Forest Management Guidelines for the Provision of White-tailed Deer Habitat

VERSION 1.0

August 1997

Dennis R. VoigtJim D. BroadfootJames A. Baker

Cette publication technique n’est disponible qu’en anglais.

© 1997, Queen’s Printer for OntarioPrinted in Ontario

Single copies of this publication are available at no charge from the address listed below.

Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesForest Management BranchForest Program Development SectionSuite 400, 70 Foster DriveSault Ste. Marie, OntarioP6A 6V5

Attention: Guidelines

Printed on recycled paper.

This is a summary of the guidelines thathave been prepared to help planningteams and managers address the needs ofdeer in the preparation and implementationof forest management plans.

The purpose of these guidelines is to assistresource managers to maintain or createthrough management a forest that has thestructure and composition to provide afunctional habitat for white-tailed deer(Odocoileus virginianus) and to assist insustaining their populations. Theimplementation of these guidelines shouldnot conflict with the maintenance ofecosystem structure, composition andfunction needed to ensure sustainabilityand ecological integrity of forestecosystems for a variety of species.

The size, location and migration of deerpopulations need to be considered inconjunction with these guidelines tomanage the supply of deer habitat. A singlepopulation of deer may encompass from ahundred to several thousand squarekilometers. Thus, implementation ofguideline prescriptions should consider amulti-scale perspective. Landscapeconsiderations should guide decisions atthe stand level. Adequate assessment dataare essential to make accurateprescriptions and determine the impact ofpast and future timber management on theprovision of deer habitat.

The attached background documentconsists of (1) an overview of the seasonalecology and habitat needs of deer, (2) theimplications of forest managementactivities, (3) additional detail aboutrecommendations to manage habitat, (4) discussion about application now and in the future.

Recommended Guidelines

The Forest Management Guidelines for theProvision of White-tailed Deer Habitatinclude provisions for both summer andwinter deer habitat. Since deer in forestedareas of Ontario are migratory betweensummer and winter ranges, it is importantto distinguish between habitat requirementson each type of range.

On winter range, the primary concern ishabitat that provides adequate coniferousshelter interspersed with sufficient winterfood in areas where winter concentrationoccurs. Forest management is beneficialwhen it maintains cover and provideswinter browse. It can be detrimental whenexcessive amounts of conifer cover areremoved or converted to mixedwoods orhardwoods.

On summer range, deer thrive in earlysuccessional forests. In almost all of thesummer range, any forest cutting will bebeneficial to deer as it will likely increase

i

Summary of Forest ManagementGuidelines for the Provision of White-tailed Deer Habitat

forage production and thus reproduction ofdeer. In most of Ontario, forestmanagement on deer summer rangecurrently provides adequate summerhabitat by using silvicultural systems bestsuited for forest management.

Landscape Level

WinterThe identification of winter concentrationareas or yards is necessary beforedetermining stand level prescriptions forwinter habitat. Winter concentration areas(yards) vary considerably in cover species,browse species, winter severity and deeruse patterns across the range of deer inOntario. It is important that local managersbe knowledgeable of this variation in theassessment of the carrying capacity of theiryards. The three most important features ofa successful yard are traditional use, coverand browse (see Stand Level for cover andbrowse needs).

Traditional Use: Deer show a strongtraditional use of winter concentrationareas and are reluctant to change theirmigration habits. Within the principal rangeof deer in Ontario, traditional yardsrepresent 10-15% of the summer rangearea. A greater percentage may berequired where many deer migrate fromsurrounding units, especially in areas withhigh population targets or severe winters.Winter range conditions are an importantlimiting factor to deer populations inOntario and the further loss of suitableconditions within yards should be avoided.

SummerSummer range prescriptions need toconsider landscape level diversity ofhabitat types in the area used by the deerfrom each yard.

Summer range has a major influence ondeer productivity and the ability of deer tosurvive winter effects. Harvest operationswill be beneficial to deer regardless of thesilvicultural methods used because forageis produced. Since deer thrive in earlysuccession forests on summer range,silvicultural systems which produce moreearly succession forests or more opencanopy will enhance summer range.

Summer range can be enhanced more bydispersed small but heavy cuts rather thanlarge clearcuts and large areas of lightselection cutting. Cuts of this former typeproduce the early successional typesfavoured by deer, greater edge effects anddiverse habitat.

In most of Ontario, openings, clearings,fields and early succession forest stagesmake up at least 10-15% of the area. Thatpercentage will provide adequate summerrange if widely distributed. Creation ofopenings should be coordinated with forestmanagement activities. The provision ofpermanent openings on only 5% of thearea will be beneficial to deer and manyother wildlife species.

ii

Stand and Site Level

WinterCover: Hemlock and cedar are the bestinterceptors of snow and often grow inassociation with preferred browse species.In the absence of hemlock or cedar, amixture of spruce, pine and/or balsam firmay be used by deer for yarding purposes.

Yards should have a mix of understockedconifers or mixed woods where browse isabundant, and an interspersion of heavilystocked and relatively pure conifer formovement to food areas, bedding, andrefuge during winter storms. Knownmigration and travel routes and suitablebedding areas such as hemlock ridges and“knobs” should be avoided when decidingroad locations.Tree removal should belimited to leave a residual stand thatprovides an 80% crown closure.

Higher stocking levels are preferred wherethe cover species are other than hemlockor cedar, and in yards where good coniferis already scarce. Outside of bedding areasand travel corridors, conifer stands shouldbe reduced in stocking, in order toencourage browse production. In hemlockor cedar stands, an average conifer crownclosure of 60% is often adequate if theconifers are ideally arranged. A patchworkof small openings and clusters of coniferswith branches touching is effective toachieve the proper conditions. A generalguideline is that the average stockingshould be approximately 60% based ontrees 10 metres or higher.

In mixed wood stands where the conifercontent is low, it is desirable to retain all ofthe conifers and to confine tree removal tothe hardwood component. This is

especially true where the silviculturalprescription is geared towards regeneratinghardwoods rather than conifer.

Browse: The recommended amount ofbrowse that is accessible to deer in winteryards should average 20 kg/ha of currentannual growth (dry weight) of suitablespecies, between 0.5 and 2.0 metres inheight. Diversity of browse is required andthree or more suitable species should beavailable. Suitable species include cedar,hemlock, viburnums, red maple, stripedmaple, mountain maple, red oak, sugarmaple, dogwood, beaked hazel, yellow andwhite birch, cherry, ground yew, white pine,and arboreal lichens.

To be accessible to deer, browse should bewithin 30 meters (m) of suitable cover inyards where snow depths exceed 50centimeters (cm), or as far as 100 m ormore in southern yards with less snow oron south-facing slopes. Arboreal lichens,where available, may provide a largeportion of the required food supply.

Scheduling: Winter logging operations canbe extremely beneficial to deer whereedible treetops are felled by cutters andtrails broken by skidding equipment areprovided. For these reasons harvestoperations may be scheduled during theyarding period, to the extent that it ispossible and practical.

Regeneration: Many of the traditional yardshave an abundance of older conifer but ascarcity of younger conifer stands andconifer regeneration. Provision of browse isoften silviculturally easy but regeneration ofconifers may be difficult in the presence ofdeer. Both hemlock and white cedar arepreferred cover and preferred browse

iii

species for deer but these species aredifficult to regenerate to high stocking andthey are slow to outgrow the reach of deer.In the interest of long-term coniferreplacement, it may be necessary toaccept temporary sub-optimum conditionsfor winter deer habitat in portions of theyard in order to provide the necessaryconditions for conifer regeneration. Cautionmust be exercised that the tradition of useof that yard is not lost by negativelyaffecting large portions at the same time.The best solution may be to provideadequate stocking of other species such asred spruce, white pine, white spruce andbalsam fir if hemlock cannot beregenerated. Hemlock and cedar may beregenerated in peripheral or adjacent areasand eventually provide cover.

SummerOpenings of 1 ha (ranging from 0.2-4 ha,maximum width 100 m) provide benefitswhen distributed throughout the area. Theseeding of roads, landings, and siteprepared areas with suitable grasses andforbs can enhance summer range byprolonging the longevity of openings andby providing early spring and late fallgrazing for deer. Suitable species forseeding include the cool-season foragessuch as the clovers, red fescue andbirdsfoot trefoil.

Besides the soft mast (e.g. raspberry)found in cutovers, hard mast (i.e. beechand acorn) can be valuable to deer duringseed years. Selection and shelterwoodcutting can enhance autumn food supplywhere suitable mast producers, includingpotential producers, are retained orreleased as in improvement cutting. Thebest seed producers are often large, full-crowned, and vigorous trees with a

dominant position in the canopy. The bestproducers may be only 50-75 years old.Direct sunlight on the crown is an importantfactor in seed production, and suitablemast trees can be released by selectioncutting in the same way as potential timberproducers.

Application of the Guidelines

These guidelines must be considered inthe preparation and implementation offorest management plans in the Great-Lakes-St.Lawrence Forest in areas wheredeer are designated as the primary cervid.In the transition areas to the Boreal foresteither the deer or moose guidelines maybe applied depending on which is theprimary cervid. In many cases both can beapplied without conflict or withoutsignificantly affecting wood supply.

To meet present and future habitat needsof deer throughout their range guidelinesshould be targeted specifically to eitherwinter habitat or summer habitat.

The complexity of natural systemsprecludes a rigid set of rules. Rather, theguidelines identify key principles andrecommendations that must be adapted tofit local situations based on theprofessional judgement of experiencedpractitioners. However, any deviations fromthe guidelines must be recorded andrationalized in the forest management planon the basis of compelling biological orsocio-economic concerns.

iv

v

Preface

These guidelines have been prepared to help planning teams develop and implementsound forest management practices that contribute to ensuring the long-term health ofOntario’s forests. They comply with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA) (RSO1994) as well as the requirements of the April 1994 Decision of the EnvironmentalAssessment Board.

Using the Guidelines

The Forest Operations and Silviculture Manual (CFSA, Section 68) lists these guidelinesas ones which must be considered during the preparation and implementation of forestmanagement plans.

The considerable ecological variation associated with natural systems precludes a rigidset of rules to cover all situations facing forest planners and managers. Rather, theguidelines identify key principles and recommendations that must be adapted to fit localsituations based on the professional judgement of experienced practitioners. Anydeviations from the guidelines must be recorded and rationalized in the forestmanagement plans on the basis of compelling biological or socio-economic concerns.

Development of the Guidelines

These guidelines have been developed by combining current scientific evidence fromliterature and results from field studies in Ontario by the Cooperative Deer Study as wellas expert opinion. Various associated technical manuals are available and referenced asappropriate. A population model, the Ontario Deer Model is a valuable tool to use inconjunction with these guidelines to plan for sustainability of deer and their habitat. Asfurther information and tools are developed they will be integrated into the guidelines. At aminimum Guidelines will be revisited every 5 years.

