Mule deer can be found in Bend’s backyard gardens and along the highways connecting the city to other Central Oregon towns. In fact, seeing one is so unremarkable that the risks facing them are easy to miss. But wildlife biologists say the species is suffering, and humans are to blame.
That simple conclusion should come as no surprise to anyone who saw Disney’s Bambi as a child. The conflict between humans and wildlife is long-standing. But in Central Oregon, it’s both critical and complicated, since many of the threats to the mule deer are tied up in activities humans are rather fond of, like driving, expanding into new areas, and recreating.
Glen Ardt, a retired Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist and mule deer expert, says these human impacts can be attributed broadly to “people in pursuit of the American dream.”
The fact that mule deer can be spotted in residential areas is evidence of the disruptive effect of urban sprawl. In a recent study of mule deer in south central Oregon, the ODFW estimates populations decreased by almost half in the Maury Wildlife Management Unit southeast of Bend, from 6,399 in 2010 to just 3,866 in 2014.
Part of the challenge is that mule deer migrate twice a year, following the same path each time, so they need a safe and reliable winter and summer habitat, as well as an unobstructed path between the two.
“The ultimate challenge for wildlife is loss and degradation of their habitat,” says Sara Gregory, a wildlife habitat biologist for ODFW. “Each spring thousands of does migrate, some traveling almost 100 miles, from winter range east and south of Bend into the Cascades to have their fawns. If a fawn survives, it will follow its mother back to winter range in the fall.”
She goes on to explain that something as seemingly innocuous as hiking with a dog in mule deer habitat can cause a disruption.
“If one of these components—winter range, summer range, or migration corridor—is unusable to deer, either due to disturbance from recreation, urban sprawl, or loss from wildfire—among other challenges—their chances of survival will be compromised,” Gregory says. “Because they cover so much ground, mitigation of the threats to mule deer and their habitat needs to occur on both a landscape and a local scale.”
On a landscape scale, that looks like collaborating with the various land management agencies and other states where mule deer have habitat. Locally, that mitigation involves both policy informed by science and a values-driven conversation about the relationship between recreation and conservation.
It’s a catch-22. People recreate outdoors because they enjoy being in the wilderness. But the more that humans insert themselves into natural habitats, the less wildlife seem to want to be there.
So what’s being done to address these threats?
“They’re not being mitigated all that well, frankly,” says Amy Stuart, a retired ODFW biologist and Central Oregon LandWatch board member.
One success she points to is the wildlife crossing under Highway 97. Roads present major barriers to migration, Stuart explains. The recent ODFW study found that vehicles caused at least 10 percent of mule deer mortalities. By comparison, 11 percent died as a result of legal hunting, 13 percent were poached, and 17 percent were killed by natural predators (i.e. cougars and coyotes).
But the largest cause of death—coming in at a full 44 percent—is the nebulous “unknown.” This is where those harder to track causes may be found, such as increases in stress due to motorized and non-motorized vehicle traffic through mule deer habitat. In other words: mountain bikers and people riding all-terrain vehicles.
And while Stuart says she’s as guilty as anyone else, she point out that some types of recreation have a greater impact than others. Hiking, for example, is relatively low-impact. Mountain biking is a greater disturbance, in part because bikers typically cover more area than hikers. On the other end of the spectrum, Stuart says, are off-highway vehicles (OHVs).
“We don’t need anymore OHV areas in Central Oregon. There are thousands and thousands of miles in Central Oregon,” Stuart says. “There should be more emphasis on quiet recreation than noisy recreation.”
But Matt Shinderman, a natural resources professor at OSU-Cascades, says the thought process needs to go beyond balancing types of recreation. Sometimes, he says, the only appropriate human use is no human use.
“Striving for balance would be great,” Shinderman says. But, “we need to start by asking ourselves, as a community, is there anything we are willing to leave alone?”
It’s those larger questions that weigh on Bend resident Kreg Lindberg, who enjoys outdoor recreation but is concerned about the impact of future developments on wildlife.
“I believe we would benefit in Central Oregon from a sustained dialogue on this and more fundamental issues of maintaining quality wildlife habitat,” he says. “In the meantime, I believe resolving this contradiction requires recognition of the role of value judgments and politics.” Lindburg points out that while science plays a critical role in coming up with solutions, personal values and politics often determine how that science is interpreted.
Those big picture questions include ones posed by OSU’s Shinderman: “What value does wildland have without wildlife? Is it really wildland anymore if the only ‘purpose’ it serves is to host mindless recreation?”
Frankly Mule Deer, We Do Give a Damn
11:30 am-1 pm. Wednesday, August 12.
Environmental Center, 16 NW Kansas Ave. Free.
This article appears in Aug 5-12, 2015.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Many people playing in the woods (myself included) see deer and it’s unclear to many of us how the deer are disturbed. They usually don’t seem terribly bothered by our presence and they may or may not bound away, leisurely walk away, or just ignore us.
I’m not necessarily suggesting that we aren’t a problem, but without a compelling explanation of the problem, I think many people will decide that their own recreation is not disturbing the deer when their observation is that the deer are present and are not overly frightened or bothered.
The article makes the assumption that recreation is partially responsible for the nebulous 44% unknown. It probably does affect the populations somewhat, but the logical leap, in the absence of rigorous research will make the conclusion a hard sell.
Giving a damn about mule deer shouldn’t imply damning recreation. OSU-Cascades professors and retired ODFW employees will need to do a much better job defending their deep ecology perspective that pits humans – particularly those who recreate in nature – against the environment. When we hear scientists filling knowledge gaps with conjecture, we need to ask more questions.
If 44% of mule deer mortality has “unknown” causes, why are we pointing the finger at recreation? Amy Stuart of Central Oregon LandWatch labels hiking as “low-impact” while asserting that mountain biking has a relatively high impact because cyclists may travel further in the backcountry. That strikes me as an observation that may have nothing to do with mule deer. Maybe cyclists have a shorter residence time in an individual deer’s habitat? Are cyclists, because they can cover more ground, less likely to camp overnight? Are cyclists more likely to stay on designated trails and less likely than other users to travel cross country? Are cyclists more likely to ride to the trailhead rather than drive, thereby reducing the need for road construction and the relatively massive environmental impact that roads bring?
Today I walked through a housing development that was formerly mule deer habitat. Then I mountain biked past a resort where nothing but golf carts and pleated pants roam the hillsides. When I finally got to the trailhead, I didn’t really feel like the bad guy.
Community member Kreg Lindberg is right: A much more thorough discussion is necessary and perhaps the public event on August 12th can help move that forward.
First, this is a brief article introducing a broader discussion. Probably ought to wait until that discussion occurs before labeling a speaker as having a humans versus nature perspective. Second, acknowledging impacts, as the previous commenter did by alluding to impacts of housing development, does not equate to humans versus nature. The point of the discussion is not to brand recreation as a whole but to suggest we consider modified use in some areas if we want to conserve wildlife. You could participate, or you could take a couple quotes out of context and form pre-determined opinions.
Hintza – If something was taken out of context, it was the fault of the article’s author, not me. Granted, a brief article can’t possibly address the many subtleties that would have to inform any ultimate decisions about balancing human activity and habitat conservation. But it’s some of the experts quoted in the article who don’t seem to be waiting “until [the] discussion occurs” before making assertions of fact and offering their own predetermined opinions. If the article misrepresented their views in some way, they can offer clarification here or perhaps at the August 12 meeting. I hope many members of the community – scientists, policy makers and trails users – will attend.
So how did it go last night? Would anyone care to report?