(DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
TAXONOMY
NAME - DEER, KEY
OTHER COMMON NAMES - DEER, KEY; DEER, KEY and FLORIDA
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, CLAVIUM
SCIENTIFIC NAME - ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANUS CLAVIUM
AUTHORITY -
TAXONOMY REFERENCES -
COMMENTS ON TAXONOMY -
Key Deer
Odocoileus virginianus clavium Barbour and Allen, 1922
KINGDOM: Animal GROUP: Mammal
PHYLUM: Chordata CLASS: Mammalia
ORDER: Artiodactyla FAMILY: Cervidae
The Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) is the smallest
race of Virginia white-tailed deer found in the United States (01,02).
Dickson (1955) reported weights of mature Key deer ranging from 55 to
approximately 110 pounds (04), although recent extremes up to
approximately 127 pounds (adult male) have been recorded (05).
Klimstra et al. (1974) found the average weight of an adult male to be
about 80 pounds and adult female about 63 pounds (03). The average
adult shoulder height ranges, with considerable variation, from about
24 to 26 inches (02). There is a significant overlap in size between
Key deer and the race of white-tailed deer (O. v. osceola) occurring
in southern Florida (04). However, a Key deer can be distinguished
from all mainland subspecies by the smaller size of its teeth (type
specimen, 67 mm), resulting in a shorter tooth row than that of
mainland deer (01,04,06). In addition; the dorsal interorbital width
of the Key deer is generally greater, and the over-all skull length
Taxonomy - 1 (DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
smaller, than that of O. v. osceola (04,06). As a result, Key deer
often appear to have a shorter and broader ("blunter") head compared
to mainland deer (06).
The Key deer is sometimes referred to as the Florida Key deer
(02), and there are apparently few variations in terms of scientific
nomenclature. O. v. clavium was first described by Barbour and Allen
(1922) on the basis of smaller teeth and shorter tooth row length
(01). Hall and Kelson (1959) used the scientific name Dama virginiana
clavia. The type specimen is an adult male from Big Pine Key
(specimen #19120, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University,
Cambridge, MA) (01,04).
Taxonomy - 2 (DRAFT) - Status
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
STATUS
Coded Status
Florida; Federal Endangered
Florida; Officially Listed
E: Federal Endangered
Non-consumptive recreational
COMMENTS ON STATUS -
U.S. STATUSES AND LAWS:
The Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) 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 State of Florida. The species is also affected by the laws and
regulations governing the administration of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
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.
Agency capabilities are concentrated at National Key Deer
Wildlife Refuge, Big Pine Key, FL. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
administers a wetland permit program throughout the species' range
pursuant to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and Section
404 of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977. Various other agencies
(Department of Transportation, Farmer's Home Administration, EPA,
Rural Electrification Administration) promote, fund or permit
development of habitat within the range of the Florida Key deer.
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
Status - 1 (DRAFT) - Status
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
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:
STATE: Florida
DESIGNATED STATUS: Endangered
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission
STATE STATUTES: Section 372.072, Florida Statutes,
(Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act
of 1977); Rule 39-27.04 Florida Admin. Code,
July 1983.
The deer is also protected by a Florida statute prohibiting
feeding of deer.
INTERNATIONAL STATUSES, TREATIES, AND AGREEMENTS:
The species is listed in the 1966 IUCN Red Data Book and by the
Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the
Western Hemisphere.
ECONOMIC STATUSES:
Key deer provide no direct commercial values such as meat or
hide. It provides scientific, educational, recreational, and
aesthetic values to man. It is particularly interesting from a
geographic and genetic perspective as a good example of insular
evolution.
67/03/11:32 FR 04001/ - Listed as Endangered
85/07/22:50 FR 29901/29909 - Five year review
Status - 2 HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS
HABITAT - TERRESTRIAL
TERRESTRIAL
COASTAL
LAND USE -
Residential
Transportation, communications, and Util
Deciduous Forest Land
Evergreen Forest Land
Streams and Canals
Forested Wetland
Nonforested Wetland
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY CODES
NWI NWICLS NWIMOD NWISPEC
Estuarine, intertidal SS3
Estuarine, intertidal FO3
COMMENTS ON HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS -
The vegetation of the Florida Keys had its origin to the south
(the Caribbean) and is mostly derived from Cuba (10 and 11 as cited in
09). Elevation of the lower keys is 10 feet or less (09). On the
larger islands, little soil covers the limestone substrate, except
where humus accumulates in hardwood and hammock areas (09). Some of
the smaller islands with low elevations consist of little more than
mangrove swamps (06).
