(DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
Species Id ESIS051001
Date 14 MAR 96
TAXONOMY
NAME - DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
OTHER COMMON NAMES - DEER, WHITE-TAILED and COLUMBIAN; WHITETAIL; FLAGTAIL; FANTAIL;MOWITCH
ELEMENT CODE -
CATEGORY - Mammals
PHYLUM AND SUBPHYLUM - CHORDATA,
CLASS AND SUBCLASS - MAMMALIA,
ORDER AND SUBORDER - ARTIODACTYLA,
FAMILY AND SUBFAMILY - CERVIDAE,
GENUS AND SUBGENUS - ODOCOILEUS,
SPECIES AND SSP - VIRGINIANUS, LEUCURUS
SCIENTIFIC NAME - ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANUS LEUCURUS
AUTHORITY -
TAXONOMY REFERENCES -
COMMENTS ON TAXONOMY -
Columbian White-tailed Deer
Odocoileus virginianus leucurus (Douglas, 1829)
KINGDOM: Animal GROUP: Mammal
PHYLUM: Chordata CLASS: Mammalia
ORDER: Artiodactyla FAMILY: Cervidae
White-tailed deer are generally distinguished from mule or
black-tailed deer by their longer tail that is brown rather than black
on the dorsal surface, a smaller metatarsal gland, and, in adult
males, antlers with prongs arising from a single main beam (01). The
Columbian white-tail is one of the large subspecies with "antlers
narrowly spreading and curving steeply upward; upperparts dull in
general tone, . . . with grizzled pattern approaching Sayal Brown; top
of head grizzled, the individual hairs near Mars Brown with buffy
tips; tail varying from Cinnamon Buff to Tawny dorsally, terminating
in a small, partially concealed, subterminal patch, and broadly
fringed with white above and pure white to tip below; outer and more
exposed surfaces of legs to base of hoofs near Sayal Brown." (02).
The Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus)
is one of 38 recognized subspecies of O. virginianus (05). The
following is a list of synonyms found in the literature:
Taxonomy - 1 (DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
Species Id ESIS051001
Date 14 MAR 96
Odocoileus virginianus Rafinesque, 1832 (=Dama/Zimmerman 1780)
(01).
Cervus leucurus Douglas, Zool. Jour. 4:330, 1829 (13).
Odocoileus virginianus leucurus (Douglas, 1829) (14).
Odocoileus leucurus Thompson, Forest and Stream 51:286, Oct. 8,
1898 (14).
Odocoileus virginianus leucurus Lydekker, Cat. Ung. Mamm. British
Mus. 4:162, 1915 (14).
Dama virginiana leucura Hall & Kelson, 1959, Mammals of North
America, Ronald Press. 1010 pp.
Other common names for the Columbian white-tailed deer are
whitetail, flagtail, fantail, and the Indian word mowitch (13).
The type specimens of Columbian white-tails collected by David
Douglas are supposedly deposited in the British Museum in London.
Correspondence received in 1977 indicated they did not have or could
not find these specimens. Current photographs of Columbian
white-tails can be found in Gavin, 1984 (03) and Gavin et al., 1984
(04). A complete collection of skulls from both the lower Columbia
River and Roseburg populations are on deposit at the American Museum
of Natural History in New York City.
Taxonomy - 2 (DRAFT) - Status
Species DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
Species Id ESIS051001
Date 14 MAR 96
STATUS
Coded Status
E: Federal Endangered
Pest
Commercial
Commercial/consumption
Game (Consumptive Recreational)
COMMENTS ON STATUS -
U.S. STATUSES AND LAWS:
The Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus)
has been designated an Endangered species pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (50 CFR 17.11; P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884;
16 U.S.C. 1531-1540), as amended. The subspecies has this status
wherever found including the States of Oregon and Washington.
This subspecies is protected by the Lacey Act (P.L. 97-79, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) which makes it unlawful to import,
export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any wild animal
(alive or dead including parts, products, eggs, or offspring):
(1) in interstate or foreign commerce if taken, possessed,
transported or sold in violation of any State law or
regulation; or
(2) if taken or possessed in violation of any U.S. law,
treaty, or regulation or in violation of Indian tribal law.