Forest ManagementGuidelines for the Provision of White-tailed Deer Habitat

vi

Consideration of Statement of Environmental Values

The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is responsible for managing Ontario’s naturalresources in accordance with the statutes it administers. In 1991, the MNR releasedDirection ‘90s, which outlines the goal and objectives for the Ministry, based on theconcept of sustainable development. Within MNR, policy and program development taketheir lead from Direction ‘90s.

In 1994, MNR finalized its Statement of Environmental Values (SEV) under theEnvironmental Bill of Rights (EBR). The SEV describes how the purposes of the EBR areto be considered whenever decisions that might significantly affect the environment aremade in the Ministry. The SEV is based on Direction ‘90s, as the strategic directionsoutlined in Direction 90’s reflect the purposes of the EBR.

During the development of these guidelines, the MNR has considered both Direction ‘90sand the SEV. These guidelines are intended to reflect the directions set out in thosedocuments, and to further the objectives of managing our resources on a sustainablebasis.

vii

Page

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Evolving Management Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Evolving Management Methods and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 Relationship between Deer and Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.0 Seasonal Ecology And Habitat Needs Of Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1 Deer Habitat Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 Seasonal Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.3 The Concept Of Habitat Carrying Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.4 Reproduction In Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.5 Natural Mortality Of Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.0 Implications of Forest Management Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.1 Clearcut System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.2 Shelterwood System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.3 Selection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.4 Landscape Patterns and Stand Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.0 Recommended Forest Management Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164.1 Landscape and Seasonal Habitat Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.1.1 Winter Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164.1.2 Summer Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.2 Stand Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.2.1 Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.2.2 Browse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194.2.3 Mast Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204.2.4 Cedar Yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204.2.5 Hemlock Yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.3 Site Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.3.1 Browse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.3.2 Cool-Season Forage Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.3.3 Permanent Openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.0 Application of the Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.0 Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276.1 Ecological Land Use Planning and Setting Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

viii

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Evolving Management Philosophy

Historically, the Ministry of NaturalResources (MNR) attempted to managehabitat for some game species, and thosespecies whose long-term survival was ofconcern (i.e. vulnerable, threatened andendangered species). In recent years, theappreciation of the connections among thecomponents of natural systems, and therecognition of the intrinsic value of allspecies has grown. At the same time, ithas become increasingly difficult tomanage for the specific, often conflicting,habitat needs of an ever growing list ofspecies. Thus, MNR’s approach toresource management has been shifting tothe maintenance of entire ecologicalsystems and their associated biologicaldiversity. This perspective does notpreclude management for individualspecies (such as deer) as long as it doesnot threaten the long-term well-being ofother species, or the functioning of theoverall biological system.

This evolution in resource managementhas been reflected in, and encouraged bya number of government policy initiatives.For example, Ontario’s Policy Frameworkfor Sustainable Forests and the 1994Crown Forest Sustainability Act promotethe long-term health of forest ecosystems.

At the National level, Ontario has indicatedsupport for the provisions of the 1995Canadian Biodiversity Strategy. Theseguidelines are expected to be applied in away that contributes to the maintenance ofecological systems and biodiversity.

1.2 Evolving Management Methodsand Technology

A key consideration in the maintenance ofecological systems is the need to manageat a number of spatial scales. Not only is itnecessary to manage for particular habitatfeatures at the forest stand level, butproperties of landscapes (of which theforest stand is part) must also bemanaged.

Maintenance or creation of particularlandscape characteristics (percent of foresttypes and age classes, forest patch sizeand distribution, etc) will increase thelikelihood that all the biological diversityassociated with the landscape will beperpetuated. This multi-scale perspectiveof habitat management requires thatplanning at the forest Management Unit(MU) level be closely linked to broader landuse planning.

These guidelines deal with the desiredproperties of both landscapes and foreststands that together are considerednecessary to ensure perpetuation of white-

1

Forest Management Guidelines forthe Provision ofWhite-tailed Deer Habitat

tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)populations. These guidelines consist of 5major parts: (1) the seasonal ecology andhabitat needs of deer; (2) a description ofimplications of forest managementactivities; (3) recommendations forproviding deer habitat during forestmanagement planning at the landscapeand stand level; (4) application of theguidelines; and (5) future directions.

1.3 Relationship between Deer andOther Resource Management

The purpose of these guidelines is to assistresource managers in their efforts tomaintain or create through forestmanagement a forest that has the structureand composition to provide a functionalhabitat for white-tailed deer. As such, theseguidelines can be implemented as part ofan ecosystem approach to forestmanagement The implementation of theseguidelines should not conflict with themaintenance of ecosystem structure,composition and function needed to ensuresustainability and ecological integrity offorest ecosystems for a variety of species.

This document elaborates on the habitatneeds of deer and the concept of carryingcapacity. The relationship between deerherd population dynamics and the qualityand quantity of habitat is important to thesustainability of both deer and foresthabitat. The document, White-tailed Deerin Ontario: Background to a Policy(Voigt et al. 1992), provides a biologicaland sociological rationale for managementof deer in Ontario. It describes methods tocalculate deer targets based on HabitatSupply Analysis and Hunter DemandAnalysis. More sophisticated methods

using a Habitat Supply Model are availablefor traditional deer range in central Ontario(Broadfoot et al. 1994, 1996a). TheControlled Deer Hunt and the SelectiveHarvest allow regulation of deer herds inrelation to habitat supply and hunterdemand. Analyses integrated withbiological, sociological, cultural and politicalfactors will assist in implementing theseforest management guidelines.

The size, location and migration of deerpopulations should be considered in orderto manage effectively the supply of deerhabitat. A single population of deer mayoccupy an area of a hundred to severalthousand square kilometres. Thus, whenimplementing guideline requirementsmanagers should adopt a multi-scaleperspective. Landscape considerationsshould guide decisions at the stand level.Adequate assessment data are essential tomake accurate prescriptions and determinethe impact of past and future forestmanagement on the provision of deerhabitat. A report entitled, Field InventoryTechniques for Measuring Winter DeerBrowse Supply and Consumption(Broadfoot and Voigt 1996a), providesdetails for assessing carrying capacity andherd levels in relation to food supply. Theinformation on carrying capacity is criticalinput for the Ontario Deer Model(Broadfoot and Voigt 1992) which is animportant tool in making managementdecisions for the sustainability of deer andtheir habitat.

Since deer in forested areas of Ontario aremigratory between summer and winterranges, it is important to distinguishbetween requirements of deer on eachtype of range. Basically, throughout therange of deer in Ontario, all forested areas

2

are used by deer as summer range butonly a small percentage (10-15%) offorested areas is winter range (Broadfoot etal. 1996b). The guidelines are designed toprovide food and cover in both summerand winter ranges. Winter range can bedelineated using Ranta (1997) (see chapteron Identification and Delineation of White-Tailed Deer Winter Habitat) (Ranta 1994)and a report on deer migration entitledWhite-tailed Deer Migration Behaviour:A Resource Management Perspective(Broadfoot and Voigt 1996b).

2.0 Seasonal Ecology Of Deer

2.1 Deer Habitat Needs

Although the habitat needs of deer can belisted simply as food, cover and water,interactions with habitat are very complex.In brief, energy is supplied from plant food.That energy is required for movement,survival, growth and reproduction. Coveralso plays a key role in determining energycosts, and provides access to foodresources and protection/escape frompredators.

During the summer months deer useenergy for antler development, lactationand body growth. Deer will eat up to 4 kg(dry weight) of green plant material eachday (Holter et al. 1977). Although there isan abundance of green food, deer becomeextremely selective, choosing high protein,high energy, highly digestible food types(Nudds 1980). Deer have physiologicalconstraints for food digestion and thus onlya small percentage of the total quantity ofplant biomass is consumed (Hanley et al.1989). Consequently, their diet is restrictedto growing tips and succulent shoots of

herbaceous plants and forbs (Swift 1948).Deer switch their diet continually from onespecies to another as different plants grow,develop and flower. Flowers are eagerlysought along with other low fibre food,such as new herbaceous growth, forefficient digestion. Grasses grow from theirbase and are usually not well digested bydeer, but in the spring and fall, when newtips appear, grasses are quite palatableand are heavily consumed (McCaffery andCreed 1969, Rogers et al. 1981).

In the fall, as day lengths shorten andtemperatures drop, deer begin toaccumulate fat reserves to help supplyenergy during the winter months (Vermeand Ozoga 1980, Serveringhaus 1981,Hobbs 1989). High energy, highcarbohydrate food sources are sought.Green plants, such as clovers, that growduring the cool-seasons of spring and fall,even after the first heavy frosts, areimportant as are high carbohydrate itemsincluding mast crops of acorns and beechnuts. Accumulations of fat on deer reflectthe length of the fall season and the qualityand quantity of fall food (Mautz 1978).Adult does require good fall range torecover from the stresses of nursing fawns

3

Deer use edges where cover and food

are close together.

and to develop fat reserves for the winter.Fawns and yearlings are still growing andhave relatively large energy demands aswell as a need to accumulate fat in the fall.Adult bucks expend a great deal of energyduring the pre-rut period from lateSeptember through October. During the rutfrom November into December, bucks mayeat little but use much energy pursuingdoes. It is not uncommon for prime bucksto deplete their fall accumulation of fat atthis time (Sauer 1984, Broadfoot andLintack 1991).

During the winter months, deer in most ofOntario must subsist on a diet of lowquality food. The major food at this time ofyear is browse which is comprised of thewoody twigs and buds of deciduous treesand shrubs, and conifer leaves, such ascedar and hemlock. Browse is low inprotein and energy and high in fibre (Ullreyet al. 1964, Ullrey et al. 1967, Mautz et al.1976). Even with an unlimited food supply,deer on this winter diet will lose weightbecause the digestion of high fibre foodrequires a great deal of energy (Verme andUllrey 1984, Gray and Servello 1995). Insome areas such as northwestern Ontarioarboreal lichens (Usnea spp.) are animportant food supply.

Deer have developed special adaptationsto deal with difficult conditions duringwinter. These include reduced activity, foodintake and the ability to lower temperaturesin their extremities (Verme and Ullrey1984). Reduced activity and food intakeresults in a lowering of metabolism (Silveret al. 1969, Mautz et al. 1992, Worden andPekins 1995). Reduced metabolism actssimilar to lowering a thermostat on afurnace in that less fuel (in this case fat) isburned. This suite of natural adaptations

enables deer to survive when temperaturesare coldest and most severe in mid-January and February.

White-tailed deer store large quantities offat during the fall (McCullough and Ullrey1983). On a winter diet of woody browse,fat reserves can be used to balance energyrequirements for about 3 months (Wordenand Pekins 1995). As a result, energyreserves are usually exhausted by the endof winter. The energy demands of pregnantdoes increase during the last 2-3 months ofpregnancy (Verme and Ullrey 1984). Thelength of time that deer can survive on arestricted winter range can be critical. Awinter extended by only a few weeks cansignificantly reduce the survival of deer(Verme 1968). In early spring, a supply ofhigh quality food can be very important(DelGiudice et al. 1991). Deer eagerly seekthe cool-season forages like grasses,legumes and new growing greenery at thistime (Rogers et al. 1981).