Klimstra et al. (1974) reported habitat use of Key deer on Big
Pine Key, an island supporting approximately two-thirds of the Key
deer population (02,03,09). They divided the vegetation into five
main types: 1) open-developed areas, including subdivisions,
residential areas and mowed roadsides; 2) pineland, relatively open
areas dominated by slash pine (Pinus elliottii) and silver palm
(Coccothrinax agentata); 3) buttonwood-scrub mangrove, found between
peripheral dense mangrove forests and the hardwood areas above high
tide, and consisting of the buttonwood (Conocarpus erecta) prairie,
the saltwater marshes, and the open scrub and buttonwood park; 4)
hardwoods, including mature and immature hammocks, dominated by
broadleaved evergreen trees and a variety of tropical vegetation; and
5) dense mangrove forests, intertidal areas dominated by red mangrove
(Rhizophora mangle) and black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) (03).
Habitat utilization was monitored by locating radio-collared deer
(02,09). Percent utilization compared to available habitat (in
parentheses) was hardwood, 19.9% (10.1%); pine land, 34.4% (32.4%);
open-developed areas, 12.9% (17.1%); mangrove 9.6% (9.4%); and
buttonwood, 23.2% (31.1%) (02). Pine land and hardwood habitats were
prefered while open-developed areas and buttonwood habitats were less
used. Mangrove was used in proportion to its availability (02,09).
The deer use open, developed areas such as mowed roadsides, lawn
areas between canals in housing subdivisions, and burned areas for
feeding, loafing and escaping insects (02). They are especially
attracted to newly burned or mowed areas and will feed extensively on
new woody or herbaceous growth (up to 6-9 months). The deer use
developed areas more at night than during daylight hours and peak use
corresponds with peak feeding times (just before sunrise and during
late evening hours) (03).
There is a tendency for deer to occupy hardwood, mangrove and
Habitat Associations - 1 buttonwood areas more during daylight hours; the thick vegetation
provides cool bedding and loafing areas during the hot, mid-day hours.
Deer also require wooded cover for fawning and protection from storms
(02).
Patterns of daily activity for adult males and females are
similar, however there are seasonal differences (02). Adult bucks,
adult does, and yearling does make much less use of pine habitats
from January-March than during the remainder of the year (03). Adult
bucks spend more time in buttonwood and hardwood habitats, adult does
greater time in hardwood habitats, and yearling does more time in
buttonwood areas (03). Overall use of pine lands by adult bucks and
does increases throughout the year following the January-March period
(03). All deer (except newborn fawns and yearling females) make more
daytime use of developed habitats from April-September than during
other seasons, probably in response to attacks by mosquitoes (03).
The availability of drinking water apparently influences the
distribution of Key deer throughout their range (13). Periods of
drought limit use of smaller keys without drinking water, while during
such times larger keys, with water, show greater utilization (02).
Habitat Associations - 2 (DRAFT) - Food Habits
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
FOOD HABITS
TROPHIC LEVEL -
HERBIVORE
LIFESTAGE FOOD FOOD PART
General Vascular Plants-Emergent Woody
General Vascular Plants-Emergent Nonwoody
General Myxomycophyta
General Poaceae
General
General Forb Leaves/Stems
General Forb Flowers/Fruit/Seed
General Deciduous Shrubs-Leaves/Twigs
General Deciduous Shrubs-Flowers/Fruit/Seed
General Evergreen Shrubs-Leaves/Twigs
General Evergreen Shrubs-Flowers/Fruit/Seed
General Tree-Bark/Cambium
General Tree-Sap
General Coniferae
General Evergreen Trees-Flowers/Fruit/Seed
Food Habits - 1 (DRAFT) - Environment Associations
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
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
G Coastal Wetlands: Mangrove swamps
G Coastal Features: Vegetated offshore islands
Environment Associations - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
LIFE HISTORY
FOOD HABITS:
Key deer utilize a wide variety of food plants (02). Dooley
(1975) identified 164 plants; 28 accounted for approximately 75
percent while 10 comprised 56 percent of the total rumen examined
(14). Red mangrove (Rizophora mangle) leaves and fruits, black
mangrove (Avicennia germinans) fruits, Indiana mulberry (Morinda
royoc) leaves and fruits, silver palm (Coccothrinax argentata) flowers
and immature fruits, brittle thatch palm (Thrinax microcarpa) immature
fruits, blackbead (Pithecellobium keyense) leaves, grass leaves (15
species), pencil flower (Stylosanthes hamata) leaves, Acacia (Acacia
spp.) fruits and leaves, and dilly (Manilkara spp.) fruits were most
important. Red and black mangrove provided almost 24 percent of the
total rumen examined, with the red mangrove the more important (02,
14).
