Management Plan for Biology 344, Wildlife Biology.

Presentation

White-tailed Deer:

Maintaining a Healthy Herd

By Kara Nelson and Becky Davis

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us

INTRODUCTION

For over a hundred years, families in the north land have traditionally hunted and admired the white-tailed deer. They were admired by hunters, whom would marvel at their stature and their perseverance to dodge the arrow or the bullet. Others have marveled at their beauty and grace as they bounded through grassy hills to be lost into a forested abyss. It is important to maintain a healthy deer population, both for the health of the ecosystem as well as keeping the traditions alive.

White-tailed deer play a major role in upland forested areas. They help to naturally prune vegetation as well as provide food for predators, like the threatened gray wolf. Over the years, the deer population in the area has been like a rollercoaster. Some years the population will be growing steadily, and in others the long harsh winters take their toll. Hard winters are one of the leading causes of mortality for deer in this area. It receives large amounts of snowfall as well as experiences dangerously low temperatures. Another factor influencing population change is the process of ecological succession. White-tailed deer prefer a variety of habitat conditions, but favor those in earl succession.

It is our goal to improve the habitat conditions in order to effectively manage for white-tailed deer. There is a healthy population of white-tailed deer in the surrounding area, but there has been a decline in the management area. Effective management of the land could influence the current population to move on the management area. We want to maintain a healthy population of the current 13-22 deer/sq. mile. Similarly, improving the habitat will also benefit the ruffed grouse, which shares the same habitat types. Changing the habitat will increase the diversity of vegetation, as well as make it appealing to eco-tourists. This area is rich in wildlife diversity; not only could people visit to see deer, but they could enjoy the array of songbirds in the area. Since the local community is a small town, the eco-tourists could benefit them greatly by bring in more revenue year-round. Management for white-tailed deer would be politically advantageous at both the state and local levels. Many Minnesotans are proud to keep the traditions alive that have been passed down from generation to generation. Others feel accomplished in the fact that they are able to help regulate the white-tailed deer population and bag prized trophies.

LITERATURE REVIEW OF SPECIES LIFE HISTORY

White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

Habitat:
White tailed deer like mixed, even-aged aspen stands. This is one of the reasons that there will be some timber harvest. White tailed deer are an edge species. So openings in the forest will encourage the deer to stay in this area. An animal that will benefit from deer management is the ruffed grouse. Grouse generally occupy the same habitat, and have the same general management practices.

Fig.1: Buck and a Doe	Fig.2: Ruffed Grouse

Range White tailed deer range from far north into Canada to as far south as Mexico. Their home range is about 1/2-1 1/2 square miles (conservation Missouri) depending on viability of vegetation.  Bucks move outside these ranges during rutting season (USDA).
	Fig.3: White-tailed Deer Range

Food
Food for white-tailed deer is the vegetation available from the ground to 4.5 feet. Deer will eat the preferred foods first such as white cedar, dogwoods and maples. Staple foods are for winter sustenance and are especially important because the winters can be harsh. Some of the staple foods that keep the deer healthy and strong are acorns, aspen catkins, and ash. However, if there are no longer preferred or staple foods left, then they will eat starvation foods like spruces, and balsam fir. These have little nutritional value, but fill their stomachs.

Cover
White tailed deer need winter thermal cover to protect them from snow drifts that can very high in this area. Winter thermal cover acts as a windbreak and reduces the wind chill. Cover is also needed for when does are fawning in the spring, and for when the fawn must stay hidden in the tall grasses. Cover is also a protection against predation, allowing them to avoid confrontation with wolves and coyotes.

.

Fig.4: Annual Snowfall for Northome, MN

Reproduction
White tailed deer sexually mature at the age of one year, they have a gestation period of about six to seven months, and bare one to two fawns per year (Wildlife Prairie State Park), and fawns are born in the spring. The mating season is between September though November. During the mating season the bucks go though rut where they can travel many miles out of their home range in search of does. They can live up to be 18 years old in the wild (Riehlman et. al.). 

Fig.5: Resting Fawn

Welfare Factors: Welfare factors are factors that benefit the population and help them survive.