In summary, the seasonal biology andhabitat needs of deer dictate a diversity ofhabitat types. Seasonal needs can only bemet on a single parcel of land by provisionof a variety of habitat types, interspersedwith early and late successional stages.Deer migrate and shift home rangesseasonally in an attempt to meet theirhabitat needs.

4

2.2 Seasonal Migration

A major adaptation of deer to winterconditions in Ontario is seasonal migration.At the onset of winter, deer in most areasof Ontario migrate to winter concentrationareas, called yards. These areas arecharacterized by the presence of conifertrees which intercept snowfall (Hanley andRose 1987). Conifers also provide shelterfrom wind and help conserve energy lossthrough radiation. Thus, the presence ofconifer allows deer to move freely inaccessing winter food. Irregular terrain andother physiographic features, fallen treesand dense forest also help to conserveenergy by providing shelter from wind chill.In some areas of North America, wherewinter weather is cold and windy, deersurvive well without conifers. However,those areas have relatively little snowfalland abundant, high energy food (Moen1968). Concentrations of deer result in theestablishment of a network of trails andrunways that further help reduce energycosts. Yarding behaviour further reducesthe risks of predation by providing escaperoutes along trails. The alertness of groupsof deer also helps to detect predators.Some studies have suggested that deermigration to winter concentration areas hasevolved to reduce the chance of predation(Nelson and Mech 1981, Messier andBarrette 1985).

Winter concentrations of deer areestablished in traditional locations inOntario. Many areas exist that havesuitable habitat but are not used. Sincedoes return each year to the same winterarea, accompanied by their fawns, theestablishment of new areas is difficult.During mild winters deer concentrate lessand appear reluctant to enter the core

areas of yards. Thus, winter concentrationareas are used differently each yeardepending on winter conditions. After aseries of mild winters, the establishment ofnew yarding areas can be expected if foodand cover is suitable and predation is notlimiting (Broadfoot and Voigt 1996b).

Most deer delay moving into yards untilafter the snow cover builds to about 20 cm.Thus, in much of Ontario deer do not enterthe yards until about the 3rd or 4th week inDecember. In early winters entry to yardsmay occur before December or in latewinters it may not occur until mid-January.The exodus of deer from the yards isdelayed until there is only a fewcentimetres of snow left on the ground.Thus, the dates vary from late March untilmid-April (Broadfoot and Voigt 1996b) incentral Ontario to late April in northwesternOntario.

Summer dispersion areas can be 7-10times larger than the winter concentrationarea, i.e. winter yards comprise only 10-15% of the summer dispersion area(Broadfoot et al. 1996b). Habitatmanagement for summer ranges requiresdifferent guidelines than for winter ranges.

2.3 The Concept Of Habitat CarryingCapacity

Carrying capacity is a concept basic towildlife management. Carrying capacity (K)is defined as the maximum number of deeran area can support on a sustained basis,i.e. without detrimental effects on thehabitat (Voigt et al. 1992). The carryingcapacity on any given area is dynamicbecause it varies as the requirements ofdeer and resource supplies change (Moen

5

1973, McCullough 1979, McCullough1984). Deer herds above carrying capacitywill consume more food than grows eachyear which eventually results in a decline infood and therefore carrying capacity. Adecline in deer numbers then occurs.

Many factors affect carrying capacity butthe key measure of K is the amount (kg) ofdeer food per hectare that is available oraccessible to deer. Thus, browse that islocated too far from conifer cover becauseof deep snow or slash, etc., is notaccessible to deer and therefore does notcontribute to carrying capacity. An accuratemeasure of K would take into accountconstraints on processing slow-to-digestwoody browse, reduced energyrequirements of deer, the supply of fatreserves and the use of thermal cover toconserve energy. These adaptationsdetermine the amount of browse that deercan consume, and the amount of fat andprotein that must be mobilized to make upenergy deficits, and consequently thenumber of deer an area can support.

Since forage is the support base forherbivore populations, the relationshipbetween deer and their environment canbe examined on the basis of seasonalchanges in availability and quality of food(Short et al. 1974) in relation to seasonallyvarying deer physiological requirements(Moen 1973, Verme and Ullrey 1984). If theenergy needs of deer and the energysupplied by available food can beestimated, carrying capacity can becalculated from the amount of usableforage available divided by individual deerintake (Broadfoot and Voigt 1996a). Sincethe amount of forage varies from place toplace, local inventories of availabilityshould be made to ensure accuracy. If

done carefully, carrying capacity estimatesbased on available forage and nutritionalrequirements permit realistic habitatevaluations (Wallmo et al. 1977) andprovide a basis for management decisions,especially the control of deer numbers(Moen et al. 1986, McCullough 1987).

Since Ontario deer migrate between winterand summer range, they respond to awinter carrying capacity (Kw) and asummer carrying capacity (Ks). Summerand winter carrying capacities are verydifferent because of food quality, quantity,and accessibility, as well as seasonalenergetic costs.

The rate at which deer populations grow(from a very few individuals to highnumbers at carrying capacity) is densitydependent (McCullough 1990). As thedensity of deer increases, there is lessfood and cover available for each deer.Many physical characteristics of deerdecrease as herds grow towards carryingcapacity, including reproductive rate (Gross1969, McCullough 1979, Verme 1987,Porter 1991), survival (Fowler 1981,Caughley 1977), weight of individuals(Leberg and Smith 1993) and size ofantlers (Severinghaus and Moen 1983).Hunter success and harvest size are alsodensity dependent. Some populationcharacteristics are more influenced bywinter range carrying capacity and othersby summer range K. These concepts areimportant to understand when evaluatingthe significance of habitat and in makingcritical management decisions (Broadfootand Voigt 1992).

Because of the high reproductive capabilityand time-lags in responses of deer andvegetation, it is common for deer numbers

6

or populations to irrupt and overshootcarrying capacity (McCullough 1987). In astable environment, deer numbers wouldoscillate around year-round carryingcapacity, but, very few environmentsremain stable for long.

2.4 Reproduction In Deer

Habitat has a major influence on deerreproduction. Adult does breed first aroundmid-November followed by yearling does inlate-November and fawn does in earlyDecember. At high densities, deer may notbe bred until the 2nd or 3rd estrous andthat results in late born fawns with areduced chance of survival (Ozoga andVerme 1982). The percentage of fawn andyearling does that breed depends on theirphysical development, which is primarilydetermined by food supply during thegrowing season, but is also influenced bylength of growing season and conditionsduring growing season (Verme 1967). Daylength may also have an influence onwhen, or which, does might ovulate (Vermeand Ozoga 1987).

The reproductive performance of does is primarily

determined by the nutritional value of summer

range.

Although some residual effects on doenutritional status occur after long, severewinters (Mech et al. 1987), the reproductiveperformance of does is primarilydetermined by the nutritional value of foodobtained on summer range (Verme 1967)as well as age. The population level of theherd in relation to the carrying capacity ofthe summer range is a major determinantof reproductive rate or gross productivity.The conception rate of does in the fall is afunction of their condition or fitness. Asdensity of does increases the reproductiverate declines since there is relatively lessfood available per deer (Fig. 1).Theoretically, the reproductive rate of deerwould drop to zero if deer ever reached100% summer carrying capacity.

Fig. 1 Changes in embryos per doe in relation

to % summer carrying capacity.

Although there is much variation in thequality and quantity of summer range indifferent areas of Ontario, deer herds are ata relatively low-percentage of summerrange carrying capacity compared to winterK. Reproductive rates for Ontario deersuggest that during the summer, densitiesof deer vary from less than 10 to 50% ofsummer range carrying capacity sinceembryos per adult doe vary from about 1.0

7

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Rep

rodu

ctiv

e R

ate

(Em

bryo

s/D

oe)

%Summer Carrying Capacity0 20 40 60 80 100

Bred as Adults

Bred as Fawns

to near 2.0. The percentage of fawns thatbreed varies from 0 to 60%; this is a furthermeasure of summer range and growingconditions. Breeding of fawns often ceaseswhen herds are at 40% of summer K(Broadfoot and Voigt 1992). Fawn breedingmay be related to the weight of fawns atthe breeding season. If fawns fail to reach36 kg, they seldom breed (Moen 1973).Other factors such as day length also affectfawn breeding and may override goodsummer conditions at northern latitudes(Budde 1983). Doe reproductivity during themid-1980’s for the Algonquin Region(Strickland pers. comm.) suggests that thoseherds were at about 30% of summer K.

Summer range also has a major effect onantler development in bucks. Since antlersand number of embryos per doe are bothaffected by summer range, it is notsurprising that they are correlated(Severignhaus and Moen 1983).Measurements of the beam diameter ofyearling bucks can be used to predict thereproductive rate of does on the samesummer range (Fig. 2). Yearling antlerbeam diameters can be used to estimatethe percentage of summer carryingcapacity that the herd is at (Fig. 3) usingthe relationships in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2(Broadfoot and Voigt 1992).

Although summer range of deer affectsgross reproductive rate, nutritional levels ofdoes (determined by habitat and weather)during the winter can also affectproductivity. A long severe winter may haveits greatest effect on the survival ofnewborn fawns. Small, weak, under-nourished and underweight fawns diewithin a few days or weeks of birth (Verme1977). Depending on winter severity, thepercentage of the fawn crop lost to post-

natal mortality may vary from as little as10% to as much as 70% (Fig. 4). This post-natal mortality may be an even greatereffect of severe winters than directmortality due to malnutrition of winteringdeer. However, does that lose their fawnsat birth may be in much better condition forbreeding in the fall of that year (Verme1967).

8

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Rep

rodu

ctiv

e R

ate

(Em

bryo

s/D

oe)

Yearling Antler Beam Diameter (mm)12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Fig. 2. Yearling antler beam diameter as a predictor

of embryos per doe.

Fig. 3. Yearling antler beam diameter for estimating

the % summer carrying capacity.

50

40

30

20

10

0

% S

umm

er C

arry

ing

Cap

acity

Yearling Antler Beam Diameter (mm)12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Legend

Adult Yearling Fawn

9

2.5 Natural Mortality Of Deer

Natural mortality of deer is also affected bydeer density in relation to habitat carryingcapacity. Since adult deer density duringthe summer months is low in relation to Ks,adult mortality is also quite low. However,fawn mortality during the summer may behigh. It is well documented that predationon fawns by coyotes, wolves and bearsoccurs (Mech 1984). Studies indicate thatthe magnitude of fawn predation is highlyvariable ranging between 0 % and 80 % oftotal summer fawn mortality. It is quite likelythat some of the fawns consumed bywolves and bears are those that diedshortly after birth, or fawns that would nothave survived. This complicates theassessment of the effects of fawnpredation on deer population dynamics. Major causes of summer mortality areroad-kills, other accidents, predation andillegal kills (poaching). These mortalityfactors usually amount to only 3-7% of theannual mortality of adults. The CooperativeDeer Study has measured natural mortalityof deer in Ontario during the summer foradults only (Voigt et al. 1992). Direct

measures for fawns are not available.Figure 5 shows the best current estimatesfor density dependent mortality for all agesfor summer and winter months duringnormal or mild winters. This relationship hasbeen developed from computer simulationmodelling and studies of radio-collared doesand bucks. The summer rates do notinclude the early post-natal fawn losses dueto “Verme” effects (section 2.4) . Figure 5shows that a herd at 30% Ks would have asummer loss of 4%.

