Report on Mule Deer of North America (and subspecies) - a working document (Version 1.1 - October 1, 2024)

This is a working document and is subject to change and modifications due to observational data updates, ongoing corrections, edits, and feedback. The latest version (1.1) was completed October 1, 2024. Any feedback, corrections, or additional data or reports - please contact scottdwright with message.

Background:

Heffelfinger (2018) has indicated that there is great variation in the Mule Deer population. "Throughout the geographic range of mule deer and their blacktailed subspecies (Odocoileus hemionus), we see a lot of variation in body size, coat color, antler shape, behavior, and other attributes. For instance, mule deer in the southern latitudes are generally smaller in body size than those in the north and those inhabiting the deserts appear lighter in color than those in heavily forested regions. The physical variation in mule deer led early naturalists to collect a mule deer from one location and another from someplace else and designate them as different species or subspecies because slight differences they described. Some of these differences may have been meaningful, but others simply reflected the variation one might see in a single population of deer" (Heffelfinger, 2018; 'What We Know About Mule Deer Species'; Mule Deer Foundation). Heffelfinger goes on to say, "We are not at the point of making definitive thumbs-up or thumbs-down calls on all mule deer subspecies, but there are several clarifications emerging: The desert mule deer name Odocoileus hemionus crooki is not valid because, as I wrote in a journal article, its scientific designation was based on a specimen that was a mule deer x whitetail hybrid; The previously described Inyo Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus inyoensis) is not genetically different from other mule deer in California; There is no well-defined line that could be drawn between desert and Rocky Mountain mule deer either on a physical or genetic basis; bigger, darker northern deer gradually change to lighter, smaller deer in the Southwest; Rocky Mountain mule deer throughout their entire range from northern Arizona and New Mexico up to the Yukon are remarkably similar genetically. This is probably because they expanded northward relatively rapidly at the end of the Pleistocene as the glaciers retreated."

In another paper, Latch & Heffelfinger (2022), wrote that, "Delineating meaningful taxonomic groups within Odocoileus hemionus has been a long-standing challenge. This is in part because mule deer are continuously distributed and geographically widespread, ranging over 40° of latitude and inhabiting every major biome except tundra. Subspecies definitions may vary, yet designations are not arbitrary. Most converge on the idea that subspecies are groups of populations that are geographically separated to some degree, exhibit phenotypic distinctions, and have unique evolutionary potential (Latch & Heffelfinger, 2022). As many as 11 subspecies have been described in this species (Cowan 1936, 1956; Hall 1981), with subspecies boundaries generally corresponding to major ecological transitions in North America. The nominate O. h. hemionus has a large range over much of continental western USA and Canada. Six subspecies have been described in North America’s desert southwest and southern California (O. h. californicus, O. h. eremicus, O. h. fuliginatus, O. h. inyoensis, O. h. peninsulae; O. h. crooki has been invalidated by Heffelfinger 2000). Two subspecies are endemic to islands off the coast of Baja California, Mexico (O. h. cerrosensis and O. h. sheldoni). Two subspecies are distributed along the Pacific Northwest coast in California, Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska (O. h. columbianus, O. h. sitkensis). Across O. hemionus, subspecies vary in behaviour, life history, and phenotypic traits such as body size, metatarsal glands, coat colour, antler shape, and tail shape and striping pattern. Evaluating subspecies taxonomy in black-tailed and mule deer has benefited from the integration of genetic data to characterise evolutionary divergence and support geographic and phenotypic evidence. One of the most pronounced phenotypic differences across O. hemionus is between black-tailed deer (designated as O. h. sitkensis and O. h. columbianus) and mule deer (all other subspecies). Genetic surveys of deer across the landscape where black-tailed deer and mule deer meet along the Pacific Northwest’s Cascade Mountain range showed extensive hybridisation. Hybrid deer were found at least 300 km from the ridgeline in both directions, extending west to the Pacific Coast and east to Idaho. Integrating genetic data has informed meaningful intraspecific taxonomy in O. hemionus. The totality of the evidence shows support for five subspecies of O. hemionus, namely, two black-tailed deer subspecies (Columbian black-tailed deer O. h. columbianus and Sitka black-tailed deer O. h. sitkensis) and three mule deer subspecies (the nominal O. h. hemionus mule deer plus the two island subspecies Cedros Island mule deer O. h. cerrosensis and Tibur´on Island mule deer O. h. sheldoni). Citation: Latch & Heffelfinger, (2022). Genetics informs meaningful intraspecific taxonomy: the black-tailed and mule deer complex; Animal Production Science doi:10.1071/AN22191)