Cover

Protect for snow drift Reduce wind chill Escape from predition
Fig. 8: Winter Thermal Cover	Fig. 9: Fawning	Fig. 10: Bedding/Predation

Decimating Factors:

Decimating factors are any instances where the species is directly killed (Aldo Leopold) such as, predation by wolves and coyotes, hunting, for this area winter severity, diseased like Chronic Wasting Disease, and deer-car collisions.

Predation wolves and coyotes         Fig. 11: Gray Wolf Fig. 12: Coyote

Limiting Factors:

Fig.17: Winter Cover	Fig.18: Staple Food

MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

In the early years of settlement, white-tailed deer were found primarily in the south and central parts of the state. Through logging and settlement for farmlands, the thick forests of the north were made suitable for white-tailed deer habitat (Riehlman et. al.). The early settlers reported that the logging allowed young hardwood forests to grow in northern part of the state, which was mostly made up of pine and spruce forests (USDA).

Before the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, there were no regulations on hunting and the population was reduced (Riehlman et. al.). Back then, regulations were put in place to help the population increase. In the mid 1900’s, the management of white-tailed deer changed from being to increased population size to maintaining or reducing population sizes.

In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, Minnesota hunters primarily killed the first deer they came across. This gave fairly even ratios of bucks, does, and fawns to be 40:30:30 respectively (Halls). In the late 1980’s, Minnesota regulations changed to the antlerless permit system. Minnesota is broken up into 121 different permit areas that are for the different areas of habitat.

The system that Minnesota uses to get their antlerless permits is similar to the technique Wisconsin uses to manage their populations. One of the main differences is that they do not use carrying capacity because they feel that you cannot theoretically calculate it (Lenarz and McAninch). Minnesota uses an "Accounting" model, where they name the fawn births “interest” and the hunting and non-hunting mortality as the “withdrawal.” When a hunter acquires their license, they get an automatic buck license then can apply for an antlerless permit through a lottery. If there is a permit area where there weren’t enough applicants, then the hunters have an option to buy a Deer Management Permit for antlerless only. There are 121 permit areas in Minnesota and the management area is in number 167. The biological carrying capacity of this area is 30-40 deer/sq. mi., and the pre-fawn density is 13-22 deer/sq. mi. (Minnesota DNR).

Fig.19: Pre-Fawning Deer Density

DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA

The management area is located in the very Northwest corner of Itasca County, about an hour northwest of Grand Rapids, MN. The management area is a combination of privately-owned family land that connect to make up a total of approximately 357 acres.

Fig. 20: Minnesota Counties

www.mapgraphics.com

Each section of the property has different vegetative and successional qualities. This could be due to the fact that they have had different owners in the past, and each piece has been managed differently. Starting at the west end of the management area is 64 acres that is owned by Aaron Pehrson, the next 121 acres is Daniel Pehrson’s, extending below the end of his is 80 acres owned by Curtis Nelson, and directly east going north Donny Dale owns 18 acres, Raymond Reitan owns 55 acres and Robert Reitan owns 19 acres.   

Aaron Pehrson Property Characteristics:
The area is predominantly wetlands; it has two ponds which are fed by a small stream. The second pond has a beaver dam on it, which is why it is a pond and not a stream. The surrounding forest is in the climax stage of succession. The area is hard to observe because there are no roads that lead to it and the forest is quite thick. Selective cutting or even clear cutting in some areas would be beneficial.
Dominant Vegetation:

Soils: Mooselake and Lupton Mucky Peats

Daniel Pehrson Property Characteristics:
The area is mainly in the secondary successional stages. The dominant trees are aspen 10-20 years old, but mature maples are common throughout the stands as well as surrounding. There is a small cabin that is located at the far end of the property, as well as a trail that leads up to it. Trails are cut throughout the property that leaves some open areas within dense canopy in the mature hardwood stands.
Dominant Vegetation:

Soils: Suomi Silt Loam 1-8% slopes, Borosaprists

Curtis Nelson Property Characteristics:
The majority of the property is in early secondary succession. The dominant species at the south end of the property are aspen from 1-10 years. Surrounding are all-aged stands of mature sugar maple, white oak, balsam fir and spruces. Trails are cut that go in and around the aspen stand. Bordering the aspen stand is a large wooded swamp area with sedges as well as conifers. The middle of the property is developed and has a pole barn and a cabin. Surrounding is a clear-cut field that had been planted with alfalfa and sweet clovers. Across from the cabin is a trail that cuts into a more secondary successional forest with more mature hardwoods and an open field bordering another swamp and young aspens.
Dominant Vegetation:

