule deer. 

7
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

both free-ranging and game farm animals in parts 

of Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, New Mexico, 

Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Wisconsin, 

Alberta, and Saskatchewan. In areas of Colorado and 

Wyoming, the disease occurs in less than 5 percent 

of wild deer but may be higher in more concentrated 

populations; a survey of one site in Nebraska determined that 37 percent of deer were infected. Infection 

rates among captive deer in some areas may exceed 

50 percent. Due to the extended incubation period of 

the CWD infectious agent, mule deer herds must be 

monitored for at least three years to allow detection 

of the presence of the infectious agent. Infected animals exhibit loss of normal bodily function and abnormal behaviors such as an exaggerated wide stance 

posture, the lowering of the head and ears and shakiness, and become emaciated due to generally poor 

overall body condition. There is no evidence that the 

disease poses a risk to humans or domestic animals 

– an ongoing 16-year monitoring program in Colorado 

has not detected the disease in cattle or other livestock. However, health officials warn hunters not to 

consume meat from animals suspected of infection 

and to take precautions such as wearing latex gloves 

and minimizing the handling of brain and spinal tissues when field dressing carcasses. State fish and 

wildlife officials should be contacted if a sick animal 

is encountered or suspected.

Limiting factors

Limiting factors for mule deer populations include 

the availability and quality of the habitat requirements 

described above. Hiding cover is particularly important because if there are predators but no hiding cover in an otherwise perfect habitat area, mule deer will 

avoid the area.

A major limiting factor to mule deer populations is 

one-way hybridization with white-tailed deer. Hybrids 

between mule deer does and white-tailed deer bucks 

do not exhibit the antipredator behavior of either species, making them very susceptible to predation. Male 

hybrids are usually sterile. One-way hybridization occurs when white-tailed bucks mate with mule deer 

does in estrus. (Mule deer bucks show little interest in 

white-tailed does.) This occurs more often when the 

larger mule deer bucks have been removed by hunting 

and are not present to defend mule deer does from 

white-tailed bucks. Mule deer bucks are hunted more 

frequently than white-tailed bucks because whitetailed deer are primarily nocturnal. In areas where 

mule deer have access to steep slopes or broken terrain, mule deer does are able to evade white-tailed 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

One-way hybridization occurs when a white-tailed buck 

(shown here) mates with a mule deer doe.

bucks by stotting straight uphill. White-tailed bucks 

cannot pursue mule deer does in this type of terrain.

Table 3 is an example inventory chart for recording 

limiting factors. For planning purposes, fill in table 3 

to determine the potential of a given area to support 

mule deer populations. Rate the habitat components 

and population constraints for the designated planning area based on the above descriptions. Habitat 

components that are absent from the area, or are 

available in low quantity or quality, are probably limiting mule deer populations. High prevalence of limiting 

factors may likewise indicate poor mule deer habitat. 

Land uses on adjacent properties should be taken into 

consideration to provide accuracy in rating the quality 

of a site as mule deer habitat.

Management treatments should address the habitat 

components that are determined to be limiting mule 

deer habitat potential. For planning purposes, select 

among the possible action items listed in table 4 to 

raise the quality or availability of each habitat component determined to be limiting. Programs listed in 

Table 4 may helpful in implementing these actions.

Mule deer habitat management

Mule deer are extremely adaptive animals that often 

respond favorably to habitat management and other 

8
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

land use practices that improve the habitat structure 

of a given area. Landowners interested in managing 

their property to benefit mule deer should consider ecological factors such as vegetation composition, 

patch arrangement, and water availability, as well as 

practical factors such as the potential for property or 

crop damage, safety, and human-deer interactions.

A variety of management actions can be taken to improve mule deer habitat. More than one practice 

may be beneficial in an area depending on land use, 

the area’s size, composition of vegetation, and geoTable 3 Inventory of limiting factors

Habitat component Availability/quality

High Medium Low Absent

Food

Hiding cover

Thermal cover

Water

Summer range (if applicable)

Winter range (if applicable)

Mineral licks

Interspersion of habitat components

Minimum habitat area

Limiting factors Quantity/degree of interference

Absent Low Medium High

White-tailed deer populations

graphic region. Management goals may also dictate 

which management practices are most appropriate. 

Consultation with, and assistance from, federal, state, 

or local fish and wildlife, land management, and conservation agencies and organizations may prove useful in identifying and prioritizing appropriate measures for fulfilling management objectives. 