Percentages of forage types in the overall deer diet indicate
woody plants (leaves and new grown stems) are most important, followed
by fruits from woody plants, fruits and flowers of palms, forbs, and
miscellaneous items (graminids, mushrooms, and pine needles) (14).
Stalks and spathe from 2 palm species also contribute significantly to
the deer diet (14). Deer are strongly attracted to newly burned
areas, and will feed extensively on new woody and herbaceous growth
for 6-9 months (use then declines and there is reduced use for up to
18 months) (02).
Percentages of forage types used by deer varies seasonally (14).
Woody browse is more heavily used during December through March, while
flowers and fruits are used primarily from April to November (02).
Seasonal availability of those forage types may contribute to seasonal
patterns of forage utilization witnessed in the deer diet (14).
Dooley (1975) found differences in feeding habits between deer on
Big Pine Key (an island supporting approximately two-thirds of the
deer population) and those on the other keys (14). Although
identified in samples from Big Pine Key, erithalis (Erithalis
fruticosa), grasses, and morning glory (Ipomoea spp.) appeared to be
more important on keys other than Big Pine Key (14).
Food habits have not been described on the basis of deer age
class.
HOME RANGE/TERRITORY:
Hardin (1974) described behavior of male Key deer similar to
territorial "head-rubbing" and "sign-posting" behavior (16,17,18,19)
of other deer species, but noted that such behavior seems to have
little or no territorial significance to Key deer, since several males
use the same area and each male moves extensively during the breeding
season (15). Adult female Key deer actively drive any other deer
(including adult bucks) from the immediate vicinity of their new
fawns, and adult males will defend a receptive doe from other bucks,
but these activities are not associated with fixed areas (03,15).
Range size varies seasonally and between age and sex classes. On
a yearly basis, adult males have significantly larger ranges (mean =
315 acres) than adult females (mean = 135 acres) (02,09). Ranges for
adult males are largest during the fall rutting season (mean = 338
Life History - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
acres) and spring (mean = 343 acres), and smallest during July (mean =
212 acres) when there is maximum regrowth of antlers (03,09). Ranges
of adult does are largest during the fall (mean = 157 acres), due
mainly to harassment by males, and smallest in early spring (mean =
96 acres) just prior to the dropping of fawns (09). Yearling males
show larger movement indices than any other sex or age group and
yearling females tend to show stable ranges for the entire year (02).
Fawns show little movement during their first two weeks, but after
four to five months of age ranges closely duplicate those of adult
females (02,03).
PERIODICITY:
Activity patterns of Key deer appear similar to those described
for other populations of white-tailed deer; there are daily and
seasonal variations (15). Deer are generally less active in mid-day,
and more active around sunrise and sunset. Feeding is more frequent
from one hour before sunrise to just after sunrise, and from after
noon until 1600-1700 hours (15). They bed less during mid-day in July
through September than in other months (15). During October through
December they move more and feed less during the day, behavior
apparently associated with breeding activities (15). The level of
activity exhibited by fawns increases from birth up to about seven
months of age (15).
MIGRATION PATTERNS:
Key deer are non-migratory.
COVER/SHELTER REQUIREMENTS:
Exact cover and shelter requirements of Key deer are not known.