Soils: Suomi Silt Loam 1-8% slopes, Mooselake and Lupton Mucky Peats

Raymond Reitan Property Characteristics:
The property is more climax succession; forested areas that aren’t developed are quite thick. The forest is a mixture of deciduous and coniferous, however the conifers tend to group together. Large 100+ year white pines can still be found throughout the woods. A large grassy clearing exists in the middle of the property that has a large garden, shed and various storage areas. 3 buildings are located on the land next to the lakeshore.
Dominant Vegetation:

Soil: Suomi Silt Loam 1-8% slopes

Donny Dale Property Characteristics:
The property is very similar to Raymond’s because it is adjoining on the south side. It also shares the same road that leads to a lakeshore cabin that is surrounded by a grassy clearing.
Dominant Vegetation:

Soil: Suomi Silt Loam 1-8% slopes

Robert Reitan Property Characteristics:
The property is in late subclimatic to climax succession, the woods are dominated by mature hardwoods intermixed with evergreen. Along the road leading to the house are rows of white cedar, balsam fir and spruces. Dominant aspen stands are from 20-40+ years old mixed with sugar maple and white pine. Similar to Raymond’s property, but there are more openings in the forest canopy, and more trails that create corridors throughout.
Dominant Vegetation:

Soil: Suomi Silt Loam 1-8% slopes

Fig. 21: Management Area

(Click on the buttons below to view pictures of the areas)

Soils:
The dominant soils in these properties are respectively the mineral soil suomi silt loam, organic soils mooselake and lupton mucky peats, and borosaprists. All soil series are high in organic matter. Suomi silt loam is actually more clay than silt, the silt is in the upper few inches while clay dominates the rest of the series. Since they are more clay, they are poorly drained soils except suomi which is moderately well-drained. In addition, the organic soils have moderate permeability. All of the soils have high to very high water capacity. The organic soils are characteristic of wetlands like swamps, bogs and ponds.

A wide variety of vegetation can be supported by these types of soils. According to the NRCS soil survey of Itasca County, these soils can support: quaking aspen, American basswood, maples, red oak, balsam fir, white pine, white spruce, white cedar, black ash, black spruce, tamarack, paper birch, grasses and sedges.

Observed Animal Sign:

For full reports click the following links:

	A variety of animals in the area will be influenced by the management plan

SCHEDULE OF MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Year 1

Spring: The first steps in the management plan will emphasize growth and rejuvenation. To start off, we are going to apply an herbicide for weed control around the south trails. The various thistle species have become invasive by overgrowing and competing with valuable legumes like the sweet clovers. In addition, many other forbs are present that are considered to be noxious weeds by the state of Minnesota.

In addition, we will be preparing the "Pine Island Trail" field for grass and legume seeding by discing the soil with a rented plow. Since there is some soil erosion problems on the south trails due to little ground cover, we will also be plowing to prepare for seeding. Forest openings are a critical component of white-tailed deer habitat. They should be developed into permanent open areas that provide good food value. Discing and planting of grasses should be maintained every 5-10 years ("Woodland for Deer" 4).

At the far west end of the property, we will be installing a water control structure for the beaver dam. A few years ago, the property owners blew down the beaver dam. However, since the animals were not eliminated, they rebuilt the dam and the beavers are still actively using it. To maintain water levels and to let some water flow bye the beaver dam a device will be installed to regulate water levels while working with the beavers. The device is designed in such a way that it will not get clogged by debris and will allow for overflow to escape when water levels are high. Ideally, we want to drawdown the beaver pond every 2-5 years to promote more vegetative diversity to help out waterfowl and aquatic animals.