Winter densities are very high since deerconcentrate on areas about 10-15% aslarge as summer dispersion areas(Broadfoot and Voigt 1996b). During winter,the food supply is also much reduced. Theconsequence of these two factors is thatwinter carrying capacity is lower and thedeer herd is much closer to winter K. Inmany parts of Ontario deer are at 80 to120% of the carrying capacity of yardsduring normal winters. From Fig. 5 it isevident that deer populations living at120% Kw will incur a winter mortality rateof about 16%. Winter mortality rates havevery important effects since they may be

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Mor

talit

y

% Summer or Winter Carrying Capacity0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

100

80

60

40

20

0

% P

ost

Nat

al F

awn

Mor

talit

y

Winter Severity Index (OWSI Or Verme)80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Fig. 4. Predicted post natal fawn mortality due to

winter effects using the Ontario or Verme Winter

Severity Index (OWSI).

Fig. 5. Relationship between % summer mortality

and summer carrying capacity and relationship

betwen % winter mortality and winter carrying

capacity.

additive to hunting rates. Major causes ofmortality are starvation and predation(Voigt et al. 1992). Fawns from theprevious summer are most affected bywinter conditions and adult does are leastaffected.

Winter food supply has a major effect onwinter survival. The amount of availablebrowse (kg/ha) is steadily depleted aswinter progresses. Body weight alsodeclines steadily as fat and muscle tissueare used. Because of variance in theweight of deer, some deer exceed thecritical percentage of body weight losswithin a few weeks of the onset of winter.Other deer gradually succumb as bodyweights decline over the winter. Based onthese body weight losses, there is a rapidincrease in the mortality rate at 10-12weeks after winter starts in yards withrelatively low food supplies (Hobbs 1989).

3.0 Implications of Forest Management Activities

The three basic silvicultural systems(clearcut, shelterwood and selection) aremodified according to the silvics of thespecies involved, soil and site conditions,and market considerations. The effect of asilvicultural system on deer food is notconsistent across all sites. On good sites,herbaceous growth can initially competebetter than woody vegetation but on suchfast growing sites rapid growth of thewoody understory will form a completecanopy faster than on poor sites.

Silvicultural systems can be utilized tocreate diversity within a forest stand. Deerrequire habitat diversity to meet theirannual needs. Deer activity during spring

and autumn is high in permanent openingsbut during winter, coniferous forest cover isessential when snow depths exceed 50cm. At first glance, a silvicultural systemthat produces an all-aged forest wouldappear to have higher diversity than aneven-aged forest stand but long-termbenefits are not so simply determined. Inthe selection system, the cutting ofindividual or groups of mature trees maybe poor for improving deer habitat.Openings in the forest canopy may be toosmall to have a significant impact on forageregeneration although it may releasecommercial forest species. In contrast, aclear cut which regenerates to an even-aged forest may produce abundant deerfood followed by a decline in food supplywhen the forest canopy becomes closed orfood grows out of reach of deer. Largeclearcuts on a unit of land may produce aboom, and then bust phenomenon inforage supplies. On summer ranges, ifclearcuts are very large, entire deer homeranges may experience wide fluctuations inforage supply over time. Smaller clear cutsscattered over the same unit of land willshow a similar forage response butindividual deer home ranges will be lessdramatically impacted. Portions of largeclearcuts in or adjacent to yards maybecome inaccessible to deer when snow isdeep.

3.1 Clearcut System

The clearcut system is an even-agedsilvicultural system where the entire growthis harvested over a considerable area inone operation, with or without leavingseed-trees. The system is designed toprovide the conditions necessary for theestablishment and survival of a new forestcrop by natural or artificial regeneration.

10

The clearcut system is primarily used in theBoreal Forest. Only the southern extremesof the Boreal Forest are within the range ofthe white-tailed deer. The clearcut systemis less commonly used in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest where it is usuallyonly applied in the intolerant hardwoodworking groups such as poplars (Populusspp.) and white birch (Betula papyrifera).Jack pine (Pinus banksiana) and spruce(Picea spp.) in the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence Forest are also managed usingthe clearcut system. Although 85% ofOntario’s annual timber harvest isproduced under this system of forestmanagement, in most of the deer range itis not widely used. An exception is the deerrange in jack pine and spruce in the borealforest of northwestern Ontario.

Clearcuts can be of various shapes andsizes. The most common form is anirregular pattern which is broken bytopography, forest type, and immature ageclasses. Contiguous cuts are not usuallylarger than 150 ha. Size may be reducedand a cutting pattern may be established toprotect fragile sites or to retain a standingseed source for natural regeneration. Stripand block clearcuts are also used in theclearcut silvicultural system. With each ofthese patterns, the uncut strips or blocksare themselves clearcut after thesuccessful establishment of regenerationon the strips or blocks which were clearcutin the first operation, usually about 5-7years later.

The clearcut silvicultural system usuallyinvolves site preparation to ensureregeneration success, and tending of thenew forest crop to perpetuate or create aneven-aged forest.

Clearcut systems have much potential toproduce good deer habitat on summerrange. However, clearcuts that destroy toomuch winter shelter may produce abundantforage that is inaccessible to deer duringwinters with deep snow. Small cuts (1-10ha) in winter yards will produce pockets ofbrowse but larger cuts will be detrimental ifconifers that allow deer to access food areremoved. The shape of the cut andcharacteristics of residual forest edges (i.e.coniferous shelter trees) will determine thesize of cut that is most beneficial for winteryards. In general, clearcutting of conifer inwinter concentration areas is to beavoided. On summer range, the samesized clearcut may be beneficial. Smallcuts of up to 100 ha will benefit deer onsummer range although on the larger cuts,forage supplies will likely be extremelyabundant during the regeneration tosapling stages but relatively scarce duringthe polewood and sawtimber stages.In northwestern Ontario deer concentratein winter in areas of 100-300 km2 in size.These areas can be maintained orenhanced using dispersed harvest blockswith cut sizes of 30-60 ha. No more than30% of a yard should be harvested beforecut overs have regenerated to 6 m inheight.

3.2 Shelterwood System

The shelterwood silvicultural system, likethe clear cut silvicultural system, is aneven-aged system of forest management inwhich harvest operations, site preparation,regeneration and tending operations arecarried out at different times. The primarydifference between the two systems is thetemporary retention for harvest, of treeswhich provide the seed source and cover

11

conditions necessary for the successfulgermination and establishment of natural orartificial regeneration in the shelterwoodsilvicultural system. After successfulregeneration, the residual crop is removedin a single cut or series of cuts.

The shelterwood silvicultural system ismost commonly applied in yellow birch(Betula alleghaniensis), white pine (Pinusstrobus) and hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)forests on shallow till soils in the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence Forest. The system isalso commonly prescribed for even-agedsugar maple forests. About 1/3 of the GreatLakes- St. Lawrence Forest is harvestedunder this system of forest managementand overall it accounts for approximately5% of Ontario’s annual harvest.

There are two forms of the shelterwoodsilvicultural system currently in use, stripand uniform shelterwood. The stripshelterwood system involves clearcuttingstrips 20-40 m in width. The adjoiningalternate strips which remain provide theseed source for natural regeneration bywind dispersal of seed. The uniformshelterwood system involves cuttinguniformly over a whole stand, reducingstand density by approximately 60%, andleaving individual trees or small groups oftrees uniformly dispersed over the cuttingarea as the seed source for naturalregeneration. For each form of the system,the residual mature forest is removed in asecond, and possibly a third, harvestoperation 5-15 years later.

Strip shelterwood has a beneficial effect ondeer forage since it disturbs the forest,producing a variety of plants which deerneed. If residual winter shelter trees aretoo scarce, if the strips are too wide, or the

strips are not sufficiently cleared of waste,deer movements and access may beimpeded. In most cases deer habitat isimproved if the strips are about 30-40 mwide. The exact width, however, is flexibleand local managers may modify theprescriptions to suit needs in each area. Ina winter area some strips of conifer mustbe maintained at all times. The final cutshould not be made until regeneratingconifer is intercepting snow which isusually when conifers are 5 to 10 m high.

Uniform shelterwood is usually not as goodas strip shelterwood since it produces lessdiversity. The result can be a short periodof abundant food followed by a longerperiod of low food supplies similar toclearcutting but residual cover is closer tofood supplies in shelterwood cuts. In thissystem, the size of the cut and the amountof mature and immature forest left standingare critical. On winter ranges, if only a fewconifer shelter trees remain, the resultingforest may not allow deer to use the area.In winter areas, the final cuts cannot bemade until regenerating conifer has grownsufficiently to intercept snow. Uniformshelterwood can be applied in differentways. Depending on species and siteconditions, there may be sufficient flexibilityto adapt the prescription to meet deer andtimber needs.

3.3 Selection System

The selection system is an uneven-agedsilvicultural system where mature andundesirable trees are removed individuallyor in small groups over the whole area.Regeneration is generally natural. Thissystem is well suited only to tree specieswhich are readily able to establish on an

12

unprepared seedbed, and which are shadetolerant. Forest economics have historicallydictated that the tree species and treesinvolved be of relatively high value (e.g.sawlogs or veneer), since the costs ofharvest operations must be spread over alower yield per hectare. The system ismore commonly used in uneven-agedtolerant hardwood stands of the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence Forest. The selectionsilvicultural system perpetuates an uneven-aged forest, with trees of different agesgrowing singly or in small groups.Approximately 10% of Ontario’s annualharvest is produced under this system offorest management.

Selected trees are carefully marked andthen removed, either as individuals or insmall groups, at repeated short intervals oftime, usually 15-25 years. The treesselected for removal include mature trees,defective trees with poor growth potential,and immature trees in strong competitionwith other trees of greater potential.Openings created during harvestoperations fill in by the crown expansion ofresidual trees, or by the development ofexisting seedlings on the forest floor, orboth. Tending and improvement operationsare critical to the maintenance of cropquality and growing conditions.

Single tree selection limits plant diversity toshade tolerant species. However, it is thepreferred system for regenerating Americanbeech (Fagus grandifolia), a primary mastproducer. Group selection will result in anincrease in plant diversity compared tosingle tree selection. Moderately tolerant,commercial species such as yellow birch,black cherry (Prunus serotina), white ash(Fraxinus americana), oaks (Quercus spp.)and red maple (Acer rubrum) in addition to

numerous non-commercial forage specieswill develop after group selection harvest.

Uneven-aged hardwood stands provide a diversity

of summer food.