Generally, the deer need the dense vegetation of hardwood, mangrove
and buttonwood areas for cool bedding and loafing areas during hot,
mid-day hours (02). (Observed exceptions include bedding activity
during the rainy season when deer bed in open areas, presumably to
escape mosquitoes and deer flies which are more numerous in heavy
vegetation (15)). Deer also require heavy vegetation for protection
from storms and for fawning sites (15). (See Reproductive Site
Requirements.)
REPRODUCTIVE SITE REQUIREMENTS:
Hardin (1974) noted that sites used during parturition were
generally in heavy cover (15). Fawning sites generally exhibited
dense canopies with good cover and yet had relatively open
understories where the deer could stand and maneuver easily. Observed
fawning sites included hardwood hammock clumps located in pinewoods,
large mature palmetto clumps in pinewoods, dry elevated areas within
mangrove clumps, dense buttonwood clumps at the edge of openings, and
semi-open pinewoods with scattered canopy (one occasion) (15).
REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS:
The reproductive cycle of Key deer is similar to mainland deer
populations (02). Breeding activity begins in September, peaks in
early October, and gradually decreases through November and December
(02,03). Adult males with full racks aged 3 to 5 years old contribute
Life History - 2 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
most of the breeding. Infrequently, yearling does and even precocial
female fawns are bred, but always later in the season; male yearlings
and fawns are functionally excluded from breeding by the more
aggressive bucks (02,03). Individual females are receptive for 24
hours, but if not successfully bred will recycle in 25 to 27 days
(15). The deer are polygamous, with individual males mating with as
many females as possible during a single breeding season. Adult males
will stay with a receptive female from 1 to 6 days (usually 2-3 days)
before prusuing different receptive females (03). See Hardin (1974)
for details of Key deer breeding behavior, including specifics of
pre-copulatory, copulatory and post-copulatory behavioral sequences
(15).
Partruition begins in mid-March, peaks in April and tapers off
through mid-May, although some fawns may be born as late as August
(02). Gestation is approximately 204 days (02,03). Klimstra et al.
(1974) found during a five-year study that 1.12 fawns were produced
per eligible doe; twins were infrequent (03).
PARENTAL CARE:
Deer fawns are precocial, and able to slowly follow their does
within one hour of birth (03). After the first day, fawns spend
little time with the doe, they nurse 2-3 times a day, but remain
bedded the rest of the time. At 2-3 weeks they spend more time with
the doe at each feeding, and gradually become familiar with areas of
the doe's range providing cover (03). By 4 weeks they move
independently in familiar areas and occasionally browse plants (03).
As fawns mature, does spend increasing time looking for them so
that by 2 months they encounter one another every couple of days (03).
At this age, fawns will attempt to nurse any large deer, but does
apparently accept no fawn but their own (03). There appears to be a
strong doe-fawn bond; adult females that lose fawns demonstrate
fawn-calling behavior for several days (03). By September, weaning is
generally complete (03). Does and fawns tend to form matriarchal
family units of an adult doe and her offspring of the current and
occasionally previous years (20 as cited in 02). Adult does separated
themselves from yearlings, etc., at parturition.
POPULATION BIOLOGY:
Current limiting factors of the Key deer population include road
kills by automobiles (75 to 80 percent of known mortality) (05),
reduced cover and food supply through habitat destruction, hurricanes
and associated habitat impacts, drought, drowning and shark mortality
during inter-island movements, drowning of fawns in mosquito ditches,
parasitism of fawns by mosquitoes and deer flies, poaching, dog kills,
occasional death from combat between males, and miscellaneous losses
from accidents, old age, disease, etc. (02,03,05).
Five years of data suggest a reproduction rate of 1.12 fawns per
eligible doe (15); evidence of twins is infrequent (05). There is a
minimum of 20 percent mortality through the initial 6 months of life
(05). After 6 months of age, there is a 50 percent male survival to
1.5 years and 0 percent survival after 8 years. In contrast, females
show 50 percent survival to 2.5 years and 0 percent after 9 years
(05). (These data are limited due to length of time studied; more
Life History - 3 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
recent records of known-aged does in the population suggest upper the
limit may be as high as 10, 11, or 14 years) (05). Among fetuses
there is a 1.75 to 1.00 male/female ratio, and among fawns this is 2.0
to 1.0, respectively; these ratios indicate a relatively low rate of
reproduction in the population (05).