It is also unlawful to possess any wild animal (alive or dead
including parts, products, eggs, and offspring) within the U.S.
territorial or special maritime jurisdiction (as defined in
18 U.S.C. 7) that is taken, possessed, transported, or sold in
violation of any State law or regulation, foreign law, or Indian
tribal law.
RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCIES:
USFWS -Responsible for the management/recovery, listing, and
law enforcement/protection of this species.
All Federal agencies have responsibility to ensure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of Critical Habitat (50 CFR 402),
and to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the
conservation of the species.
STATE STATUSES AND LAWS:
Status - 1 (DRAFT) - Status
Species DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
Species Id ESIS051001
Date 14 MAR 96
STATE: Oregon and Washington
DESIGNATED STATUS: Endangered
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: OR Department of Fish and Wildlife,
WA Department of Game.
STATE STATUTE: OR, Oregon Administrative Rules, Ch. 635, Div. 7;
OR Revised Statutes 496.002-498.029,
506.001-506.518, and 610.002-610.060.
WA, Title 77, Revised Code of Washington (in
particular RCWA 77.16.040, 77.16.120 Game Code of
Washington); WAC 232-12-014 June 1, 1981.
INTERNATIONAL STATUSES, TREATIES, AND AGREEMENTS:
The IUCN Red Data Book (1982) lists this subspecies as "out of
danger".
ECONOMIC STATUSES:
The Columbian white-tailed deer was once hunted for sport and
food. The meat also may have been sold commercially (See field
N-REASON). The Columbian white-tailed deer, as with other
white-tailed deer, can become a local pest by depradating croplands
(05).
67/03/11:32 FR 04001/ - Listed as Endangered
79/05/21:44 FR 29566/29577 - Five year review
85/06/22:50 FR 29901/29909 - Five year review
Status - 2 HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS
HABITAT - TERRESTRIAL
TERRESTRIAL
INLAND AQUATIC
LAND USE -
Cropland and Pasture
Deciduous Forest Land
Mixed Forest Land
Forested Wetland
Nonforested Wetland
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY CODES
NWI NWICLS NWIMOD NWISPEC
Palustrine EM1
Palustrine SS1
Palustrine FO1
Riverine, lower perennial
Riverine, tidal
COMMENTS ON HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS -
Along the Columbia River, Columbian white-tails are found only in
riparian habitats and on islands in the Columbia River. Most of the
bottomland habitat on the Columbia River has an elevation of about 3 m
above sea level and is diked and crisscrossed with numerous sloughs
and drainage ditches. These bottomland and island habitats are
subject primarily to tidal influence and also riverine influence
(i.e., flooding) (05).
The only research on this animal's habitat preferences in this
region was conducted on the Columbian White-tailed Deer NWR. Results
of that work indicated that these deer preferred to feed in pastures
that had been grazed by cattle (04), but they utilized woodlots on the
refuge for cover. Woodlots were comprised primarily of Sitka spruce
(Picea sitchensis), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), red alder
(Alnus rubra), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and red-osier
dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) (04). Several species of blackberries
(Rubus spp.), rose (Rosa spp.), and herbaceous plants typical of
pasture mixes (e.g., fescue, ryegrass, foxtail, trefoil) dominated the
open areas (04). Common invaders of wet sites include reed canary
grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and water foxtail (Alopecurus
geniculatus) (05). Plant communities on the refuge that were
apparently preferred were open canopy forest, park forest, and those
dominated by Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) (06).
It is important to realize that this population was quite dense
prior to the establishment of the refuge. At that time, cattle
grazing and haying were intense adjacent to the small, scattered
woodlots in the area (04). Although the refuge represents an
artificial situation in that the original habitat was greatly altered
by man, the resulting mixture and distribution of wooded to non-wooded
habitats is apparently beneficial to the deer. Columbian white-tails
found on islands containing natural vegetation do not obtain
population densities nearly as high as that on the refuge. Therefore,
refuge deer have flourished where some optimum combination of wooded
and agricultural lands are interspersed, but the land use patterns
throughout much of the deer's original range must encompass a ratio of
cleared to wooded acreage that is not acceptable habitat. Presumably,
additional clearing on the refuge would be detrimental to this
Habitat Associations - 1 population. On the other hand, additional clearing on wooded islands
containing Columbian white-tails might result in increased densities
up to some limit.
