Big Game Migrations and Land-Use Plans: Ensuring the Best-Available Science Guides Public Land Management Across the West
Works Cited:
Mule deer are known to move faster through developed areas, reduce time spent in stopovers, and avoid traditional stopovers altogether where development is most intensive (p. 2).
Sawyer, H., M. J. Kauffman, A. D. Middleton, T. A. Morrison, R. M. Nielson, and T. B. Wyckoff. 2012. A framework for understanding semi-permeable barrier effects on migratory ungulates. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 68-78.
Wyckoff, T. B., H. Sawyer, S. E. Albeke, S. L. Garman, and M. J. Kauffman. 2018. Evaluating the influence of energy and residential development on the migratory behavior of mule deer. Ecosphere 9(2): e02113.
Researchers in Wyoming also recently discovered that mule deer continue to avoid areas within a half-mile of well pads used in oil and natural gas drilling for more than 15 years after the development of these sites, meaning that herds don’t habituate to these disturbances (p. 2).
Sawyer, H., N. M. Korfanta, R. M. Nielson, K. L. Monteith, and D. Strickland. 2017. Mule deer and energy development—long-term trends of habituation and abundance. Global Change Biology 23: 4521-4529.
They exhibit strong fidelity to their traditional routes, meaning they aren’t likely to abandon their known paths and preferred habitats even when they become unusable (p. 2).
Sawyer, H. J. A. Merkle, A. D. Middleton, S. P. H. Dwinnell, and K. L. Monteith. 2019. Migratory plasticity is not ubiquitous among large herbivores. Journal of Animal Ecology 88: 450-460.
In fact, studies in Wyoming demonstrate that one particular mule deer herd declined by 36 percent during a period of development in its habitat (p. 2).
Sawyer, H., N. M. Korfanta, R. M. Nielson, K. L. Monteith, and D. Strickland. 2017. Mule deer and energy development—long-term trends of habituation and abundance. Global Change Biology 23: 4521-4529.
Researchers in Wyoming also recently found that every 1 percent loss of available forage from the physical footprint of infrastructure on mule deer winter ranges also resulted in an additional 4.6 percent loss of forage from the herd’s avoidance of such development (p. 2).
Dwinnell, S. P. H., H. Sawyer, J. E. Randall, J. L. Beck, J. S. Forbey, G. L. Fralick, and K. L. Monteith. 2019. Where to forage when afraid: does perceived risk impair use of the foodscape? Ecological Applications, 29(7), e01972.
Other Sources Used:
Kauffman, M., H. Copeland, J. Berg, S. Bergen, E. Cole, et al. 2020. Ungulate migrations in the western United States, Volume 1. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5101. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205101.
Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, and M. A. Penninger. 2004. Effects of roads on elk: implications for management in forested ecosystems. In: Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 491-508.
Sawyer, H., M. Hayes, B. Rudd, and M. Kauffman. 2014. The Red Desert to Hoback Mule Deer Migration Assessment. Wyoming Migration Initiative, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA.
State of Wyoming. 2020. Executive Order 2020-1: Wyoming mule deer and antelope migration corridor protection. State of Wyoming, Executive Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TLuj1UGcRTjOvBklmP4qwjehSVmGjch8/view
U.S. Department of Interior. 2018. Secretarial Order No. 3362: Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3362_migration.pdf
Wisdom, M. J., technical editor. 2005. The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