The selection system is designed toproduce new regeneration which shouldbenefit deer by providing food. Often, thesize of the clearing is less than 0.1 ha inthis system. However, unless loggingremoves trees from an area at least 0.4 to0.8 ha in size, the deer will benefit onlymarginally or for a short period of time. Onsummer range, selection cutting will notaffect habitat negatively but it may notenhance habitat either since there isrelatively little forest disturbance. Pole orsawtimber forest have little deer foragenaturally. Large tracts of hardwoodsmanaged under the selection system with ahigh component of older (10 cm and larger)trees (pole or sawtimber) provide lessforage than a young forest. If the residualbasal area is about 12 m2/ha after cutting,good browse conditions will be created.However, if a higher basal area ismaintained (i.e. >18 m2/ha), the quantity ofbrowse produced will be much lower. Onwinter range, if logging removes too manyconifer trees, a detrimental effect mayoccur if deer are unable to move freelyamong resting and feeding sites.

13

Food in pure hardwood stands is often not available

to deer during winters with deep snow.

3.4 Landscape Patterns and StandDevelopment

In forested areas, the production of deerforage is strongly influenced by the typeand age of the forests. The amount offorage available to deer (within about 2 mof the ground) during both winter andsummer, is related primarily to the amountof light which reaches the forest floor.Therefore, those structural aspects offorest cover which affect canopy closureare the primary determinants of foragesupply. In central Ontario, forage supply isfurther modified by stand composition sincesome plant species like balsam fir, beech,bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), etc.,are clearly avoided by deer as food (Voigtet al. 1992, Broadfoot et al. 1994). Innorthwestern Ontario, balsam fir (Abiesbalsamea) has luxurious growths ofarboreal lichens, principally Usnea spp.which is highly preferred by deer. Theamount of understory woody browse hasbeen correlated with the age structure ofthe forest (Hurst et al. 1979, Joyce 1986,Moen et al. 1986). A useful division of ageclass or development stages is: pre-sapling(stands dominated by trees < 2 cm dbh);

sapling (2-9 cm dbh); immature (polewood-sized trees 10-24 cm dbh); mature(sawlog-sized trees 25-49 cm dbh); andlarge sawtimber (>50 cm dbh) (Broadfootet al. 1994). Average dry weight estimates(kg/ha) of current annual growth of woodybrowse for these 5 stages show a typicalpattern in a wide variety of forest types.Averages for open (stocking < 0.6)intolerant hardwood stands show thefollowing mean values: pre-sapling (80kg/ha); sapling (30 kg/ha); immature (15kg/ha); mature (40 kg/ha); large sawtimber(50 kg/ha).

Measurements in Ontario by theCooperative Deer Study show considerablevariation from these values depending ontwo major influences - logging and deer.Logging can alter stand stocking rate andthus canopy closure. This increases theamount of sunlight reaching the ground,thus increasing the amount of woodybrowse (Wiggers et al. 1978, Cooperriderand Behrend 1980, Harlow 1984, Whitlawet al. 1993). Extensive deer browsing canremove much of the woody browse. Thusforest stage analysis can be useful forlarge area evaluation of potential forageproduction but local areas may requiremore detailed ground truthing. ForestResource Inventory (FRI) data can beconverted to forest stage (Broadfoot et al.1994). However, to give a generalapproximation over larger areas, sincelogging or intensive deer browsing occursover much of the deer range, most localsites will require ground truthing (see FieldInventory Techniques for MeasuringWinter Deer Browse Supply andConsumption, Broadfoot and Voigt(1996a).

14

During summer months, both deciduousand coniferous species provide cover as aresult of the canopy closure and verticaldistribution of trees (Demarchi and Bunnell1993). During the winter, the major cover isprovided by conifer species. Although thevalue of different conifer species variesbecause of their crown shapes and leafcharacteristics, the key variable is crownclosure. Coniferous trees enhance winterhabitat by intercepting snowfall whichallows deer to conserve energy and retainmobility and access to food supplies(Mattfeld 1974, Hanley and Rose 1987). Innorthwestern Ontario, balsam fir is animportant cover species. Although balsamdie and fall down after spruce budwormoutbreaks, balsam regenerates rapidly andcan provide good cover during winter.

In summary, forest stage and canopyclosure are the most importantdeterminants of the value of the forest todeer due to the influences they exert onthe accessibility of food supplies.Seasonally, deer requirements change asdo the areas used by deer. Thus, forestmanagement that alters age structure andcanopy closure of the forest will havedifferent effects on deer on winter versussummer range.

Since the effects of silvicultural systems onwinter versus summer deer ranges may begreatly different, logging operations can bebeneficial or detrimental to deer habitat. InOntario, logging will enhance most deersummer habitat since it partially orcompletely opens the forest canopy whichencourages regeneration of deer food.Winter habitat will also be enhanced unlessconifer removal is too extensive. Generally,logging results in a forest with morepioneer or early succession species.

During the summer months earlysuccession species, especially deciduous,are most beneficial to deer. It is doubtfulthat the type of forest managementpractised in Ontario’s Great Lakes-St.Lawrence Forest ever results in too muchcutting for deer on summer range. Harvestof the tolerant hardwood forest employing asingle tree selection silvicultural systemresults in less site disturbance, smallerstand openings and subsequently lessregeneration of browse than othermethods.

Browse close to conifer cover is critical in winter

yards.

On winter concentration areas, theproduction of preferred woody browse isvery important to improve or maintainwinter habitat. The major problem is thatmuch of the deer forage may becomeinaccessible with deep snow. The solutionis an interspersion of snow-interceptingconifers and deer forage. Large areas ofpure conifer are often frequented byyarding deer because of the easy mobilityand thermal cover advantages. However,the canopy closure allows little or nosunlight to encourage understory growth. Insome traditional deer yards, such areasprovide very little food (less than 4-5 kg/ha)and long winters have detrimental effects

15

on deer. Much better winter habitat can beprovided by encouraging deer foragegrowth while maintaining only sufficientconifer to allow deer to maintain a trailnetwork and provide adequate thermalcover. The amount of conifer requireddepends on snow depths, and the speciesand age of the conifers. Good winterhabitat is comprised of clusters of 3-4hemlocks, cedars (Thuja occidentalis), orpines (Pinus spp.) with branches touching.These clusters should be spaced 10-30metres apart throughout the yard. Thiswould be better than extensive areas of100% conifer crown closure. This coniferarrangement is a special case for a mixedforest. In that conifers occur in clusterswhich effectively intercept snow. Mixedforests with widely dispersed individualconifers do not have a significant snowinterception function and hence make poorwinter habitat for deer (Verme 1965).Species like balsam fir, pines and sprucesmay require a higher stocking than hemlockto intercept as much snow as hemlocks orcedars. White pine and red pine (Pinusresinosa) evenly spaced so that branchesdo not touch often have little effect on snowdepth. That kind of forest structure will likelybe unsuitable as winter range even thoughthe average crown closure may be morethan 60%.

4.0 Recommended Forest Management Guidelines

4.1 Landscape and Seasonal HabitatConsiderations

4.1.1 Winter HabitatWinter concentration areas (yards) vary

considerably in cover species, browsespecies, winter severity and deer usepatterns across the range of deer inOntario. It is most important that localmanagers be knowledgeable of thisvariation of the carrying capacity of theiryards. Variable local conditions of climate,forest history and soil type preclude asingle set of detailed prescriptions and thuslocal conditions should be taken intoaccount in the application of theseguidelines. If required, procedures shouldbe determined from the literature citedsection of this document, or from localforesters or agricultural representatives.The three most important features of asuccessful yard are traditional use, cover,and browse.

Winter yards require a good interspersion of cover

and food at both the landscape (above) and the

stand levels (below).

16

17

Traditional Use: Deer show strongtraditional use of winter concentrationareas and are virtually impossible tochange in their migration habits. Within theprincipal range of deer in Ontario,traditional yards should represent 10-15%of the summer range area. A greaterpercentage may be required in WMU’s towhich many deer migrate from surroundingunits, especially in areas with highpopulations and severe winters.

Lesser percentages may be required onsouthern units where winter conditions areless restrictive to deer and on northernunits where deer numbers are low. Lesserpercentages may also be found on WMU’swith a past history of conifer logging,agricultural clearing or residentialdevelopment. Winter range conditions arean important limiting factor to deerpopulations in Ontario. The permanent lossof suitable yarding conditions particularlywithin large, important yards showingstrong traditional use should be avoided atall costs.

Scheduling: Winter logging operations canbe extremely beneficial to deer whereedible treetops are felled by cutters andfresh trails are broken by skiddingequipment. For this reason, harvestoperations may be scheduled during theyarding period, to the extent that it ispossible and practical. Similarly, inconstructing new access roads for loggingwithin yards, winter roads are preferredover all-weather roads.

Regeneration: Many of the traditionalyards have an abundance of older coniferbut a scarcity of younger conifer standsand conifer regeneration. Provision ofbrowse is often silviculturally easy but

regeneration of conifers may be difficult.Both hemlock and white cedar arepreferred cover and preferred browsespecies for deer but these species aredifficult to regenerate to high stocking andthey are slow to outgrow the reach of deer.In the interest of long-term coniferreplacement, it may be necessary toaccept temporary sub-optimum conditionsfor winter deer habitat in order to providethe necessary conditions for coniferregeneration. Caution must be exercisedthat the tradition of use of that yard is notlost. The best solution may be to provideadequate stocking of other species such asred spruce, white pine, white spruce andbalsam fir if hemlock cannot beregenerated. Hemlock and cedar may beregenerated in peripheral or adjacent areasand eventually provide cover. Innorthwestern Ontario, black spruce, jackpine and balsam fir are important wintercover.

4.1.2 Summer HabitatLocal conditions of climate, forest historyand soil type preclude a single set ofdetailed prescriptions for all summerhabitat. If required, procedures to maintainor create summer habitat should bedetermined from the literature cited sectionof this document, or from local foresters oragricultural representatives.

Summer range has a major influence ondeer productivity and the ability of deer tosurvive winter effects because deerdevelop fat (energy) reserves while onsummer range.

Summer range affects productivity of deer herds.

Because forage is produced, harvestoperations will be beneficial to deerregardless of the silvicultural methodsused. Restrictions on logging are unlikelyto be necessary on summer range to meetdeer management goals. Since deer thrivein early succession forests on summerrange, silvicultural systems which producemore early succession forests will enhancesummer range.

Summer range can be enhanced by small,heavier and dispersed cutting as comparedto large clearcuts and light selection cuts.Cuts of this type produce the earlysuccessional types favoured by deer,greater edge effects and diverse habitat.

In most of Ontario, deer range openings,clearings, fields and early successionforest stages make up at least 10-15% ofthe area. That percentage will provideadequate summer range if widelydistributed. The provision of permanentopenings on only 5% of the area will bebeneficial to deer and many other wildlifespecies. Openings of 1 ha (ranging from0.2-4 ha, maximum width 100 m) providebenefits when distributed throughout the

area. The seeding of roads, landings andsite prepared areas with suitable grassesand forbs can enhance summer range byprolonging the longevity of openings andby providing early spring grazing for deer.Suitable species for seeding include thecool-season forages such as clover, redfesque and birdsfoot trefoil.