Finally, I wish to highlight the most current and up to date publication on Black-tailed and Mule Deer in North America - which is the edited book by J. R. Heffelfinger and P. R. Krausman (2023) titled, "Ecology and Management of Black-tailed and Mule Deer of North America" CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group LLC. (see at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.1201/9781003354628/ecology-management-black-tailed-mule-deer-north-america-james-heffelfinger-paul-krausman). This edited book should inform iNaturalists to the latest knowledge on Black-tailed Deer and Mule Deer in North America especially as it relates to the classification and distribution of Black-tailed and Mule Deer. According to Heffelfinger and Latch (2023) in one of the chapters of the edited book, Origin, Classification, and Distribution, infraspecific taxonomy has been a challenge in mule deer and that the species has been divided into as many as 11 subspecies. But it is important to note for iNaturalist that Heffelfinger and Latch provide another perspective on the classification and taxonomy of Black-tailed and Mule Deer. This perspective is quite different than the current taxonomic system employed by iNaturalist and it presents (based on scientific evidence in their research work) a more fine-tuned (and reduced) classification system. The authors propose that the most profound genetic differentiation among the within the mule deer species complex is between occurs between black-tailed deer and mule deer. There is phenoptypic and genetic support for 2 subspecies in the Pacific northwest - referred to as Sitka Black-tailed deer and Columbian Black-tailed Deer. These two subspecies are used in the iNaturalist classification system, although many observers (and identifiers) still default to the species level in those geolocations - the taxon - Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus). The authors also recognize two other subspecies Tiburón Island mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus sheldoni) and Cedros Island mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus cerrosensis). But the authors then present their perspective that all else (other than these 4 subspecies) should be classified as "mainland mule deer" because there is no genetic support for subspecies designations in this mule deer group. Thus, previously known subspecies (Rocky Mountain Mule Deer, Desert Mule Deer, Inyo Mule Deer, California Mule Deer, Southern Mule Deer are no longer recognized as distinct or separate. Rather, mainland mule deer any phenotypic variation observed is recognized as being determined by historical biogeographyand that the term - "ecotypes" is more accurate than subspecies - in the case of mainland mule deer. For example, the authors note that in California 5 subspecies have been described, but again they propose that it would better to describe such variable phenotypic differences as mediated by ecological conditions - thus "ecotypes" - for mule deer in California (again - Columbian Black-tailed deer as distinct and different). So instead of using the Linnaean taxonomy system and names for subspecies - Hellefinger and Latch (2023) propose that any physical differences we might see in observations for mule deer are due to ecological conditions and that the nomenclature would be structured as (as example) subspecies and ecotypes. There is a Figure (1.3) in the chapter that looks very familiar - but it is better graphically presented here - compared to the "old" tail pattern drawing found in the California Department of Fish and Game website that is dated back to 2002 (actually is geared toward hunting guidelines). The figure presented by the authors (Figure 1.3) looks proportionally better in terms of physical difference in height and girth for subspecies and ecotypes. In addition there are the variations in tail patterns per subspecies and ecotypes. But again - note the terms being presented in the chapter. For example, the Columbian Black-tailed Deer (as subspecies); the Sitka Black-tailed Deer (as subspecies), but then this: mule deer - California ecotype; mule deer - desert ecotype; mule deer - Rocky Mountain ecotype. And then the "new" map of the geographic range and subspecies of black-tailed and mule deer as Figure 1.6 - this is quite different than all of the previous maps we have seen and being used as "evidence" for geolocation of subspecies iNaturalist and for the specifically for the state of California. {see also Chapter 17, Black-Tailed and Mule Deer by Randy T. Larsen and Brock R. McMillan, in Rangeland Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Lance B. McNew, David K. Dahlgren, Jeffrey L. Beck {Editors}, 2023, Fig. 17.1 Distribution map depicting the current distribution of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and black-tailed deer (subspecies O. h. sitkensis and O. h. columbianus) modified from Heffelfinger and Latch (2023).}