In the Roseburg area of southern Oregon, Columbian white-tails
inhabit a more xeric environment than along the Columbia River (07).
Of 10 habitat types described in this area, grass-shrub, oak-savanna,
open oak, closed oak, riparian, and conifer habitats were used
significantly more than expected (07). Oregon white oak (Quercus
garryana), California black oak (Q. kelloggii), poison oak (Rhus
diversiloba), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), and Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) were the dominant woody species in these
habitats (07). Hedgehog dogtail (Cynosurus echinatus), medusahead
(Taeniatherum asperum), California oatgrass (Danthonia californica),
orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), perennial ryegrass (Lolium
perenne), velvet-grass (Holcus lanatus), and common rush (Juncus
effusus) were dominant herbaceous plants in certain of these habitat
types preferred by Columbian white-tails (07).
White-tailed deer are found in an incredible variety of habitats
in North and South America. No specific environmental parameter
appears to be required by this species. That is, required parameters
must be quite broad and, therefore, rarely limiting.
Agricultural uses in the habitat area may include crops such as
corn, summer fallow, hay and pasture.
Habitat Associations - 2 (DRAFT) - Food Habits
Species DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
Species Id ESIS051001
Date 14 MAR 96
FOOD HABITS
TROPHIC LEVEL -
HERBIVORE
LIFESTAGE FOOD FOOD PART
General
General Forb Flowers/Fruit/Seed
General Deciduous Shrubs-Leaves/Twigs
General Deciduous Shrubs-Flowers/Fruit/Seed
General Deciduous Trees-Leaves/Twigs
General Poaceae
General Forb Leaves/Stems
Food Habits - 1 (DRAFT) - Environment Associations
Species DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
Species Id ESIS051001
Date 14 MAR 96
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G = General A = Adult
LIM = Limiting RA = Resting Adult
J = Juvenile FA = Feeding Adult
RJ = Resting Juvenile BA = Breeding Adult
FJ = Feeding Juvenile P = Pupae
L = Larvae E = Egg
RL = Resting Larvae
FL = Feeding Larvae
LIFESTAGE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G Coastal Features: Vegetated offshore islands
G
Environment Associations - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
Species Id ESIS051001
Date 14 MAR 96
LIFE HISTORY
FOOD HABITS:
Columbian white-tails are entirely herbivorous. They select
leaves, flowers, buds, nuts, seeds, and fruits of a wide variety of
plants. On the Columbian White-tailed Deer NWR, white-tails were
observed grazing more on herbaceous vegetation than browsing on woody
plants (06). Analysis of rumen contents indicated that during the
mid-1970's white-tails on the refuge consumed browse, forbs, and
grasses in the following percentages: 24%, 17%, and 59%, respectively
(04). Dublin (08) found, however, that refuge white-tails preferred
browse and forbs, but not grasses, relative to what was available
during 1978-1979.
Columbian white-tails were observed actually feeding on the
following plants during 1974-1976: Rubus spectabilis, R. laciniatus,
R. discolor, R. ursinus, Ranunculus repens, Alopecurus geniculatus,
Thuja plicata, Phalaris arundinacea, Sambucus racemosa, Lonicera
involucrata, Fraxinus latifolia, Trifolium sp., Symphoricarpus alba,
and unknown species of Gramineae (09).
HOME RANGE/TERRITORY:
White-tailed deer are generally thought not to be territorial,
but there is some evidence that female Columbian white-tails may be
territorial (04). These deer are very sedentary throughout the year,
are nonmigratory, and occupy home ranges that average about 159 ha for
females and 192 ha for males (04). Sizes of home ranges for
white-tails in the Roseburg population were comparable to those along
the Columbia River (07). Home range size and shape changed little
throughout the year, except that adult males increased their movements
during the breeding season in November.
PERIODICITY:
Columbian white-tails were most active during evening and early
night (09). They avoided coming into the open during the heat of
summer afternoons or during periods of extreme cold and rain (09).
MIGRATION PATTERNS:
Members of this subspecies of white-tailed deer are not
migratory (09).