Besides the soft mast (e.g. raspberryRubus spp.) found in heavy cutovers, hardmast (i.e. beech and acorn) can bevaluable to deer during seed years.Selection cuts can enhance autumn foodsupply where suitable mast producers,including potential producers, are retainedor released. The best seed producers arelarge, full-crowned, and vigorous trees witha dominant position in the canopy. Oftenthe best producers are only 50-75 yearsold. Direct sunlight on the crown is animportant factor in seed production, andsuitable mast trees can be released byselection cuts in the same way as potentialtimber producing trees.

4.2 Stand Level

4.2.1 CoverHemlock and cedar are the bestinterceptors of snow and typically grow inassociation with preferred browse species.In the absence of hemlock or cedar, pineand other conifers may be used by deer foryarding purposes. The amount of conifershould allow deer to move throughout theyard and should provide shelter in beddingareas. Deer yards should have a mix ofunderstocked conifers or mixed woodswhere browse is abundant, interspersedwith heavily stocked and relatively pureconifer. This arrangement allows deer tomove among feeding and bedding areas

18

and provides refuge areas during winterstorms. Known migration and travel routesand suitable bedding areas such ashemlock ridges and “knobs” should beavoided when deciding road locations. Treeremoval should be limited to leave aresidual stand that provides an 80% crownclosure. Higher stocking levels arepreferred where the cover species areother than hemlock or cedar, and in yardswhere good conifer is already scarce.Outside of bedding areas and travelcorridors, conifer stands should be reducedin stocking, in order to encourage browseproduction. In hemlock or cedar stands, anaverage conifer crown closure of 60% isadequate, or a patchwork of smallopenings may be created to achieve thesame effect. The average stocking shouldbe approximately 60% based on trees 10m or higher. In mixed wood stands wherethe conifer content is low, it is desirable toretain all of the conifers and to confine treeremoval to the hardwood component. Thisobjective is especially appropriate wherethe silvicultural prescription is gearedtowards regenerating hardwoods ratherthan conifer.

4.2.2 BrowseThe recommended amount of browse thatis accessible to deer should average 20 kg/ha of current annual growth (dryweight) of suitable species, between 0.5and 2.0 m in height. Diversity of browse isrequired and at least three suitable speciesshould be available. Suitable speciesinclude cedar, hemlock, viburnums(Virburnum spp.), red maple, striped maple(Acer pennsylvanicum), mountain maple(Acer spicatum), red oak (Quercus rubra),sugar maple, dogwood (Cornus spp.),beaked hazel (Corylus cornuta), birch

(Betula spp.), cherry (Prunus spp.), groundyew (Taxus canadensis) and white pine. Tobe accessible to deer, browse should bewithin 30 m of suitable cover in yardswhere snow depths exceed 50 cm, or asfar as 100 m or more in southern yardswith less snow or on south-facing slopes.Arboreal lichens, where available, mayprovide a portion of the required foodsupply.

Conifers may be cut to foster growth ofwinter food to the extent that deer accessto food is not prevented in average winters.Food supplies will diminish sharply whencrown closure exceeds 80% and access tofood supplies will be low when crownclosure is less than 60%. The species ofconifer (and crown shape) and theirdistribution will determine the optimalcrown closure to ensure mobility of deerand access to food. Winter ground or aerialsurveys should be done to monitor deermobility and food supplies.

In areas where annual browseconsumption exceeds current annualgrowth, a year-to-year decline in forage willoccur and remedial management should beundertaken. At least one or more of 3management actions should occur: (1)improve habitat by increasing browseproduction; (2) improve access to browsevia a trail network or restoration of conifer;(3) reduce the deer herd. These provisionsapply to long-term winter habitatmaintenance during average winters.

Habitat deterioration from over browsingduring severe winters when there is ashortage of accessible food should beavoided. Remedial management shouldconsist of: (1) establishing a trail network tomake browse more accessible; and/or (2)

19

cutting of hardwoods in central Ontario andcutting individual lichen-laden deadconifers in northwestern Ontario to provideimmediate food and future browseproduction; and/or (3) provision ofemergency food. (See Guidelines forWinter Feeding of Deer in Ontario OMNR1997d).

4.2.3 Mast ProductionManagement of beech and oak trees onsummer ranges within 1-2 km of winterconcentration areas should be encouragedto perpetuate and maintain mastproduction. In northwestern Ontario, buroak is a significant mast producer.

On summer range where oaks andbeeches occur in significant numbers,forest management should be geared tomaintaining continuous mast productionover the long term.

Even-aged silviculture (shelterwood orclearcut) can be used to promote red oaksince it is of intermediate shade tolerance.Single-tree selection cuts can be used forbeech regeneration where these speciesoccur in significant areas. This may be atthe expense of herbaceous and woodyforage locally.

Trees with large crowns should be retainedsince they are more likely to produce seed.Strong mast production is alsocharacteristic of older trees and isstimulated by exposure to sunlight, such as may occur along roads or adjacent toopenings. Large mast crops can beproduced by oaks on shallow soil ridgesduring difficult growing seasons.

4.2.4 Cedar YardsWinter yards comprised primarily of cedarrequire special management. Cedar is ashallow-rooted long-lived species thatgrows well on 2 major site types: (1)organic soils usually associated withlowlands; (2) limestone sites on uplands.Few management guidelines are availablefor upland sites. Three problems occur: (1) high crown closure and high deer use

20

Trail networks help deer move among food and

shelter areas.

Winter logging can provide immediate food and

future browse production.

21

result in very low food supplies of 1-4kg/ha; (2) cedar regeneration after cuttingcan be very poor without special treatmentbecause other species (e.g. balsam fir)invade the cut or deer browsing preventsgrowth of small cedars; (3) severedisturbance to the stand can elevate thewater table which limits regeneration.

Cedar cuts may require a precut or postcutremoval of undesirable species. Very largecedar stands can be strip or patch cutunder the shelterwood system on a 90-120year rotation with 2 or 3 cuts depending onregeneration and growth. Patches may be0.1 to 0.2 ha in size.

In cedar stands, with low or moderatenumbers of deer, regeneration may occurbut elsewhere intense browsing may makecedar planting necessary. Burning ormechanical disturbance may be necessaryfor cedar regeneration. Protection ofindividual trees with barriers may beneeded to allow cedars to grow beyond thereach of deer and be recruited to thecanopy.

4.2.5 Hemlock YardsWinter concentration areas where hemlockis the dominant conifer species requirespecial management. Hemlock shouldreceive special consideration since it is anexcellent snow interceptor and good winterfood for deer. Hemlock trees are very long-lived and respond to release even whenvery old.

Two problems often occur in hemlockforests which require special management:(1) food supplies are low in stands withhigh crown closure stands where deerhave concentrated for many winters;

(2) regeneration under hemlock inwintering areas is difficult to establish.Good seedbed conditions, includingadequate moisture as well as sunlight, arecritical for regeneration and growth.

Uneven-aged hemlock stands with greaterthan 80% crown closure should beselectively cut (using group selection) toencourage forage if supplies are belowrecommended amounts (see section 4.2.2).Crown closure should average 60-70% bycreating linked patches of hemlock withbranches touching. This is approximatelyequivalent to a basal area of 30 m2/ha ofhemlock.

Mature even-aged hemlock stands shouldbe partially cut to achieve 3 objectives: (1) increased availability or production offorage; (2) maintenance of sufficient conifershelter; and (3) regeneration of hemlock toreplace future loss of mature trees.

Stands to be cut on poor to moderatelydrained sites with relatively fine texturedsoils should have 45-50% residual crownclosure where regeneration is desired.Scarification after cutting and removal ofcompeting hardwoods, especially maples,is recommended. At least 50% of the area

Hemlock or cedar can provide excellent winter

cover but often a poor supply of food.

should be scarified. Advanced hardwoodregeneration should be removed. Seedingis recommended at the rate of 0.6 kg/ha.Spring seeding requires 90 daysstratification (a technique for preparingseeds) but fall seeding requires nostratification. In high deer density areas,success is jeopardized unless steps aretaken to deter deer.

Stands to be cut on dry sites, or standsthat are over-mature, or where grassinvasion is probable require 2 cuts. Thefirst cut should reduce crown closure to 70-80%, with scarification and hardwoodremoval as described above. After 8-12years crown closure can be reduced to50%. In winter concentration areas, a finalcut (such as in a 3 cut shelterwood system)may occur if regeneration of hemlock isgood enough to intercept snow (i.e. 60%crown closure by trees greater than 5 mhigh).

Strip shelterwood cuts of 20% removal (cut1 strip, leave 4 strips) with north-southoriented strips of 20-30 m will retain sheltervalues and promote regeneration in the cutstrip. The leave period between cuts isdependent upon regeneration on the cutstrip achieving “free-to-grow” status.Scarification and seeding or planting maybe necessary to encourage regenerationbut in high deer density areas, “escape” ofhemlock may be prevented. This systemhas advantages if it is economically viablefor commercial harvest (i.e. markets existfor hemlock products). Renewal andmaintenance treatments are also easier toconduct.

Where hemlock regeneration is subject tofailure, for example, in a winterconcentration area, attempts should be

made to: (1) maintain overhead canopy foras long as possible; (2) maintain 60%crown closure and encourage hardwoodsfor browse production; and (3) establishnew areas of cover to replace the oldstand. New cover may have to beestablished with conifer species that arenot likely to be eaten by deer such as whiteand red spruce.

4.3 Site Level

4.3.1 Browse and ForageBrowse plots from 0.5 to 2 ha in sizeshould be scattered throughout the yard todistribute deer over a wider area andprovide food to all groups of deer. Verygood sites may regenerate too quickly toherbaceous plants and grasses which cancompete with woody browse. Select siteswith trees which will promote suckering ifthere is no advance regeneration. Pile andburn slash to provide maximum area ofregeneration. Hand-cut plots produce morefood/ha but bull-dozing may be morefeasible if hand cutting is impractical.

Browse plot production should be inassociation with nearby conifer shelter topermit deer access, but a trail networklinking bedding areas and browse plotsmay be required. A packed snow baseshould be established in January beforesnow depths become excessive. In lateFebruary and March these trails are moreeasily maintained.

Re-cutting of browse plots may benecessary in 7-10 years. If browse plotsescape the reach of deer in less time,either deer numbers are too low for foodsupplies or the plot location is poorlychosen. Yard management plans should bereviewed.

22

4.3.2 Cool-Season (Spring and Fall) Forage Production

Cool-season forages should be promotedwhenever possible on summer rangebecause of their value during spring andautumn. Logging trails and log landings arethe usual places that are seeded.

White Dutch and red clovers are preferredspecies that should be used to enhancesuitable sites. Inoculated seed should besowed on good sites. Grass-clovermixtures may be required to establishground cover on poor sites.

Grasses and legumes should be seeded ata rate of at least 0.6 kg/ha; rates as highas 2.0 kg/ha will produce a bettervegetation cover. Fertilizers may berequired to establish cover depending onsoil and site conditions.