Again that "old" map was published in 2002 by the CDFG. The new map by the authors presents (showing) the "mainland" Mule Deer from Alaska through Canada and into Mexico and covers (basically) most of the Western US. There are no subspecies of mule deer other than the four (4) recognized as such (the two Black-tails - Sitka and Columbian; Tiburón Island mule deer; and Cedros Island mule deer) given the evidence with genetic analyses. The mainland Mule Deer presents phenotypic variations as "ecologically based differences" - not evolutionary descent. And then this: The formally recognized mule deer subspecies (California, desert, burro, Southern, Inyo, peninsula) should now be recognized on the mainland North American continent as 1 subspecies under the nomenclaturally correct trinomen (O. h. hemionus). (p. 19 -in chapter). iNaturalists will recognize that trinomen as currently assigned to the Rocky Mountain Mule Deer "subspecies."

ABSTRACT from 15th Biennial Deer and Elk Workshop, Flagstaff, AZ. May, 2023.
Kinds of Black-tailed and Mule Deer James R. Heffelfinger, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 5000 W. Carefree Highway, Phoenix, AZ 85086, USA Emily Latch, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, N215 Lapham Hall, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA Correspondence: James R. Heffelfinger, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 5000 W. Carefree Highway, Phoenix, AZ 85086, USA. Email: Jheffelfinger@azgfd.gov
ABSTRACT The species scientists call Odocoileus hemionus includes the kinds of deer we know as black-tailed and mule deer. Infraspecific taxonomy has been a challenge in mule deer, in part because
the species is geographically widespread and continuously distributed. This species has been divided into as many as 11 subspecies, typically based on minor physical variations. Contemporary investigations of genetic, physical, and ecological differences, however, have shown that most subspecies designations were not well supported. Subspecies and other infraspecific groupings, however, can be given legal definitions enshrined in conservation law. If subspecies, or any other groupings, are not based on phylogeny reflected by concordant phenotypic and genetic characteristics, they are more appropriately called ecotypes. There is phenotypic and nuclear and mitochondrial genetic support for 2 subspecies in the Pacific Northwest referred to as Sitka and Columbian black-tailed deer. Additionally, there are 2 subspecies confined to Tiburón and Cedros islands in Mexico that are supported by genetic data and some morphological differentiation. None of the remaining mainland types of mule deer that have been referred to as subspecies are geographically separated from other adjacent types. In fact, they are genetically indistinguishable at a broad scale and freely interbreed as an interconnected metapopulation with no pronounced phylogenetic pattern. Given the totality of all the evidence, we find support for 5 subspecies of
black-tailed and mule deer: Sitka black-tailed deer, Columbian black-tailed deer, Cedros Island mule deer, Tiburón Island mule deer, and mule deer on the mainland. The formerly recognized mule deer subspecies names (California, Rocky Mountain, desert, burro, southern, Inyo, peninsula) are good examples of ecotypes and should not be recognized as subspecies. Still, there is no reason to discontinue the use of these local references, even if they do not represent well-defined scientific divisions of a species.

Implications of research with chapter and edited book by J. R. Heffelfinger and P. R. Krausman (2023) for iNaturalist:

If we review the information page within iNaturalist for Mule Deer - we will see that the source material is a Wikipedia page - https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/42220-Odocoileus-hemionus.
The good news is that Heffelfinger is cited quite often, the bad news is that the Wikipedia page does not cite recent publications by Heffelfinger or colleagues in the publications previosuly mentioned above. In fact, the 10 "valid" subspecies listed are cited in a publication Mammals of the World with a 2005 (3rd edition) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal_Species_of_the_World publication date. This publication (while perhaps classic reference material) is now over 20 years old. I visited the source web site at Bucknell University, but there is no indication of a revised 4th edition forthcoming. https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp

Although Hellefinger and Latch (2023) propose to "merge" (or collapse) all (excluding the 5 subspecies mentioned above) into one subspecies ("Mainland Mule Deer" or just Mule Deer -O. h. hemionus) based on their research, they do indicate that the ecotypes of Mule Deer are nevertheless still helpful in providing regional or local reference indicators, but ecotypes should still be recognized as "non-taxonomic entities." (p. 19). Hellefinger and Latch suggest that the terms (e.g., California, Inyo, Rocky Mountain Mule Deer...) are still useful for communicating among "biologists, deer enthusiasts, and possibly units of conservation; they just do not represent taxonomic divisions of evolutionary descent in the Linnaean system." (p. 19).