The population of Key deer was believed stabilized at about 350-
400 animals in 1980 (02). However, recent estimates (1984) indicate
the population has decreased to 250-300 individuals (07). U.S.
government reports indicate the Key deer range could support 1000 deer
(08); however, Silvy (1975) estimates the carrying capacity of the
deer's range to be less than 653 individuals (09).
SPECIES INTERRELATIONSHIPS:
The Key deer has no such relationships with any one other species
except, of course, man. The direct and indirect effects of man's
cohabitation with the Key deer have been discussed elsewhere in this
compilation (See Reasons and Habitat narratives). Were the negative
impacts of man's presence reduced (i.e., road kills, continued habitat
destruction through development, poaching, etc.), the deer would have
a greater chance for recovery.
Shulte (1972) indicates that Key deer probably suffer no
pathogenic effects from endoparasites (21).
OTHER LIFE HISTORY DESCRIPTORS:
None.
Life History - 4 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
RESULT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Beneficial Suppressing wildfire
Beneficial Prescribed/controlled burning of habitat
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Off-Road Vehicles
Beneficial Restricting/regulating human disturbance of populations
Beneficial
Beneficial Developing/maintaining/protecting wetlands
Beneficial Controlling water levels
Beneficial Maintaining undisturbed/undeveloped areas
Beneficial Land Acquisition
Beneficial Maintaining Later Stages of Succession
Beneficial Controlling/Removing Nonnative Vegetation
Beneficial Transplanting wild animals
Beneficial Restricting Poaching
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Noncommercial Harvest
Beneficial Controlling/Removing Feral Animals
Beneficial Rehabilitating Individuals
Beneficial Controlling/Removing Domestic Animals
Adverse Subsistence Hunting/Fishing/Trapping
Existing Subsistence Hunting/Fishing/Trapping
Adverse Incidental Capturing/Killing
Existing Incidental Capturing/Killing
Adverse Poaching
Existing Poaching
Adverse Sport Hunting/Fishing
Existing Sport Hunting/Fishing
Adverse Food Supply Reduction
Existing Food Supply Reduction
Adverse Harassment/Vandalism/Indiscriminate Killing
Existing Harassment/Vandalism/Indiscriminate Killing
Adverse Parasites
Existing Parasites
Adverse Predation
Existing Predation
Adverse Rural Residential/Industrial Areas
Existing Rural Residential/Industrial Areas
Adverse Recreational development
Existing Recreational development
Adverse Highway/Railroads
Existing Highway/Railroads
Adverse Shoreline modification/development
Existing Shoreline modification/development
Adverse Exotic/Feral/Introducted Species
Existing Exotic/Feral/Introducted Species
Adverse Vegetation Composition Changes
Existing Vegetation Composition Changes
Adverse Suppressing wildfire
Existing Suppressing wildfire
Adverse Forest Alteration
Existing Forest Alteration
Management Practices - 1 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
RESULT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Adverse Harvesting
Existing Harvesting
COMMENTS ON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES -
The Key deer is a product of a very restrictive environment (03).
Hurricanes; drownings and shark predation during inter-island
movement; drought; combat between males; and miscellaneous losses from
accidents, disease, parasites (especially mosquitoes and black flies
on fawns), and old age are "natural" factors balancing reproduction,
which has evolved at a relatively low level (02,05).
Although man-related habitat changes in the 18th and 19th
centuries probably enhanced the Key deer for a considerable period, by
the 20th century pressures from intense hunting and continued habitat
alteration reduced the deer population to dangerously low levels (05).
Fire supression detrimentally altered forest composition; many open
pine woods were replaced by thick hardwood hammocks which provide
inferior food supplies (03). Forest clearing and other practices
associated with rural and urban residential development continue to
reduce availability of high quality deer habitat (03). Ditches built
for mosquito control trap and drown fawns (Hardin (1974) recorded more
than 18% of fawns marked at birth drowned) (05).