Cool-season forages should be sown inlate winter (on snow) or early spring ifground conditions are known. Alternatively,late August to early September seedingshould be attempted. Fertilizers can alsomaintain a desirable forage crop if appliedevery 3-5 years.

4.3.3 Permanent OpeningsA permanent opening contains a plantcommunity consisting of a variety ofgrasses, annuals, forbs, and may have alimited number of shrubs. Thesepermanent openings are distinctly differentfrom the temporary openings created toencourage the return of second growthforest. Regenerating forest stands,marshes, bogs, and outcrops have notbeen considered to be permanentopenings for the purpose of wildlifemanagement, but they may serve similar

functions temporarily. Abandoned beaverponds, if maintained in a dry state, canproduce the vegetation community desiredin a permanent opening.

Openings in the interior of forested areasand adjacent to winter concentration areasshould receive higher priority than in otherareas. On summer range in farmlandsufficient openings will be provided bynormal agricultural practices.

Openings should provide mainly spring andfall food. (See Cool-Season ForageProduction).

Since creation and maintenance ofopenings is expensive, management foropenings should be in areas where naturalopenings are uncommon.

Sites created by other development suchas powerline or pipeline rights-of-way, orlog-landings should receive priority fortreatment. Idle fields with unsuitable forageor shrub invasion should receive prioritybefore creation of new openings expresslyfor deer.

The enhancement or creation of permanentopenings should consider the followingfactors: (1) the most diverse plantcommunities are found at the junction ofseveral forest types; (2) sites that wereformerly open often have remnant plantcommunities that respond quickly torelease; (3) costs are often lower in sparseor low quality stands such as oak, birch,poor hard maple sites or off-site aspen; (4)irregularly-shaped openings with east-westlayout on southern exposures adjacent toheavy cover have the potential to meetmany year-round needs of deer.

23

The enhancement or creation of openingsshould employ techniques that are themost economical for long-termmaintenance. Consideration should begiven to using one or more of the following:(1) commercial timber sales; (2) bulldozers;(3) roller choppers; (4) tillers, ploughs anddisks; (5) spring burning.

The use of fertilizers or herbicides and/orseeding should be evaluated if native plantregeneration will be unsuitable or short-lived. Late summer or autumn mowing willcreate new growth tips and alter plantcommunities to the benefit of deer andother wildlife such as ruffed grouse(Bonasa umbellus). Mowing removesmature unpalatable forage, as well asweeds and brush. Pasture mixtures willproduce new palatable growth aftermowing.

Openings with primarily native foragespecies should produce seasonally diverseforage; openings created by seedingshould have predominately cool-seasonforages such as rye and legumes (clovers).

Openings of 2 ha (with a maximum width of100 m) are recommended.

5.0 Application of the Guidelines

These guidelines are to be applied in theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest wheredeer are the featured species with theexception in local situations where deerand moose (Alces alces) populationsoverlap and moose are declared thefeatured species. Proper planning at thelandscape and stand levels is necessary toapply these guidelines.

Forest management planning on Crownlands in Ontario is governed by the ForestManagement Planning Manual. Theplanning process is comprised of threeinterrelated levels which describe forestoperations in varying levels of detail:

• At the Forest Management Plan (FMP)level, broad objectives and strategies fora 20 year term are described andspecific operations for the first five yearsare identified. At this level landscaperequirements for winter and summer deerhabitat are considered.

• Areas are scheduled for operationsannually in an Annual Work Schedule(AWS). A Forest Operation Prescription(FOP) is prepared for each area ofoperations that is outlined in the AnnualWork Schedule. The FOP verifies actualsite conditions and prescribes thetreatment package that will be used onthat site, such as selection, shelterwoodor clear cutting.

• Operational design (on-site planning),which is conducted at the field level, isnot specifically prescribed in the FMPmanual. At this level detailed operationaldecisions are made, such as theindividual trees to be harvested orretained.

The guidelines are to be applied in relationto the particular habitat requirements ofdeer on the forest management unit. Inconsidering those requirements, thefollowing steps should be followed indeveloping the Forest Management Plan:

24

Step 1. Organize BackgroundInformationBoth winter and summer range should beidentified for the forest management unit(MU) and assessed in the context of thewider planning unit of which the MU is part.

Planning teams will consult with the localwildlife manager who will determine theneed to maintain or enhance habitat fordeer on the forest management unit. Themanager will make that judgment on thebasis of an evaluation of the deerpopulation targets for the relevant wildlifemanagement unit(s), and translate thosehabitat requirements into managementobjectives for the forest management unit.

Population targets are established throughOntario’s deer management system so thatdeer numbers do not exceed carryingcapacity of the wildlife management unit.(Figure 6 illustrates how these deerguidelines are integrated with themanagement system for deer in Ontario.)The Ontario Deer Model (Broadfoot andVoigt 1992) and the habitat evaluationtechniques (Broadfoot et al. 1994,Broadfoot and Voigt 1996b) can be usedby the local wildlife manager to establishtargets for the wildlife management unit(Voigt 1992). An evaluation of the currentcarrying capacity of winter range and thesupply of summer forage can be conductedusing the habitat supply model developedby Broadfoot et al. (1994) and Broadfootand Voigt (1996a). After these evaluations,the planning team will be advised by thewildlife manager of the need to maintain orimprove winter or summer habitat on theunit.

Step 2. Determine ManagementDirectionThe preferred alternative for forestmanagement in terms of deer habitat andother forest management objectives isselected from an analysis of forestmanagement alternatives using forexample the Strategic ForestManagement Model (Davis, 1996).

Step 3. Select Areas for OperationsAreas are selected for operations on thebasis of a set of selection criteria. Theseselection criteria may include criteria whichaddress deer habitat needs as described inthese guidelines.

Step 4. Determine Prescriptions forAreas for OperationsFor most areas of operations thesilvicultural ground rules, developed inaccordance with MNR’s silvicultural guides,will prescribe management operations,such as the forest harvest system to beemployed.

Critical habitat areas, such as winter yardsand associated browse areas, areidentified as Areas of Concern (AOCs) inthe forest management plan and specificoperational prescriptions are produced.

25

26

Ecosystem Approach toResource Management

Sustainable DeerPopulation

Set Targets

Define Population

Ontario Deer Model

Forest ManagementGuidelines for Deer

Habitat Supply Model

Habitat Inventory Manual

Controlled Deer HuntSelective Harvest

Winter Feeding

Snow Network Information System

Determine Winter/Summer RangePopulation Inventory

integration

regulation

manage

habitat

demand

winterK*

allowableharvest

%K

condition & number of deer

measureK

habitat supply

sustainhabitat

allocation

Fig. 6 The integration of the Forest Management Guidelines for Deer and the management system for deer

in Ontario.

*K = carrying capacity

6.0 Future Directions

The amount and distribution of both coverand browse availability is a function of thecomposition of the forest within deer rangein the province which in turn is dependenton the amount and frequency ofdisturbances in the forest. Over most of thedeer range in Ontario, particularlythroughout central Region, the primaryagent of disturbance is forest harvesting forcommercial purposes. Forest harvestingthrough the use of various silviculturalsystems improves the amount of browseproduction and is the primary source forcreating early successional forests. Theamount and distribution of forest harvestingis dependent on two factors, demand forforest products and supply. Recentadvances in analytical techniques for bothdemand and supply provide an opportunityto examine the future potential for forestharvesting as a means of creating andmaintaining suitable habitat conditions fordeer.

The analysis of current and projectedtrends in demand and supply of forestproducts has been examined for each ofthe MNR administrative regions andprovides a general speculative “picture” ofthe future trends for the creation andmaintenance of deer habitat. The primaryarea of forested deer range is in centralOntario and the Great Lakes-St. LawrenceForest of northwestern Ontario.

An assessment of Ontario’s forestresources (OMNR 1997c) provides longterm estimates of timber supply anddemand.

In the central Region over the next 20years the demand for softwoods isexpected to decline while demand forhardwoods is expected to increase. Oncrown land the supply for softwoods isexpected to be constant until the middle ofthe next century. Thus, the expectation isthe amount of conifer cover for deer shouldremain near the levels currently available.The supply of hardwoods will remainconstant over the next 20 years after whichit is expected to decline until the middle ofthe next century. The combination ofincreased demand for hardwoods and a flatsupply should translate into harvesting ofhardwoods at the same or increased ratesabove current levels . Thus, browseproduction should be maintained at orabove current rates. Since a significantamount of the supply for forest products inthe region is supplied from private land amajor contribution for both the retention ofcover in winter yards and browseproduction will be supplied on private land.Any further expansion of supply ofhardwoods may require improvements inthe quality of hardwood stands throughincreased stand improvement activitieswhich if carried out will also improve thesupply of browse for deer.

In northwestern Ontario there is expectedto be increased demand for both softwoodsand hardwoods. The supply of softwoods isexpected to decline over the next 50 yearswhile the supply of hardwoods is expectedto remain constant. Although this analysisdoes not distinguish between the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence Forest and the BorealForest within northwestern Ontario, similartrends can be expected in both areas.Thus, in terms of cover and browseproduction within the northwestern deerrange there could be a general reduction in

27

the availability of conifer cover andmaintenance of browse production atcurrent levels. Careful planning will berequired to ensure that conifer cover ismaintained in deer wintering areas.

6.1 Ecological Land Use Planningand Setting Targets

The future vision of land use planning inOntario consists of ecological land useplans for large, ecologically based planningareas, accompanied by operationalplanning for smaller areas andmanagement units.

Ecological land use planning will: (1) integrate direction from relevantprovincial policies, (2) establish broadobjectives and management standards forthe key natural resources such as white-tailed deer within the planning area, and(3) allocate land and natural resourcesamong competing uses. These ecologicalplans will provide a clear basis foroperational planning at the local forestmanagement unit level.

Ecological land use plans will provide acontext to ensure that local operationalplanning decisions will contribute tosustainable resource use and theconservation of biodiversity.

An important component of ecological landuse plans will be to establish objectives forthe desired future forest condition expectedunder natural disturbance regimes. Withrespect to deer, population targets shouldbe set based upon habitat supply and userdemand. These targets should becompatible with the desired future forestcondition and established in relation to theanticipated demands for other resources.

Acknowledgements

A large number of OMNR staff contributedto the contents of these Guidelines byproviding comments and critique. In aprovince as large and diverse as Ontario, it was critical to have the expertise offoresters, biologists and resourcemanagers to call upon in developing theseguidelines.

Ray Stefanski and Dave Euler wereparticularly helpful in structuring thisdocument. Background material orunpublished data was provided bymembers of the Cooperative Deer Study orstaff associated with that study including,Tim Bellhouse, Peter Smith and FionaMcKay. Members of the Provincial DeerPolicy Group; Midge Strickland and WayneLintack provided extra input at manystages.

We sincerely thank all of the above for theirassistance.