Questions: 1) Does the current research presented in the publication edited book by J. R. Heffelfinger and P. R. Krausman (2023) need to be integrated into the iNaturalist information system?; 2) Can the Wikipedia page be updated to reflect this new material regarding Mule Deer and subspecies?; 3) What impact would the new research have on the current subspecies as identified in observations/identifications in the iNaturalist system?

iNaturalist data:

As of October 1, 2024 - 126,967 observations of Mule Deer and of those 119,589 were Research Graded (this will be updated 1st of every month).
In the USA - 105,951 observations of Mule Deer and 100,606 were Research Grade.

Furthest Northern observation (Research Grade and image of organism) Yukon, Canada (YT)
as example - https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/221836807

Furthest Southern observation (Research Grade and image of organism) Los Cabos, Baja California Sur
as examples
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/162571789
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/237407531

Furthest Eastern observation - South Dakota and Texas
as examples
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/187576452
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/5286477

Furthest Western Observation - Kodiak Island (Alaska) and Hawaii (subspecies noted)
as examples - and introduced/arrived by anthropogenic means
Alaska - https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/130137448 - Sitka Black-tailed Deer
Hawaii - https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/220943003 - Columbian Black-tailed Deer

iNaturalist Data and Comparative Data/Maps for Range (geolocation) for Mule Deer
and subspecies

iNaturalist observations are noted in:
Mexico (Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila);
Canada (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon Territories)
United States (Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, California, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arizona, Nebraska, and Colorado).

When you examine the map provided by the Mule Deer Working Group of WAFWA (https://wafwa.org/publications/) (2024), it roughly corresponds to the macro-level geographic range for iNaturalist observations (from Alaska and Yukon Territory of Canada to California and Baja California Sur (Mexico) and east to the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Interestingly, the WAFWA shows one (1) significant "blank" area in central California where (supposedly no Mule Deer are to be found), and this seems to correspond the observational data for iNaturalist as well. The area (roughly) runs from Stockton (north) to Modesto to Fresno to Bakersfield (south). This "blank spot" also reflects the San Joaquin Valley in the southern half of California's Central Valley and a significant agricultural section of California. When examining the observation geolocation data ("Map" tab) in iNaturalist there are also large geographic areas with no Mule Deer observations across Nevada (see area around Tonapah), and south/east of Death Valley National Park and east of Joshua Tree National Park, western Utah desert area, areas in southeastern Oregon, areas in Arizona, and Utah. Many of these areas may be designated as military bases (e.g., Edwards Air Force base, or Indigenous tribal lands (e.g, Hopi, Navajo) or represent vast stretches of federal lands (e.g., BLM or National Forest) with limited access for naturalists.

iNaturalists may seek out Mule Deer population estimates via iNaturalist data analyses per state and I will present other web sites (below) with state data (estimates) that include not only Mule Deer, but also "Black-tail Deer", and White-tailed Deer numbers (for comparison). I will present respective state-level data for Mule Deer through agency or organization groups, and then compare to iNaturalist observations (both casual and research-graded). The two groups I will rely on are:
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA, 2024) https://wafwa.org/publications/
Wildlife Informer (2024) https://wildlifeinformer.com/deer-population-by-state/

Mule Deer (including subspecies) per state (estimated populations)

* Widlife Informer - The total deer estimate for the state of Washington in recent years is about 280,000 – 300,000. It was hard to find a species break-down, but in general it appears each of the three main species make up a fairly equal portion of that total, about 100,000 each.

iNaturalist data for Mule Deer (and subspecies) per state - U.S.