Fig. 24: Plowing	Fig. 25: Clemson Water Control Structure

Summer: Once the seed and tree beds are prepared we will begin our planting and seeding. We will seed the south trails where needed by hand. In addition, we will be planting the "Pine Island" trail with many cool season grasses and legumes; ryegrass, wheat, crimson and white clovers. These grasses will be good to make a nice food plot for the white-tailed deer as well as many grassland birds (Stribling 7). We decided to plant the "Pine Island" trail instead of the open field by the Nelson cabin because the surrounding trees and vegetation would provide good cover to them during the day. Currently, the deer are feeding on the field by the cabin during the nigh. This may be due to the lack of cover and the darkness provides this. Additionally, these types of grasses and legumes grow best in soils with good moisture retention. This food plot is also in an ideal location because the field is on a southeast facing slope. Southeast facing slopes provide good cover especially during the winter when the winds come from the northwest.

Fig. 26: Seeding Planting	Fig. 27: Grass and Legume Seeding

Fall: We will not be doing many management practices during this time because the majority of the work would be done earlier in the year. The trails and the older established fields will be mowed if needed. Mowing will not take place before the fall, so the vegetation can be utilized by grassland birds. The "Pine Island" trail will not be mowed since we have just established it only a few months prior.

Fig. 28: Management Practices Layout - Year 1

Year 2

Fall: There won't be any major management practices taking place this year. The fields and trails will be mowed in late fall, including the first cut for the planted "Pine Island Trail."
	Fig. 29: Mowing with Brush Hog

Year 3 and after

Like the previous year, there will not be any major management practices. The fields and trails will be mowed fields as needed in the late fall. There will be monitoring of vegetation, particularly the shrub layer and weeds. If needed, we will control weeds and re-seed fields and trails if necessary.

Year 5

Winter: The majority of our timber harvesting will take place during early winter. Group selective tree cuts or competition cuts will take place on Raymond, Robert and Donny's Property as well as Aaron Pehrson's property (Fig. 30). Also, on Daniel Pehrson's property we will be doing 1-5 acre small clear-cuts (Fig. 31).

Fig. 32: Management Practices - Year 5

We will be doing selective group cuts because the stands are both mixed age and species. Selectively group cutting would help release trees from over-competition as well as break holes in the canopy cover. The breaks would allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor. This enables more understory vegetation to grow, providing more available food sources for deer between 0-4.5 ft. (Stribling 4).

Clear-cuts are used to set the growth back to the aspen sprouting stage. This promotes rapid regeneration of sprouting vegetation in less than 6 months. We will be doing the small 1-5 acre clear-cuts because white-tailed deer, ruffed grouse and numerous early successional birds respond better to cuts that are between 1-10 acres ("Woodland for Deer" 3). Snags and residual material will be left after the clear-cut. The residual material will result in a denser understory as the forest grows, as opposed to the majority of the growth in the canopy. Snags will also provide good wildlife habitat that may be used for nesting, perching, denning or feeding. Many woodpeckers in the area would greatly benefit from it.

Fig. 33: Clear-cut

Additionally, early successional songbirds will also benefit from the clear-cut management. Some birds require the habitat and their populations start to decline when the forest gets older (Fig. 29). Early successional songbirds require clear-cuts like white-tailed deer. However, many people are concerned with the effect of clear-cutting on the occurrences of brood parasitism. Edge-related effects are minimal in heavily forested land compared to the forest-field landscapes (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 187). Management for early- successional birds is similar to the management of white-tailed deer. There are three critical things to consider when managing for these songbirds. The first is maintaining a significant amount of permanent forest openings, shrub-swamp wetlands and trees in the 1-10 year age class. Secondly, the forest opening should occur in a wide variety of sizes, greater than 0.5 ha. Lastly, frequent re-entry period in certain places and having them near existing permanent openings like power lines, old fields and old burns (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 188).

Fig. 34: Early-successional bird species - habitat preferences

In addition to all of the ecological benefits, the owners may also be able to make a profit off of timber sales. However, we will be releasing the trees pre-commercially, so they may not be able to make as much money as if they had waited much longer. Despite harvesting them prematurely, there are many auctions in the area that could enhance the economic gain.

Year 10

Winter: We will be doing timber harvesting on the youngest stands of the management area. The Nelson property was the last one harvested of the different land blocks. White-tailed deer and ruffed grouse prefer a habitat with aspen stands of multiple ages ("Woodland for Deer 9). There should be parts with 1-10 year aspen, 10-20 year aspen, and 40 year aspen. We staggered our timber harvesting because of this. We will be doing scattered 1-5 acre clear-cuts on the south trails of the Nelson property. The stand is actually about 20 acres of even-aged aspen, but we will only be making smaller clear-cuts to also benefit the other songbirds in the area. In addition, we will be doing selective single-tree cuts throughout the Nelson property. The single-tree method will be used because the stands surrounding the aspen and throughout the property are mixed specie stands. However, the canopy cover isn't as thick as the east side of the management area, so single-tree would be the best method to control competition. The breaks in the canopy will also allow more sunlight to penetrate the forest floor, enabling ground vegetation regeneration.