Expanded human encroachment in recent years has increased direct
public/deer interactions. With new roads, housing developments, and
increased use (tourist and local), road kills have increased (03);
highway accidents account for 75-80% of the recorded deer mortality
(05). Although deer hunting is now illegal, poaching continues to be
a significant mortality factor (05,06,07). Domestic and feral dogs
harrass and frequently kill the deer (05,07). Feeding the deer has
become popular in recent years, threatening dependence of local deer
on "handouts" (05); however, this practice was made illegal in 1983
(07). It should be noted that seasonal drought causes a major portion
of the Key deer population to move to Big Pine Key where there is
available fresh water. This results in greater interaction with man
and increased exposure to the hazards mentioned above (06).
In 1980, the total deer population was reported stabilized at
approximately 350-400 individuals (02). Due primarily to losses from
road kills, habitat destruction, and dog kills, the population has
decreased to 250-300 deer (1984 estimate) (07).
Future threats include the continuation of habitat destruction
through development on private land; and increased human interactions,
including (in addition to the above) exposure to "exotic" diseases or
parasites from domestic pets or livestock (05).
APPROVED PLAN:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Florida Key Deer Recovery
Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 47 pp.
Recovery Plan tasks are directed at protecting the Key deer
habitat and herd.
Management Practices - 2 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
(1) Habitat acquisition and protection should include expansion of
the refuge and protection of off-refuge lands through
coordination with local governments, the public, and promotion of
specific land management practices both on and off the refuge.
(2) The deer herd should be protected by controlling poaching,
prohibiting hunting, off-road vehicle use, feeding by the public,
and domestic and feral dog tresspassing, limiting human access,
and minimizing collisions with autos and drownings in mosquito
ditches.
(3) A management and research program is necessary to assess
population status and distribution and assess habitat status and
management strategies. Augmentation of the natural population
with individuals from a captive herd is considered inappropriate
management; however, transplanting wild individuals may be useful.
Management should include implementing prescribed burning and fire
control measures, re-establishing pines and associated plant
communities where severely damaged by fire, and creating and
maintaining sources of freshwater.
(4) Conservation education, including visitor contact and interaction
with the local government, is necessary.
Ongoing recovery actions include habitat management actions on
the refuge (water holes, fire management, law enforcement, animal
tresspass control, etc.), initiation of development of a management
and research plan, off-refuge habitat assessment, and protection
through Section 7 consultation and communication with local and State
government agencies.
Management Practices - 3 (DRAFT) - References
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
References
***** REFERENCES FOR ALL NARRATIVES EXCEPT N-OCCURRENCE *****
01 Barbour, T. and G. M. Allen. 1922. The white-tailed deer of
eastern United States. J. Mammal. 3(2):65-78.
02 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Florida Key Deer Recovery
Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 52 pp.
03 Klimstra, W. D., J. W. Hardin, N. J. Silvy, B. N. Jacobson, and V.
A. Terpening. 1974. Key deer investigations final report. Period
of study: December 1967-June 1973. Southern Illinois Univ.,
Carbondale, IL. Mimeo. 184 pp.
04 Dickson, J. D., III. 1955. An ecological study of the Key deer.
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission Tech. Bull. No.3.
104 pp.
05 Klimstra, W. D., N. J. Silvy, J. W. Hardin. 1981. The Key deer:
its status and prospects for the future. Proc. Nongame and
Endang. Wildl. Symp., Ga. Dept. Nat. Resour. Game Fish Div. Tech.
Bull. WL-5:437-441.
06 Klimstra, W. D. 1984. Personal communication. Director,
Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois Univ.,
Carbondale, IL 62901.
07 Bell, B. 1984. Personal communication. Assistant Manager,
National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 510, Big Pine Key,
FL 33043.
08 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Narrative Reports. 1939-1969. Key
Deer Information. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Atlanta,
GA.
09 Silvy, N. J. 1975. Population density, movements and habitat
utilization of Key deer, Odocoileus virginianus clavium. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Southern Illinois Univ., Carbondale, IL. 152 pp.
10 Stern, W. L. and G. K. Brizicky. 1957. The woods and flora of the
Florida Keys. Tropical Woods. 107:36-65.
11 Simpson, C. T. 1920. In Lower Florida Wilds. G. P. Putnam's
Sons. New York. 404 pp.
12 Yaw, E. 1966. Key deer investigations progress report. Key Deer
National Wildlife Refuge. 1965-1966. U.S. Bureau Sport Fish.
Wildl. 12 pp.