Alaska - 766 observations for Mule Deer of those were 740 observations for Sitka Black-tailed Deer
715 Research grade Mule Deer 700 Research grade for Sitka Black-tailed Deer

Arizona - 3,327 observations for Mule Deer
2,937 Research grade for Mule Deer. (+ 2 hybrids MD and WTD observed)

California - 53,257 observations for Mule Deer
51,196 research grade for Mule Deer
Subspecies data for CA
California Mule Deer (O. h. californicus) - 3,755 - of those were 3,670 research graded
Columbian Black-tailed Deer (O. h. columbianus) - 25,902- of those were
25,505 research graded
Southern Mule Deer (O. h. fuliginatus) - 1,915 - of those 1,695 were research graded
Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (O. h. hemionus) - 117 - of those 117 were research graded
Inyo Mule Deer (O. h. inyoensis) - 61 - of those 60 were research graded
Desert Mule Deer - (O. h. eremicus) -51 - of those 30 were research graded

One of the interesting issues facing naturalists are the identification (ID) challenges for six (6) subspecies of Mule Deer in California. One of the most frequent "go-to" guides for ID of subspecies in California is actually associated with a link from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) https://wildlife.ca.gov/. And the site visitor would then go to the "Deer Hunting" section scroll down to the bottom and click on "Guide to Hunting Deer in California" which then links you to a PDF
Hunting Deer in California. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=23228&inline
A couple of points to present and discuss for this document: 1) That document was published in 2002 {thus over 22 years old}; 2) and it contains a "Deer Distribution in California" [range] map on page 6 of the document; 3) And also contains a table containing "typical tail patterns" of deer found in California. Both of the map and the "visual guide" to tail pattern can help with ID if thinking of a rough guide or macro-level perspective (perhaps a heuristic device), but I think one has to be careful of identification of subspecies based on these two reference guides given the date of publication 2002 - especially for range distribution as subspecies can change in range distribution over time. This quote from Hellelfnger, (2018) sums it up nicely, "It really doesn’t make sense in most cases that we have one kind of deer on one side of a line and a different type of deer on the other side. The purported differences between subspecies were often based on general observations of characteristics and not the kind of dataset we demand today." In addition, there are migration patterns that differ from winter range and summer range (see https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2022/5088/sir20225088.pdf. And subspecies tail patterns which often can show variation within and across subspecies, and one would have to consider hybrid zone dynamics where subspecies overlap (see Latch, Emily & Kierepka, Elizabeth & Heffelfinger, Jim & Rhodes, Olin. (2011). Hybrid swarm between divergent lineages of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Molecular ecology. 20. 5265-79. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05349.x) and interact in the various distribution areas as noted by the California "map" (2002). For example, the "map" of Deer Distribution in California (2002) shows overlapping ranges for a) Columbian Black-tailed Deer and California Mule Deer, and b) Rocky Mountain and Columbian Black-tailed Deer where both subspecies could be found. The same "map" shows an area between Sacramento and Lake Tahoe area where four (4) subspecies could be (theoretically) found near the Lake Tahoe area (South Lake Tahoe) {roughly speaking - Placer, El Dorado, and Nevada counties). Based on iNaturalist data it appears that I-80 is a reasonable landmark for northern limit for California Mule Deer (with a few exceptions) with observations following south along the eastern side of the Central Valley (e.g., national parks and national forest lands) east of Bakersfield and then clustering from west to east along Highway 101 (and surrounding areas) to north of Los Angeles and east to San Bernardino and San Bernardino National Forest. Highway 74 from Dana Point heading east to Mount San Jacinto State Park (generally speaking). Southern Mule Deer observations seem to be south (with some exceptions) of Highway 74 (Dana Point) south to San Diego and east of Chula Vista and east to Cleveland National Forest. Rocky Mountain Mule Deer observations are seen clustered mainly on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains from south near the Mono Lake area and heading just north of Lake Tahoe near Truckee, north to Lassen and Modoc Counties. Columbian Black-tailed Deer has an extensive range from the northern border with Oregon to as far south as San Luis Obispo County (but a few exceptions further south into Santa Barbara County), and mainly west of the Sierra Nevada Range, and mainly west of I-5 heading southbound after Modesto. There is an interesting "overlap" of subspecies in the geographic area east of Sacramento, north to Auburn and south to Placerville (forming a triangle area) and then following Highway 50 eastbound. This is where (reviewing iNaturalist data) there is a significant geolocation of observations for both California Mule Deer and Columbian Black-tailed Deer in terms of research graded number of observations. See also Pease et al, (2009), ("Landscape genetics of California mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus): the roles of ecological and historical factors in generating differentiation." Molecular Ecology, Vol. 18) who stated, "Although current ecological factors are clearly important in defining mule deer genetic structure, historical factors such as topographic or habitat barriers may also have influenced contemporary genetic structure."