Much of mule deer habitat has been developed, used 

for pasture by livestock, or converted to domestic crops, thereby creating a discontinuity of potential habitat. This fragmentation effect can be mitigatTable 4 Management options for increasing habitat quality and availability. Technical and financial assistance programs 

listed in table 5 can be used to assist in these management actions.

Habitat component Management options 

Food

Winter range

Transitional range

Interspersion and minimum habitat size

Maintain proportion of open field and woodland areas by conducting burning or rotational/deferred grazing where appropriate.

Preserve and plant appropriate food plants for mule deer, depending on seasonal 

range use and geographic region.

Minimize unnecessary development and land use.

Preserve and maintain wooded lowlands. Conduct selective tree harvesting, rotational even-aged harvest, and undergrowth prescribed burn programs to maintain varying 

age regime of forested areas.

Minimize human disturbance to wooded lowlands and adjoining open pasture.

Conduct prescribed burns in forest edge environments to stimulate the growth of 

new vegetation.

Combine the above prescriptions to increase interspersion of habitat components 

and amount of suitable mule deer habitat.

9
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

NRCS

Ideal habitat interspersion for mule deer consists of a variety of vegetation types and a source of water and minerals 

ed through increased landowner awareness of mule 

deer habitat requirements and by consequential improvement of land management to maximize habitat 

quality and accessibility. Unfortunately, as the needs 

of mule deer are usually not the primary land management goal of most private landowners in western 

North America, habitat improvement programs typically involve coordination of diverse interests. As 

such, landowners must be fully aware of the complexities of habitat enhancement programs before proceeding with management actions. One approach may 

lie in the design of a detailed sequential checklist outlining objectives and appropriate measures for achieving stated goals.

Prior to the implementation of field management programs, property owners need to determine the characteristics of the site in question. For one, landowners 

need to assess the existing conditions of the site:

• Does it provide summer, winter, or transitional 

range?

• What are the dominant plant communities?

• What are the grazing practices being used?

• Where are sources of water?

• What are potential areas of conflict?

Landowners can formulate an action sheet to guide 

habitat enhancement actions. A checklist may include 

a list of objectives, activity prioritization, an implementation schedule, a map of the site, a survey of existing conditions, and an assessment of the optimal 

habitat requirements of mule deer applicable to the 

site, including forage/cover ratio, water sources, and 

possible areas of exclusion.

Open land management

Prescribed burning

Prescribed burns aid in the recycling of nutrients and 

minerals and help to maintain the ecological integrity 

of grasslands and open woodlands. Fire can be used 

to stimulate new browse, create openings in areas of 

dense brush, and reduce ground level debris that may 

impede deer movement. Furthermore, periodic localized burns help to create the environmental mosaic 

of vegetation type and age that mule deer favor. Small 

burns tend to be more beneficial than large ones, as 

deer favor edge environments, or open areas close to 

cover. Landowners should be aware that burning may 

facilitate the advance of noxious weed species. For 

example, invasive cheatgrass has caused problems in 

areas of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho after 

burning.

Prescribed burning should be conducted in cooperation with state fish and wildlife agencies and with assistance from licensed burners. These agencies and 

individuals can assist in the development of a burn 

plan, provide necessary equipment and supervision, 

and aid in obtaining required permits. Prescribed 

burns should be conducted on a 4- to 5-year rotational basis in late winter or early spring depending on the 

region. Where practical, dividing the burn area into 

discrete strips or plots provides benefits to wildlife by 

leaving undisturbed patches of desirable vegetation 

adjacent to burned areas.

Rotational grazing

Managed grazing can be an effective tool in maintaining productive mule deer habitat. Grazed areas 

are most beneficial when overgrazing by livestock is 

Jeff Vanuga, NRCS

Prescribed burns promote growth of grass and forb species 

while replenishing soil nutrients.

10
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

avoided while allowing for a diversity of herbaceous 

undergrowth to proliferate. Furthermore, implementing a rotational system of pasture use by livestock will 

result in the consistent availability of open areas for 

mule deer to forage while at the same time preventing overgrazing. The specifications of such a rotational program is dependent on the size of the livestock 

herd, the type of livestock, the vegetation composition of the site, and the topography of the pastureland. Implementing rotational land use patterns also 

assists in maintaining appropriate shrub/bush cover 

to forage ratios. Livestock type is important as browsers such as sheep and goats are more directly in competition with mule deer for forage than are pure grazers such as cattle.