BUDGET

Table 1: Year 1 Management Costs

Table 2: Year 5 Management Costs

Table 3: Year 10 Mangement Costs

The total cost is relatively inexpensive when divided among the property owners. Additionally, the management practices will costs less due to the fact that they will be able to implement this plan themselves. They will not have to hire additional help to do the practices. Other equipment costs can also be absorbed by the property owners because they own many tools and machines that can implement the techniques involved. If the property owners need assistance with the economic aspect of their plan, they could contact their local Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) representative. They have a cost-share program funded by the government called the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). Depending on the property, the NRCS tells which management techniques to use and will pay for the majority of the costs while the owner is on contract to manage the land for a fixed period of time. All of the management practices used in this plan could potentially be paid for by the NRCS if the property owners were to apply for the program.  

EXPANDED MANAGEMENT PLAN

White-tailed deer are not migratory animals like the mule deer; however, they still can cover some miles in their home range. Ideally it would be best to implement management plans on larger amounts of land to effectively manage for white-tailed deer as well as the various animals that share the area. Surrounding the management area are large, open, grassy fields that are mowed frequently. Additionally, there are two other smaller lakes nearby called, Nesseth Lake and Bergville Lake. Surrounding the grassy fields and lakes are large areas of mixed specie hardwood stands and even-aged aspen stands. Managing the area for diversity would require the manipulation of all the different habitat types.

Fig. 37: Expanded Management Area

The grassy fields should be plowed and planted with native cool season grasses and legumes. Additionally, the surrounding trees should be cut so that the boundaries around the fields are more rectangular than an irregular shape. The rectangular shape would provide less edge, making it safer for the grassland birds. If both of these were done, it would provide excellent habitat and food for grassland birds as well as white-tailed deer. After the grasses have been established, they should not be mowed before July 15 so that the grassland birds will have a better chance for reproduction and survival. This will also provide good browse for the deer going into the winter.

Buffers including native shrubs and wetland vegetation should be planted around the nearby lakes. They could effectively filter out excess nutrients that may otherwise end up in the lakes. There is a sheep farm that borders the Bergville Lake. About 7 years ago I conducted a series of water quality tests and found a significant contamination of the lake by the sheep farm. If a buffer was planted around the lake, it would allow the vegetation to absorb the excess nutrients that would normally get into the lake. These buffers could increase the water quality and increase the attractiveness as a habitat for wetland animals, including waterfowl.

Additionally, the surrounding forestland should be properly maintained. They should be harvested on a cutting cycle or rotation depending on the type of stands present. Allowing the forest to become old-growth would actually deplete the ecosystem of wildlife and vegetative diversity. The animals in the area need a wide variety of vegetation and different tree age classes. Providing the varied amount of vegetation will not only help promote white-tailed deer grazing, but provide habitat for a greater number of animals.

Ecotourism
We want to attract the public’s attention to not only bring revenue to the small town nearby, but to also bring attention to the species of animals that flourish in the surrounding area. The small community of about 230 residents near the property is called, Northome. Northome has the basics of a small town such as a post office, bank, grocery store, and a hardware store where you can get almost anything. About half a mile north in the summer there is the Koochiching County Fair that can have a booth or presentation area telling about Northome and what it has to offer tourists as well as the local communities surrounding Northome. Ecotourism could greatly benefit the community economically because the medium income is around $25,000/year and the average home value is $32,000. 

Island Lake is a large lake that is next to the management area, and close to the local community. This lake is good for both ice and open-water fishing. Recently, the lake has been good for walleye pike, northern pike, perch, sunfish, and eelpout. In addition, there are public camping sites located on the island in the middle of the lake year round. Some local residents capitalize off of the lake with resorts and restaurants residing on the lake.