COVER/SHELTER REQUIREMENTS:
Absolute quantities or structural components of cover needed by
white-tails are not known. Generally, they seem to require permanent
vegetation cover (usually woody) near feeding areas (09). These areas
used for cover can be quite small (e.g., < 5 ha). Large blocks of
grassland are not significantly utilized by Columbian white-tails
except within 25 m of escape cover (05).
REPRODUCTIVE SITE REQUIREMENTS:
Again, no special requirements needed here. Females give birth
to fawns where there is some ground cover for concealing the young
(09). This may be in wooded areas or in fields containing dense
stands of grass, thistles, etc.
Life History - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
Species Id ESIS051001
Date 14 MAR 96
REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS:
Columbian white-tailed deer did not exhibit reproductive
characteristics significantly different than white-tails in general.
There was no evidence that female fawns bred and, therefore, age of
first reproduction for females was 1 1/2 years of age (04). Age of
first reproduction for males is not known; maximum age of breeding for
either sex is unknown. Females were receptive to males beginning in
November, with some females not breeding until December or even later
(09). Females breed once a year and have a gestation period of about
7 months, while males breed with as many females as possible (10).
Males apparently remain with a mate for 1 day or less before moving on
to locate another female in estrous. Females give birth to 1-2 fawns
in early summer (04).
PARENTAL CARE:
In this species, only females provide care to the young. Fawns
are nursed and groomed 2-3 times per day for the first few months of
life. Young are somewhat precocial, but remain secretive until 3-4
months old. Fawns remain with their mothers until just prior to the
following year's parturition, when the previous year's fawns are
forced by their dam to leave (10). Female fawns usually return to
become part of the female social group after their dam's new fawns are
2-3 months old; male fawns do not return (10).
POPULATION BIOLOGY:
Over its entire range, malnutrition, road kills, coyote
predation, and bacterial infections are probably the limiting factors
for Columbian white-tails (04,07). Population density on the refuge
remained remarkably stable during a 5-year period in the 1970's, but
higher mortality among males than among females resulted in a skewed
sex ratio among adults of about 3 females:1 male (04). Estimates of
the median age at death for males and females on the refuge were 3
years and 5 years respectively; in Roseburg, comparable estimates for
males and females were 1.7 and 2.2 years (07,10). On the refuge,
density ranged from 22-30 deer/square km during 1975-1976 (10).
SPECIES INTERRELATIONSHIPS:
Hybridization of Columbian white-tailed deer with Columbian
black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) has been
documented (11,12,15). However, the resulting influence of this
hybridization, both historically and at present, is uncertain.
A 1978-79 survey discovered that 31% of presumed O. v. leucurus
observed on the mainland refuge displayed hybrid tendencies,
principally in the coloration and structure of the tail, though many
deviated only slightly from typical O. v. leucurus (11). Hybidization
with sympatric Columbian black-tailed deer (O. hemionus columbianus)
appears to be a principal threat (12). No deer showing hybrid
characteristics were observed on Puget or Wallace Islands (11). A
hybridization study carried out by the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife from 1969-72 showed that O. v. leucurus and O. h. columbianus
were capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring (11).
More recently, Gavin and May (15, in press) studied the genetic
Life History - 2 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
Species Id ESIS051001
Date 14 MAR 96
purity of a Columbian white-tailed deer subpopulation. They found
evidence of the introgression of Columbian black-tailed deer genes
into the white-tailed population. No F1 hybrids were found.
OTHER LIFE HISTORY DESCRIPTORS:
None.