Colorado - 11,233 observations for Mule Deer
10,544 Research graded for Mule Deer
918 were observed as Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (ssp.)
of those 844 were Research grade
1 Mule Deer X White-tailed Deer (hybrid)

Idaho - 1,761 observations of Mule Deer
of those 1,594 were Research grade
121 were observed for Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (ssp.)
of those 117 were Research grade
1 observation of Mule Deer X White-tailed Deer (hybrid)

Kansas - 71 observations of Mule Deer
of those 58 Research grade for Mule Deer
7 were observed for Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (ssp.)
of those 7 were Research grade

Montana - 1,371 observations of Mule Deer
of those 1,322 were Research grade
100 were observed for Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (ssp.)
of those 99 were Research grade
1 observation of Mule Deer X White-tailed Deer hybrid

Nebraska - 420 observations of Mule Deer
of those 406 were Research grade
169 were observed for Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (ssp.)
of those 166 were Research grade

Nevada - 977 observations of Mule Deer
of those 890 were Research grade
55 were observed as Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (ssp).
of those 49 were Research grade
9 observations of California Mule Deer (ssp.) (all 9 research grade)
2 observations of Desert Mule Deer (ssp.)
In Nevada this observation was research graded as California Mule Deer but notice the variations
tail pattern for one group of Mule Deer - https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/142656623 (near Lake Tahoe - south).

New Mexico - 4,637 observations of Mule Deer
of those 4,301 were Research grade
56 were observed as Rocky Mountain Mule Deer
of those 54 were Research grade

North Dakota - 241 observations of Mule Deer
of those 223 were Research grade
19 were observed as Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (ssp.)
of those 18 were Research grade

Oklahoma - 58 observations of Mule Deer
of those 53 were Research grade
4 were observed as Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (ssp.)
of those 3 were Research grade

Oregon - 8,569 observations of Mule Deer
of those 8,214 were Research grade
2,075 were observed as Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (ssp.)
2,055 were Research graded
4, 253 were observed as Columbian Black-tailed Deer (ssp.
4,144 were Research grade

Oregon's west/east geo-ecological divide is associated with the Casacade Range running north-south through the state with Rocky Mountain Mule Deer to the east side of the Cascade Range and Columbian Black-tailed Deer to the west side. Columbian Black-tailed Deer are seen as far east as The Dalles (along I-84 in "The Gorge" (Columbia River). Rocky Mountain Mule Deer appear in two large geographic clusters: 1) along Highway 97 (running north-south from Madras to La Pine and forming a triangle with Bend/Sisters/Redmond; and 2) eastern Oregon from La Grande to Baker City (I-84) and Highway 82 fro La Grande to Joseph. There are also two clusters of Columbian White-tailed Deer on the west side of the Cascades with 60 total observations (58 Research graded) with one centered around Sutherlin to Roseburg (along I-5) and the other in the northwestern part of Oregon following Columbia River. I did notice some "bleed over" of observations for Columbian White-tailed Deer on the state of Washington side of the Columbia River but counted as Oregon observations ?