Examining the percent of annual plant growth consumed by animals can be used to determine range 

quality. As a general rule of thumb, forage is considered too heavily grazed when >50 percent of the 

available annual growth of key forage species is consumed. At that point, either livestock grazing should 

be reduced by seasonal management – by rotational land use, for instance – or through the reduction of 

deer numbers by increasing local recreational hunting.

Patch burning

Patch burning, also known as rotational grazing without fences or fire-grazing interaction, is a management 

practice that combines rotational grazing with prescribed burning. Large-scale uniform burns and poorly managed grazing systems can be detrimental to 

livestock and wildlife. Patch burning provides an alternative to traditional fire and grazing programs and 

a practical way to restore mule deer habitat. Patch 

burning allows grazing and fire to interact to cause a 

shifting vegetation pattern across the landscape.

 Jeff Vanuga, NRCS

Careful livestock management can prevent overgrazing 

and maintain habitat for wildlife such as mule deer.

Patch burning is accomplished by applying spatially discrete fires to approximately one third of a management unit and allowing grazers free access to both 

burned and unburned patches. Livestock will focus 

grazing on recently burned patches until new patches are burned. When grazing shifts to higher quality 

forage on newly burned patches, patches previously burned have abundant forbs and begin to return to 

grass dominance. When patches return to grass dominance they are burned again, restarting the cycle. 

Landscapes with these distinct patches resemble the 

mosaic characteristic of historical grasslands and provide a diverse choice of habitats for wildlife that cannot be created by continuous grazing or rotational 

grazing within years. The appropriate frequency of fire 

in a patch burn landscape is dependent on climate.

Plantings

Seeding pasture and open areas with native grasses, 

forbs, and shrubs can provide mule deer with seasonal forage. As large-scale plantings can be costly, consultation with local NRCS personnel, as well as with 

representatives of other government agencies and 

conservation organizations involved in wildlife and 

land management issues, may be helpful in determining the most suitable choices for the species composition of new plantings most conducive to enhancing 

mule deer habitat in a given area. In addition to forage 

material, planting schemes should take other requirements into consideration, such as providing cover and 

fawning areas.

Woodland management

Burning

Controlled burning of woodlands can enhance mule 

deer habitat quality by promoting nutritious new 

growth and removing of excessive undergrowth, facilitating deer movement. Due to the inherent complexities of woodland burning, all fire management plans 

should be developed and implemented with the assistance of professional forest managers and licensed 

burners. Known fawning grounds should be avoided, 

as an abundance of debris is required for protecting 

newborn fawns from predators and the elements.

Selective timber harvest

Conducting uneven-aged timber harvesting on a rotational basis – 5 to 7 years for pines, 10 to 15 years for 

hardwoods – can be effective in maintaining stands 

of timber useful to mule deer by creating a mosaic of 

forested, open, and edge habitat preferred by deer. 

Canopy gaps created by selective tree harvest encourage the growth of understory forbs, shrubs, and 

grasses consumed by mule deer. Cutting mast pro11
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

ducing trees, such as oak, maple, and ash species that 

produce nuts, berries, and seeds, should be avoided. Snags, or dead trees that contain nesting cavities, should also be allowed to remain, as they provide 

habitat for many forest species.

Maintaining plant diversity is essential, as a highly 

species-diverse forest provides greater forage opportunity for animals; in other words, wildlife diversity 

is often correlated with vegetation diversity. As such, 

clearcutting should be avoided, as uneven-aged forest 

stands offer a greater degree of diversity than evenaged stands that result from large clearcuts. During 

thinning operations, leave patches of unthinned or 

overtopped trees to provide additional habitat diversity. Disturbance of riparian areas should be minimized or avoided all together to maintain water quality, bank stability, and prime wildlife habitat. Human 

disturbance should also be kept to a minimum; forest roadways, for example, should be closed to human use wherever feasible. Consult with professional 

forest managers, wildlife biologists, and other woodland management experts for assistance in the development and implementation of forest management 

plans.

Conflicts

Mule deer can pose threats to both property and personal safety. Browsing on ornamentals, crops, and 

nursery plants can be extremely costly to property 

owners, while deer-automobile collisions may result 

in millions of dollars in damages, as well as injury and 

death. On average, 7,000 deer collisions are reported 

annually in Colorado alone, costing a reported $3 million in vehicle damage. High fencing, electric fencing, 

 Lynn Betts, NRCS

Selective harvest is a common forest management practice 

used to create or improve mule deer habitat.

tethered dogs, and noisemakers may aid in deterring 

habituated deer, while repellents such as tallow-based 

soaps, predator urine emulators, and the selective 

planting of unpalatable plants may deter unwelcome 

browsing.