Life History - 3 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
Species Id ESIS051001
Date 14 MAR 96
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
RESULT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Adverse
Adverse Commercial Exploitation
Adverse Flooding
Adverse Harvesting
Adverse Hybridization
Adverse Rural Residential/Industrial Areas
Adverse Shoreline modification/development
Adverse Subsistence Hunting/Fishing/Trapping
Adverse Vegetation Composition Changes
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Agricultural Practice
Beneficial Restricting Timber Harvest
Beneficial Transplanting wild animals
Beneficial Controlling/Removing Domestic Animals
Beneficial Maintaining undisturbed/undeveloped areas
Beneficial Land Acquisition
Beneficial Restricting/regulating human use of habitats
Beneficial Maintaining Early Stages of Succession
Beneficial Restricting Poaching
Beneficial Developing/maintaining/protecting wetlands
Existing
Existing Commercial Exploitation
Existing Flooding
Existing Harvesting
Existing Hybridization
Existing Rural Residential/Industrial Areas
Existing Shoreline modification/development
Existing Subsistence Hunting/Fishing/Trapping
Existing Vegetation Composition Changes
COMMENTS ON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES -
Columbian white-tailed deer were apparently distributed
originally in the Pacific Northwest only along several major river
bottoms and their tributaries. Therefore, the distribution of these
deer was always limited and restricted to a rather narrow zone. It
was this same zone that was probably first settled by pioneers in this
region and the zone most densely settled by people (e.g., Willamette
Valley in Oregon). Alteration of habitat for agriculture, which
primarily involved removal of woody cover, presumably contributed to a
reduction in population size. It is probably that hunting these deer
for food and possibly for commercial sale of meat accentuated this
decline. There is no actual documentation that these events were the
cause of this deer's decline, but this scenario seems reasonable
given the history of development in this region and our knowledge of
the animal. At present, the lower Columbia River populations would be
adversely affected by severe flooding of the Columbia River, an event
which could occur after an eruption of Mt. St. Helens. River flow,
which is controlled by several large dams on the Columbia upriver from
Columbian white-tail populations, is a potentially important variable.
Management Practices - 1 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
Species Id ESIS051001
Date 14 MAR 96
The Roseburg population is found on upland sites, but brush clearing
on several large sheep ranches in this area continues to be a threat
to maintenence of a viable white-tail population (05).
The greatest future threats to the Columbia River populations are
flooding, the potential of some epizootic disease, and hybridization
with Columbian black-tailed deer. Habitat alteration is still the
greatest threat to the Roseburg population.
The primary objective of the Columbian White-tailed Deer Recovery
Plan is to restore and maintain the two known populations in secure,
protected habitats. Criteria for downlisting and delisting both
populations have been established. If the Columbia River population
is maintained at a level of at least 400 deer in three viable
populations of which two are in secured habitats, declassifying to
Threatened may be considered. This population may be delisted if the
criteria for declassifying and maintaining the Tenasillahe Island
subpopulation with at least 50 deer are met. If the Roseburg
population is maintained at a viable level of at least 1000 and its
habitat is kept from further deterioration, this population may be
considered for downlisting to Threatened. In addition to the above
criteria for downlisting, if a minimum population of 500 are
maintained in 5,500 acres of secure, suitable habitat (within the
Umpqua Basin of Douglas County, OR), delisting may be considered.
The recovery activities necessary to accomplish the primary
objective are:
1. Annually assess the viability of each extant subpopulation.
2. Ensure viability of extant populations by enforcing laws and
regulations (especially against poaching), developing and
implementing management plans, securing habitats (through land
acquisition, zoning, land use planning, easements, cooperative
agreements, etc.), and assessing hybridization with black-tailed
deer. Unplanned development could reduce habitat in both
occupied habitats and areas suitable for reintroduction. The
management plans should address intensity and seasonal
distribution of cattle grazing, haying, pasture renovation, and
water management (dikes, tide gates, drainage ditches, etc.)
Land owners should be encouraged to participate in beneficial
land practices (i.e., save remaining wood vegetation and
restricting timber harvesting). Much of the key Columbian
white-tailed deer habitat is protected from floods by levees.
These need to be protected and maintained to prevent high water
from restricting deer distribution, extent of woody vegetation
and diseases such as foot rot.
3. Establish new subpopulations for the Columbia River population
through capture and release on selected habitats within the
species' historical range.
4. Implement a public information and education program by providing
expertise to prevent habitat losses; information on conservation
and restoration efforts to the media and public; and bulletins,
lectures and observation facilities.
Management Practices - 2 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
Species Id ESIS051001
Date 14 MAR 96
APPROVED PLAN:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Columbian White-tailed Deer
Recovery Plan, First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Portland, OR. 75 pp.