South Dakota - 504 observations of Mule Deer
of those 476 were Research grade
19 were observed as Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (ssp.)
of those 19 Research grade

Texas - 1,579 observations of Mule Deer
of those 1,466 were Research grade
37 were observed as Desert Mule Deer (ssp.)
of those 35 were Research grade

Utah - 5,537 observations of Mule Deer
of those 5,321 were Research grade
615 were observed as Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (ssp).
of those 608 were Research grade

Washington - 9,545 observations of Mule Deer
of those 9,032 were Research grade
444 were observed as Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (ssp).
of those 434 were Research grade
7,627 were observed as Columbian Black-tailed Deer (ssp.)
of those 7,453 were Research grade

Similar to Oregon, Washington's geo-ecological divide for east/west with Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (ssp) to the east of the Cascades and then Columbian Black-tailed Deer (ssp) to the west of the Cascades (generally speaking). One exception is this observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/231452695 (Research grade) which I think could be a Northern Rocky Mountains White-tailed Deer sighting in northeastern WA. Columbian Black-tail Deer are also clustered further east along I-84 (similar to Oregon) to Dallesport (WA). There were 246 observations of Columbian White-tailed Deer in WA (same number were Research Grade. There were a few observations that were noted on the Oregon side of the Columbia River in this WA count (geolocation error?)

Wyoming - 2,258 observations of Mule Deer
of those 2,099 were Research Grade
156 were observed as Rocky Mountain Mule Deer (ssp.)
of those 150 were Research graded

Most of the observations for Mule Deer in Wyoming seem to follow the demographic of human presence (cities, towns (e.g, Casper, Laramie, Jackson), tourist destinations, National Parks (e.g., Yellowstone, Grand Tetons). That is: a correlation between iNaturalists concentrated in certain areas and then observations of Mule Deer...that follow as result.

Brief Discussion of iNaturalist data and Mule Deer (and subspecies):

The top 5 states for iNaturalist Mule Deer observations (as of October 3, 2024)
California - 53,249. (25,905 are Columbian Black-tailed Deer)
Colorado - 11,233
Washington 9,549 (7,627 are Columbian Black-tailed Deer)
Oregon 8,569 (4,253 are Columbian Black-tailed Deer)
Utah 5,537

Generally speaking most observations of Mule Deer per state were Research grade level (comparing total observations to to Research grade designation). As example, about 94% of Mule Deer observations (North America) are Research grade. About 98% of Rocky Mountain Mule Deer are Research grade. About 97% of Columbian Black-tailed Deer are Research grade. About 97% of California Mule Deer are Research Grade. These percentages reflect a high degree of quality data (accuracy, precision, completeness, relevance, and appropriateness) and offers a robust iNaturalist observation as biodiversity data for research purposes. Nevertheless, there could the need to review many Research Grade observations where the Mule Deer observation (especially for subspecies) appears to be "out of range" for the respective subspecies, or where several subspecies overlap in distribution in certain geographic areas (e.g., California), or where several pockets of Columbian White-tailed Deer exist so that there is clear identification made based on phenotypic markers rather than geographic location (e.g., Columbian Black-tailed Deer vs. Columbian Black-tailed Deer).

Compared to the populations estimates for Mule Deer (and subspecies) per state (see above), the iNaturalist observational data for Mule Deer per state reflects a less significant number when compared to the population estimates for Mule Deer (and subspecies) per state (see above).

Observational data for Mule Deer in almost all of the respective states seems to follow a heuristic model whereby certain geographic areas with higher density of humans will then correlate with greater numbers of Mule Deer observations. For example, most of the observations for Mule Deer in Wyoming seem to follow the demographic of human presence (cities, towns (e.g, Casper, Laramie, Jackson), tourist destinations, National Parks (e.g., Yellowstone, Grand Tetons). That is: a correlation between iNaturalists concentrated in certain areas and then observations of Mule Deer...that follow as result. The same could be said for Utah - along the Wasatch Front and Wasatch Back. A similar pattern follows for the I-25 corridor in Colorado or centered around the city of Boulder and Estes Park areas. In New Mexico, from Taos to Santa Fe to Albuquerque, and note the high number of observations in Cloudcroft (NM). To some degree, the same demographic connection follows in the states of Oregon and Washington following high density population areas along I-5 corridor (in Oregon see also Bend/Sisters/Redmond area). The one exception to this pattern to where many observations are "spread out" across the state would be California with the exception of the Central Valley area and along I-15 (e.g., Barstow - Baker and surrounding area).

iNaturalist Data for Canada and Baja (island) region - Mexico

Given the recent research presented in the edited book by J. R. Heffelfinger and P. R. Krausman (2023), the observation count for the 4 subspecies (not counting the "mainland Mule Deer") are presented here: Sitka Black-tailed Deer, Columbian Black-tailed Deer, Tiburón Island mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus sheldoni) and Cedros Island mule deer, (Odocoileus hemionus cerrosensis).