Fences are probably the most cost-effective means 

of dissuading mule deer from entering a property. 

However, mule deer can become entangled in fencing if not constructed properly. As a general rule of 

thumb, fencing should be approximately 6 to 8 feet 

high and constructed of woven wire, higher (~10 to 

11 feet) on sloping ground or areas of high snowdrift. 

Barbed wire should not be used at any time.

Available assistance 

Landowners interested in making their individual efforts more valuable to the community are invited to 

work with the Wildlife Habitat Council and NRCS to 

involve local school, scout, and community groups 

and their families, as well as state and federal fish and 

wildlife agency personnel, in habitat projects when 

possible. Onsite education programs demonstrating the necessity of mule deer habitat management 

can greatly increase the value of an individual management project. Corporate landowners should encourage interested employees to become involved. 

Involving federal, state, and non-profit conservation 

agencies and organizations in the planning and operation of a mule deer management plan can greatly 

improve the project’s success. Assistance programs 

available through various sources are listed in table 5.

Conclusion

Mule deer are large, adaptive animals that require several basic habitat components. A mix of open areas 

replete with edible forbs, grasses, and shrubs in close 

proximity to relatively large stands of woodland and 

brush provide cover for both predator evasion and 

thermal protection, and an accessible source of water 

constitute the predominant features of suitable mule 

deer habitat. Private landowners can provide quality habitat for mule deer by incorporating deer habitat requirements into land planning. Managing for the 

inclusion of mule deer habitat requirements will also 

benefit associated wildlife that depend on similar environments. Managing grazing, conducting selective 

timber harvest and periodic burns, providing a dependable source of water, and planting native species 

are some of the options that landowners may consider to benefit mule deer populations.

12
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

Table 5 Financial and technical assistance available to landowners with habitat projects

Program (CRP) Land eligibility Type of assistance Contact

Conservation Highly erodible land, 50% cost-share for establishing NRCS or FSA

Reserve wetland and certain permanent cover and conservation state or local

Program (CRP) other lands with practices, and annual rental payments for office

cropping history. land enrolled in 10- to 15-year contracts.

Streamside areas in Additional financial incentives available

pasture land. for some practices.

Environmental Cropland, range, Up to 75% cost-share for conservation NRCS state or 

Quality grazing land and other practices in accordance with 1- to 10- local office

Incentives Program agricultural land in year contracts. Incentive payments for

(EQIP) need of treatment. certain management practices.

Partners for Fish and Most degraded fish Up to 100% financial and technical U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Program and/or wildlife habitat. assistance to restore wildlife habitat Wildlife Service

(PFW) under minimum 10-year cooperative local office

agreements.

Wildlife Habitat High-priority fish and Up to 75% cost-share for conservation NRCS state or 

Incentives Program wildlife habitats. practices under 5- to 10-year local office

(WHIP) agreements.

Wildlife at Work Corporate lands. Technical assistance on developing Wildlife Habitat

habitat projects into programs that allow Council

companies to involve employees and the

community.

13
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

References

On-line sources

Animal Diversity Web. 1999. Odocoileus hemionus. 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/odocoileus/o._hemionus$narrative.html

[Accessed 7 February 2005].

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2004. Mule deer. 

http://www.gf.state.az.us/h_f/game_mule.shtml

[Accessed 7 February 2005].

Desert USA. 2005. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). 

http://www.desertusa.com/feb97/du_muledeer.

html [Accessed 7 February 2005].

National Park Service. 2004. Wind Cave National Park. 

http://www.nps.gov/wica/Mule_Deer.htm [Accessed 7 February 2005]. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2005. 

PLANTS database. http://plants.usda.gov [Accessed 7 February 2005].

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2005. Chronic 

wasting disease threatens Utah’s deer and elk. 

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/

cwd [Accessed 7 February 2005]. 

Print sources

Bartmann, R.M. and T.M. Pojar. 1998. Deer conservation: deer reproductive assessment. Colorado 

Division of Wildlife Game Research Report, Fort 

Collins, CO. 

Cantu, R. and C. Richardson. 1997. Mule deer management in Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife, PWD BK 

W7100-303 (9/97), Austin, TX. 

Clements, C.D. and J.A. Young. 1997. A viewpoint: 

rangeland health and mule deer habitat. Journal 

of Range Management 50: 129-138.