Management Practices - 3 (DRAFT) - References
Species DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
Species Id ESIS051001
Date 14 MAR 96
References
***** REFERENCES FOR ALL NARRATIVES EXCEPT N-OCCURRENCE *****
01 Baker, R.H. 1984. Origin, classification and distribution. Pages
1-18. IN: White-tailed deer: Ecology and management. L.K.
Halls, ed. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.
02 Kellogg, R. 1956. What and where are the whitetails? Pages
31-35. IN: The deer of North America. W.P. Taylor, ed.
Stackpole Company, Harrisburg, PA.
03 Gavin, T.A. 1984. Pacific Northwest. Pages 487-496. IN:
White-tailed deer: Ecology and management. L.K. Halls, ed.
Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.
04 Gavin, T.A., L.S. Suring, P.A. Vohs, Jr., and E.C. Meslow. 1984.
Population characteristics, spatial organization, and natural
mortality in the Columbian white-tailed deer. Wildlife Monogr.
No. 91. 41 pp.
05 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Columbian White-tailed Deer
Recovery Plan, First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Portland, OR. 75 pp.
06 Suring, L.S. and P.A. Vohs, Jr. 1979. Habitat use by Columbian
white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 43:610-619.
07 Smith, W.P. 1981. Status and habitat use of Columbian
white-tailed deer in Douglas County, Oregon. Ph.D. Thesis, Oregon
State University, Corvallis. 273 pp.
08 Dublin, H.T. 1980. Relating deer diets to forage quality and
quantity: The Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus
leucurus). M.S. Thesis, Univ. Washington, Seattle. 135 pp.
09 Gavin, T.A. Personal observation. Assistant Professor, Wildlife
Ecology, Department of Natural Resources, Fernow Hall, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY 14853
10 Gavin, T.A. 1979. Population ecology of the Columbian
white-tailed deer. Ph.D. Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis.
149 pp.
11 Davison, M.A. 1979. Columbian white-tailed deer: Status and
potential on off-refuge habitat. Wash. Game Dept. Completion
Report, Project E-1, Study 2, Jobs 3-5. 66 pp.
12 IUCN. 1982. The IUCN Mammal Red Data Book. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland. Pages 469-472.
13 Bailey, V. 1936. The mammals and life zones of Oregon. U.S.
Dept. of Agric., Bureau of Biol. Survey, North Am. Fauna No. 55.
416 pp.
14 Dalquist, W.W. 1948. Mammals of Washington. Univ. of Kansas
Publication, Mus. of Nat. History. Vol. 2. 444 pp.
15 Gavin, T.A. and B. May. [In press] Taxonomic status and genetic
purity of the Columbian white-tailed deer, an endangered
subspecies. J. Wildl. Mgmt.
***** REFERENCES FOR N-OCCURRENCE NARRATIVE ONLY *****
01 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Columbian White-tailed Deer
Recovery Plan, First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
References - 1 (DRAFT) - References
Species DEER, WHITE-TAILED, COLUMBIAN
Species Id ESIS051001
Date 14 MAR 96
Portland, OR. 75 pp.
02 Davison, M.A. 1979. Columbian white-tailed deer: Status and
potential on off-refuge habitat. Wash. Game Dept. Completion
Report, Project E-1, Study 2, Jobs 3-5. 66 pp.
03 Tabor, James E. September 1977. Personal communication. Former
employee of Washington Game Department.
04 Smith, W.P. 1981. Status and habitat use of Columbian
white-tailed deer in Douglas County, Oregon. Ph.D. Thesis, Oregon
State University, Corvallis. 273 pp.
05 Thwaites, R.G., ed. 1905. Original journals of the Lewis and
Clark expedition, 1804-1806. Vol.4. Dodd, Mead, and Co., New
York. 363 pp.
06 Douglas, D. 1829. Observations on two undescribed species of
North American mammalia (Cervus leucurus et Ovis californianus).
Zoological Journal 4:330-332.
07 Douglas, D. 1914. Journal kept by David Douglas during his
travels in North America, 1823-1827. W. Wesley and Son, London.
364 pp.
08 Allen, G.M. 1942. Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Western
Hemisphere with the marine species of all the oceans. American
Committee for International Wild Life Protection. Special
Publication Number 11. 620 pp.
References - 2