Cedros Island mule deer - 9 observtions - all Research grade
Tiburón Island mule deer - 8 observations - all Research grade

Canada
Columbian Black-tailed Deer - 8,601 and 8,315 Research grade
Sitka Black-tailed Deer - 301 observations and 261 Research Grade

General information regarding Mule Deer

World Deer Organization (Mule Deer Population by State
https://worlddeer.org/mule-deer-population-by-state/

Wildlife Informer (Deer Population by State)
https://wildlifeinformer.com/deer-population-by-state/

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)
(https://wafwa.org/publications/) in their 2024 publication:
2024 RANGE-WIDE STATUS OF BLACK-TAILED AND MULE DEER { Mule Deer Working Group Technical Committee} 
https://wafwa.org/wpdm-package/2024-rangewide-status-of-black-tailed-and-mule-deer/

2024 Range Wide Status of Black-Tailed and Mule Deer

Mule Deer Working Group Technical Committee. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Abstract: The purpose of this document is to provide a general overview of the current black-tailed and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) population status and general abundance trends throughout their range in North America. The Mule Deer Working Group (MDWG) consists of representatives from the 24 state, territorial, and provincial agencies that comprise the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). The purpose of the MDWG is to provide a collaborative approach to finding solutions to improve black-tailed and mule deer conservation and management. One of the most common types of information requested of the MDWG is regarding the general population status and trajectory of black-tailed and mule deer populations. Stakeholders are interested in whether mule deer are still declining or in the process of recovering. To provide a quick snapshot of the status of this species, we assembled this information by having each agency MDWG representative provide a current population status, as well as general survey and harvest information for their respective jurisdiction. All states and provinces use very different methods to survey and estimate population parameters and harvest. Some have more rigorous processes than others, based on their resources and management needs. Black-tailed and mule deer populations are below agency goals in most jurisdictions but have been recovering to various degrees for the last 2 decades. Of the 24 WAFWA member agencies, black-tailed and mule deer populations are increasing in 2, stable in 12, and declining in 8 jurisdictions.

Taxonomy and Taxonomic Information

Kingdom Animalia  – Animal, animaux, animals
Subkingdom Bilateria  – triploblasts

Infrakingdom Deuterostomia

Phylum Chordata  – cordés, cordado, chordates

Subphylum Vertebrata  – vertebrado, vertébrés, vertebrates

Infraphylum Gnathostomata

Superclass Tetrapoda

Class Mammalia Linnaeus, 1758 – mammifères, mamífero, mammals

Subclass Theria Parker and Haswell, 1897

Infraclass Eutheria Gill, 1872

Order Artiodactyla Owen, 1848 – artiodactyls, porco do mato, veado, cloven-hoofed
ungulates, even-toed ungulates
Family Cervidae Goldfuss, 1820 – cervids, caribou, deer, moose, wapiti

Subfamily Capreolinae Brookes, 1828

Genus Odocoileus Rafinesque, 1832 – mule deer, white-tailed deer

Species Odocoileus hemionus (Rafinesque, 1817) – mule deer, Venado bura, Mule Deer

Don E. Wilson & DeeAnn M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press, 2,142 pp. (Available from Johns Hopkins University Press, 1-800-537-5487 or (410) 516-6900, or at http://www.press.jhu.edu).

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/

Mule Deer: http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp?s=y&id=14200267

SUBSPECIES hemionus
SUBSPECIES californicus
SUBSPECIES cerrosensis
SUBSPECIES columbianus
SUBSPECIES eremicus
SUBSPECIES fuliginatus
SUBSPECIES inyoensis
SUBSPECIES peninsulae
SUBSPECIES sheldoni
SUBSPECIES sitkensis

Posted on September 4, 2024 11:01 PM by scottdwright