Dormaar, J.F. and B.D. Walker. 1996. Elemental content of animal licks along the eastern slopes of the 

Rocky Mountains in southern Alberta, Canada. 

Canadian Journal of Soil Science 76: 509–512.

Freddy, D.J., D.L. Baker, R.M. Bartmann, and R.C. 

Kufeld. 1993. Deer and elk management analysis 

guide, 1992-94. Colorado Division of Wildlife Report No. 17, Fort Collins, CO. 

Fuhlendorf, S.D. and D.M. Engle. 2004. Application 

of the fire-grazing interaction to restore a shifting 

mosaic on tallgrass prairie. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 41:604-614.

Geist, V. 1999. Mule deer country. NorthWord Press, 

Minocqua, WI.

Geist, V. 1998. Deer of the world: their evolution, 

behaviour, and ecology. Stackpole Books, 

Mechanicsburg, PA.

Gill, R.B., editor. 1999. Declining mule deer populations in Colorado: reasons and responses. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Department of Natural 

Resources Report to the Colorado Legislature, 

Nov. 1999.

Hanley, T.A. 1996. Potential role of deer (Cervidae) as 

ecological indicators for forest management. Forest Ecology & Management 88: 199-204.

Kie, J.G., C.J. Evans, E.R. Loft, and J.W. Menke. 1991. 

Foraging behavior by mule deer: the influence of 

cattle grazing. Journal of Wildlife Management 55: 

665-674.

Loft, E.R., J.W. Menke, and J.G. Kie. 1991. Habitat 

shifts by mule deer – the influence of cattle grazing. Journal of Wildlife Management 55: 16-26.

Mackie, R.J., R.F. Batchelor, M.E. Majerus, J.P. Weigland, and V.P. Sundberg. n.d. Mule deer: habitat 

management suggestions for selected wildlife species. Publications & Information, Animal Range 

Sciences, Extension Service, Montana State 

University, Bozeman, MT, USA. 

Main, M.B. and B.E. Coblentz. 1996. Sexual segregation in Rocky Mountain mule deer. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 60: 497-507.

Masters, R.E., T.G. Bidwell, and M. Shaw. n.d. Ecology 

and management of deer in Oklahoma. Oklahoma 

Cooperative Extension Service, Division of 

Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 

Oklahoma State University, OK, USA.

Spraker, T.R., M.W. Miller, E.S. Williams, D.M. Getzy, 

W.J. Adrian, G.G. Schoonveld, R.A. Spowart, 

K.I. O’Rourke, J.M. Miller, and P.A. Merz. 1997. 

Spongiform encephalopathy in free-ranging mule 

deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus) and Rocky Mountain 

elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) in northcentral 

Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 33: 1-6.

14
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

Stewart, R. 1999. Mule deer. Wildlife Notebook Series 

No. 13, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt 

Lake City, UT. 

Unsworth, J.W., D.F. Pac, G.C. White, and R.M. 

Bartmann. 1999. Mule deer survival in Colorado, 

Idaho, and Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 315-326.

van Zwoll, W., editor. 2004. Mule deer. Mule Deer 

Foundation, Reno, NV.

Wallmo, O.C. 1981. Mule and black-tailed deer of 

North America. University of Nebraska Press, 

Lincoln, NE.

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

Mule Deer Working Group. n.d. Mule deer: changing landscapes, changing perspectives. Creative 

Resource Strategies, West Linn, OR.

Woodland Fish and Wildlife. 1990. Managing deer on 

small woodlands. Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

15
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

Natural Resources Conservation Service Wildlife Habitat Council

8737 Colesville Road, Suite 800

Check your local telephone directory for a field Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

office near you. (301) 588-8994

The Natural Resources Conservation Service The mission of the Wildlife Habitat Council is to 

provides leadership in a partnership effort to increase the amount of quality wildlife habitat 

help people conserve, maintain, and improve our on corporate, private, and public land. WHC ennatural resources and environment. gages corporations, public agencies, and private, 

non-profit organizations on a voluntary basis for 

the recovery, development, and preservation of 

wildlife habitat worldwide.

www.nrcs.usda.gov www.wildlifehc.org

Primary author: Kenneth I. Ferguson, Wildlife Habitat Council. Drafts reviewed by Charlie Rewa, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service; Maureen Ryan, Wildlife Habitat Council; Robert J. Hudson, University of 

Alberta; A. William Alldredge, Colorado State University; Woodrow Myers, Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife; Jim Devos, Arizona Game and Fish Department; and Valerius Geist, University of Calgary.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, 

and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th 

and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer.

16