There are many activities and history that many attract ecotourists to the area. We thought that some people might want to take a hike on a trail called, the Old 46, that connects to a series of state-owned trails. We could establish a historical marker about two miles before the property in either direction as well as at major highway intersection that leads to Bemidji and Grand Rapids. On the trail, we would put up historical markers for the Old 46 that would tell the history about its use at the turn of the century. We would also have plaques on the other trails identifying the animals that are seen there and their biology. There are many songbirds in the area that could attract all sorts of birders. These trails can be used for hiking, mountain biking, snowshoeing, and Nordic skiing. In addition, the trails could be used by the local education system and community for environmental education and awareness. 

Table 4: Ecotourism Activities

CONCLUSION

The white-tailed deer is almost a symbol to the Midwest. Whether you are driving down the road, watching for wildlife or actively hunting, you are bound to notice them and admire their beauty. The northland of Minnesota is deeply rooted in the traditions of hunting and gathering. The loss of the white-tailed deer in the area would not only mean the loss of a species, but the loss of tradition. However, the surrounding area is filled with a healthy population of deer. The property owners of the management area have been noticing a decline in the number of deer in their area compared to the surrounding areas. By implementing forest management techniques and managing forest openings, we could increase the attractiveness of the area to the surrounding white-tailed deer population. Managing a healthy deer herd requires two main components though, managing the habitat and reducing the herd size every year. Managing the herd size benefits the ecosystem so that overgrazing of vegetation and starvation are not problems. Additionally, effective habitat management of the various habitat types will provide for a diversity of animals that share the land with the white-tailed deer. With the proper management, white-tailed deer, songbirds, grassland birds, and wetland animals can all share the same area and benefit from the management practices.

www.coryi.org

LITERATURE CITED

Berner, Dr. Alfred. Winter Cover. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2001.

Conservation Commission of Missouri. White-Tailed Deer - (Odocoileus virginianus). 12 August 2004. Online. 10 October 2005.

DeGraaf, Richard M. and Mariko Yamasaki. "Options for managing early-successionall forest and shrubland bird habitats in the northeastern United States." Forest Ecology and Management 185, 2003: 179-191. Online. 6 December 2005.

Halls, Lowell K. White Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management. Harrisburg, PA. Stackpole books. 1984, 394-396.

Hinderland Who’s Who. “White-tailed Deer.” Online. 4 November 2005.

Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy. "Representative Species Lists." Online. 5 December 2005.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. "Wildife habitat fact sheets." Online. 5 December 2005.

Lenarz, M.S. and J.B. McAninch. 1994. White-tailed deer population monitoring and management in Minnesota.  Pages 95-106 in Summary of Wildlife Research Findings 1994. B. Joselyn, editor. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. “Forest Foods Deer Eat.” Online. 4 November 2005.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2003 Minnesota Deer Harvest Report.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Managing your Brushland for Wildlife.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota and Federal Prohibited and Noxious Plants. December 1999.

Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service. Managing your Woodland for White-tailed Deer. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Guide Sheet. January 2003.

Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service. Ruffed Grouse. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Guide Sheet. October 2001.

Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service. Upland Wildlife Habitat Management. Conservation Practice Standard. August 2005.

Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service. Wetland Enhancement. Conservation Practice Standard. April 1999.

Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service. Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management. Conservation Practice Standard. March 2001.

Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program Provisions. Conservation Programs Manual. 2005.

Noble Foundation. White-Tailed Deer: Their Foods & Management in the Cross Timbers. Online. 4 November 2005.

Ohio Division of Wildlife. “Life History Notes: White-tailed Deer.” Online. 4 Novemeber 2005.

Pearson, Carol W. Planning for the Birds: Things to consider when managing your forest. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1998.

Riehlman, Suprock, and William Hesselton. White-tailed Deer Population Management. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Sather, Nancy. The Uncommon Ones: Minnesota’s Endangered Plants and Animals. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1989.

Summary Wolves and Wolf Management 2001. 2002 Minnesotans for Sustainability. Online.

Stribling, H. Lee. “White-Tailed Deer Management.” ANR-521. Alabama Cooperative Extension System. Online. 4 November 2005.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Managing Forests for Fish and Wildlife. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet, Number 18. December 2002.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. White-tailed Deer Management. Alabama Guide Sheet No. Al 645A. January 1999.