13 Jacobson, B. N. 1974. Effects of drinking water on habitat
utilization by Key deer. M.S. Research Paper, Southern Ilinois
Univ., Carbondale, IL. 43 pp.
14 Dooley, A. L. 1975. Foods of the Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus
clavium). M.A. Thesis, Southern Illinois Univ., Carbondale, IL.
80 pp.
15 Hardin, J. W. 1974. Behavior, socio-biology, and reproductive
life history of the Florida Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus
clavium). Ph.D. Dissertation, Southern Illinois Univ., Carbondale,
Il. 226 pp.
16 Muller-Schwarze, D. 1971. Pheromones in black-tailed deer
(Odocoileus hemionus columbianus). Anim. Behav. 19:141-152.
17 Muller-Schwarze, D. 1972. Social significance of forehead rubbing
in black-tailed deer. (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus). Anim.
Behav. 20:788-797.
References - 1 (DRAFT) - References
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
18 Graf, W. 1956. Territorialism in deer. J. Mammal. 37:165-170.
19 Linsdale, J. M. and P. Q. Tomich. 1953. A Herd of Mule Deer.
Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley. 567 pp.
20 Hardin, J. W., N. J. Silvy, and W. D. Klimstra. 1976. Group size
and composition of the Florida Key deer. J. Wildl. Manage.
40(3):454-463.
21 Shulte, J. 1972. Protozoan and helminth parasites of Key deer.
M.S. Research Paper, Southern Illinois Univ., Carbondale, IL.
20 pp.
***** REFERENCES FOR N-OCCURRENCE NARRATIVE ONLY *****
01 Klimstra, W. D., N. J. Silvy, and J. W. Hardin. 1981. The Key
deer: its status and prospects for the future. Proc. Nongame
Endang. Species Wildl. Symp. Georgia Dept. Nat. Resour., Game Fish
Div. Tech. Bull. WL-5:137-141.
02 Klimstra, W. D. October, 1984. Personal communication. Director,
Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois
Univ., Carbondale, IL 62901.
03 Klimstra, W. D., J. W. Hardin, N. J. Silvy, B. N. Jacobson, and V.
A. Terpening. 1974. Key deer investigations final report. Period
of study: December 1967 - June 1973. Southern Illinois Univ.,
Carbondale, IL. Mimeo. 184 pp.
04 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Florida Key Deer Recovery
Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 52 pp.
05 Silvy, N. J. 1975. Population density, movements, and habitat
utilization of Key deer, Odocoileus virginianus clavium. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Southern Illinois Univ., Carbondale, IL. 152 pp.
06 Jacobson, B. N. 1974. Unpubl. report. Effect of drinking-water
on habitat utilization by Key deer. Southern Illinois Univ.,
Carbondale, IL. 43 pp.
07 Dickson, J. D., III. 1955. An ecological study of the Key deer.
Fla. Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm. Tech. Bull. No.3 104 pp.
08 Ellicott, A. 1803. The Journal of Andrew Ellicott, etc.,
Philadelphia, Thomas Dobson, as quoted in Catearine van Catlandt
Mathews. Andrew Ellicott, His Life and Letters, New York, The
Grafton Press. 1908.
09 Barbour, T. and G. M. Allen. 1922. The white-tailed deer of
eastern United States. J. Mammal. 3(2):65-78.
10 Romans, B. 1775. A concise natural history of East and West
Florida. Vol. 1. New York.
11 Maynard, C. J. 1872. Catalogue of mammals of Florida, with notes
on their habits, distribution, etc. Bull. Essex Inst.
4(10):135-150.
12 dePourtales, L. F. 1877. Hints on the origin of the flora, and
fauna of the Florida keys. Am. Nat. 11:137-144.
13 Fontaneda, D. E. 1575. Memoir of D. D'Escalente Fontaneda
respecting Florida. (written in Spain about 1575, translated from
Spanish by Buckingham Smith, Washington 1854.) Reprinted with
revisions. Miami, 1944.
14 Bell, Bonnie. December, 1984. Personal communication. Assistant
Manager, National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
References - 2 (DRAFT) - References
Species DEER, KEY
Species Id ESIS054002
Date 14 MAR 96
Service, P.O. Box 510, Big Pine Key, FL 33043.
References - 3