Literature Cited

Broadfoot, J.D., and D.R. Voigt. 1996a.Field inventory techniques for measuringwinter deer browse supply andconsumption. Ont. Min. Nat. Res., STERSTech. Rpt. No. 4. 41 p.

Broadfoot, J.D., and D.R. Voigt. 1996b.White-tailed deer migration behaviour: aresource management perspective. Ont. Min.Nat. Res., STERS Tech. Rpt. No. 5. 34 p.

Broadfoot, J.D., and D.R. Voigt. 1992.User’s guide to the Ontario deer model(ODM) V 1.1. Ont. Min. Nat. Res., Wildl.Policy Br. Res. Sect. Unpubl. Res. Rpt. 70 p.

28

Broadfoot, J.D., and W.M. Lintack. 1991.Physical condition and reproduction ofwhite-tailed deer in south-central Ontario.Ont. Min. Nat. Res., Huronia Dist., Unpubl.Manage. Rpt. 71 p.

Broadfoot, J.D., T.J. Bellhouse, and B.J.Naylor. 1996a. A test of the Central Regionwhite- tailed deer habitat supply model. Ont.Min. Nat. Res., CRST Tech. Rpt. No. 42. 15 p.

Broadfoot, J.D., D.R. Voigt, and T.J.Bellhouse. 1996b. White-tailed deer,Odocoileus virginianus, summer dispersionareas in Ontario. Can. Field-Nat. 110:298-302.

Broadfoot, J.D., T.J. Bellhouse, and B.J.Naylor. 1994. Central Region white-taileddeer habitat supply model: background,algorithm, and functional relations. Ont.Min. Nat. Res., CRST Tech. Rpt. No. 36.85 p.

Budde, W.S. 1983. Effects of photoperiodon puberty attainment of white-tailed deer.J. Wildl. Manage. 47:595-604.

Caughley, G. 1977. Analysis of vertebratepopulations. John Wiley & Sons, New York.234 p.

Cooperrider, A.Y., and D.F. Behrend. 1980.Simulation of forest dynamics and deerbrowse production. J. of Forestry. 2:85-88.

Davis, R. 1996. Strategic ForestManagement Model: Description andUser’s Guide. Ont. Min. Nat. Res., SaultSte. Marie.

DelGiudice, G.D., M.E. Nelson, and L.D.Mech. 1991. Winter nutrition andpopulation ecology of white-tailed deer inthe Central Superior National Forest.USDA For. Serv. GTR-NC-147.

Demarchi, M.W., and F.L. Bunnell. 1993.Estimating forest canopy effects onsummer thermal cover for Cervidae (deerfamily). Can. J. For. Res. 23:2419-2426.

Fowler, C.W. 1981. Density dependence asrelated to life history strategy. Ecology62:601-610.

Gray, P.B., and F.A. Servello. 1995. Energyintake relationships for white-tailed deer onwinter browse diets. J. Wildl. Manage.59:147-152.

Gross, J.E. 1969. Optimum yield in deerand elk populations. p. 372-387 InTrefethen, J.B. ed. Trans 34th N. Am. Wildl.And Nat. Res. Confer. Washington, DC.

Hanley, T.A., C.T. Robbins, and D.E.Spalinger. 1989. Forest habitats and thenutritional ecology of the Sitka black-taileddeer: a research synthesis withimplications for forest management. USDAFor. Serv. PNW-RN-230. 51 p.

Hanley, T.A., and C.L. Rose. 1987.Influence of overstory on snow depth anddensity in hemlock-spruce stands:implications for deer management insoutheastern Alaska. USDA For. Serv.,PNW-RN-459. 11 p.

Harlow, R.F. 1984. Habitat evaluation. p.601-628. In Halls, L.K., ed. White-taileddeer ecology and management. WildlifeManagement Institute, Stackpole Books,Harrisburg PA.

29

Hobbs, F.W. 1989. Linking energy balanceto survival in mule deer: development andtest of a simulation model. Wildl. Monog.No. 101. 39 p.

Holter, J.B., W.E. Urban, Jr., and H.H.Hayes. 1977. Nutrition of northern white-tailed deer throughout the year. J. Anim.Sci. 45:365-376.

Hurst, G.A., D.C. Guynn, and B.D.Leopold. 1979. Correlation of forestcharacteristics with white-tailed deerforage. Proc. Ann. Confer. S.E. Assoc. Fishand Wildl. Agencies. 33:48-55.

Joyce, L.A. 1986. Regional forage model.p. 27-36 In Gelinas, R., Bond, D., andSmit, B., eds. Perspectives on landmodelling. Polyscience Publications,Montreal, QB.

Leberg, P.L., and M.H. Smith. 1993.Influence of density on growth of white-tailed deer. J. Mammal. 74:723-731.

Mattfeld, G.F. 1974. The energetics ofwinter foraging by white-tailed deer. Aperspective on winter deer concentration.State University of New York, Ph. D.Thesis. 306 p.

Mautz, W.W. 1978. Nutrition and carryingcapacity. p. 321-348. in Schmidt, J.L., D.L.Gilbert. eds. Big game of North America:ecology and management. StackpoleBooks, Harrisburg PA.

Mautz, W.W., J. Kanter, and P.J. Pekins.1992. Seasonal metabolic rhythms ofcaptive female white-tailed deer: a re-examination. J. Wildl. Manage. 56: 656-661.

Mautz, W.W., H. Silver, J.B. Holter, H.H.Hayes, and W.E. Urban, Jr. 1976.Digestibility and related nutritional data forseven northern deer browse species. J.Wildl. Manage. 40: 630-638.

McCaffery, K.R., and W.A. Creed. 1969.Significance of forest openings to deer innorthern Wisconsin. Wisconsin Dept. Nat.Res., Tech. Bull. 44. 104 p.

McCullough, D.R. 1990. Detecting densitydependence: filtering the baby from thebathwater. Trans. 55th N.A. Wildl. & Nat.Conf. 534-543.

McCullough, D.R. 1987. The theory andmanagement of Odocoileus populations. p.535-549. In Wemmer, C.M., ed. Biology andmanagement of the Cervidae. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington DC.

McCullough, D.R., 1984. Lessons from theGeorge Reserve, Michigan. p. 211-242. InHalls, L.K., ed. White-tailed deer ecologyand management. Wildlife ManagementInstitute, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg PA.

McCullough, D.R. 1979. The GeorgeReserve deer herd: population ecology of ak-selected species. University of MichiganPress, Anne Arbour. 271 p.

McCullough, D.R., and D.E. Ullrey. 1983.Proximate mineral and gross energycomposition of white-tailed deer. J. Wildl.Manage. 47:430-441.

Mech, L.D. 1984. Predators and predation.p. 189-200. In Halls, L.K., ed. White-taileddeer ecology and management. WildlifeManagement Institute, Stackpole Books,Harrisburg PA.

30

Mech, L.D., R.E. McRoberts, R.O.Peterson, and R.E. Page. 1987.Relationship of deer and moosepopulations to previous winter’s snow. J.Animal. Ecol. 56:615-627.

Messier, F., and C. Barrette. 1985. Theefficiency of yarding behaviour by white-tailed deer as an antipredator strategy.Can. J. Zool. 63:785-789.

Moen, A.N. 1973. Wildlife ecology: ananalytical approach. W.H Freeman andCompany, San Fransisco. 458 p.

Moen, A.N. 1968. Energy balance of white-tailed deer in the winter. Trans. N. Amer.Wildl. And Natur. Resour. Conf. 33:224-236.

Moen, A.N., C.W. Severinghaus, and R.A.Moen. 1986. Deer CAMP: computer-assisted management program operatingmanual and tutorial, Version 86100.CornerBrook Press, Lansing NY.

Nelson, M.E., and L.D. Mech. 1981. Deersocial organization and wolf predation innortheastern Minnesota. Wildli. Monogr.No. 77. 53 p.

Nudds, T.D. 1980. Forage “preference”:theoretical considerations of diet selectionby deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 44:735-740.

OMNR 1997a. A Silvicultural Guide for theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence Conifer Forestof Ontario. Southcentral Science andTechnology, Ont. Min. of Nat. Res., NorthBay.

OMNR 1997b. A Silvicultural Guide ForThe Tolerant Hardwood Forest in Ontario.Southcentral Science and Technology, Ont.Min. of Nat. Res., North Bay.

OMNR 1997c. An Assessment of Ontario’sForest Resources. Ont. Min. Nat. Res.,Sault Ste. Marie.

OMNR 1997d. Guidelines for WinterFeeding of Deer in Ontario. Ont. Min. ofNat. Res., Peterborough.

Ozoga, J.J, and L.J. Verme. 1982. Physicaland reproductive characteristics of asupplementally-fed white-tailed deer herd.J. Wildl. Manage. 46:281-301.

Porter, W.F. 1991. White-tailed deer ineastern ecosystems: implications formanagement and research in nationalparks. USDI, National Parks Serv.NPS/NRSUNY/NRR-91/05. 57 p.

Ranta, W.B. 1997. Wildlife HabitatInventory Manual For Use In ForestManagement Planning. Ont. Min. Nat.Res., Sault Ste. Marie.

Rogers, L.L., J.J. Mooty, and D. Dawson.1981. Foods of white-tailed deer in theUpper Great Lakes region - a review.USDA, For. Serv., NC-GTR-65. 24 p.

Sauer, P.R. 1984. Physical characteristics.p. 73-90. In Halls, L.K., ed. White-taileddeer ecology and management. WildlifeManagement Institute, Stackpole Books,Harrisburg PA.

Severinghaus, C.W. 1981. Overwinterweight loss in white-tailed deer in NewYork. N. Y. Fish and Game J. 28:61-67.

31

Severinghaus, C.W., and A.H. Moen. 1983.Prediction of weight and reproductive ratesof a white-tailed deer population fromrecords of antler beam diameters amongyearling males. N. Y. Fish and Game J.30:30-38.

Short, H.L., R.M. Blair, and C.A.Segelquist. 1974. Fiber composition andforage digestibility by small ruminants. J. Wildl. Manage. 38:197-209.

Silver, H., N.F. Colvos, J.B. Holter, andH.H. Hayes. 1969. Fasting metabolism ofwhite-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 33:490-498.

Swift, R.W. 1948. Deer select the mostnutritious forages. J. Wildl. Manage.12:109-110.

Ullrey, D.E., W.G. Youatt, L.D. Fay, B.E.Brent, and K.E. Kemp. 1967. Digestibility ofcedar and jack pine browse for the white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 31:448-454.

Ullrey, D.E., W.G. Youatt, H.E. Johnson,P.K. Ku, and L.D. Fay. 1964. Digestibility ofcedar and aspen browse for the white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 28:791-797.

Verme, L.J. 1987. Decline in doe fawnreproduction in southern Michigan deer: abio-social effect hypothesis. Michigan Dep.Nat. Res., Fed. Aid in Wildl. Restor. Perf.Rpt., Proj. W-127-R-5, Job 119. 11 p.

Verme. L.J. 1977. Assessment of natalmortality in upper Michigan deer. J. Wildl.Manage. 41:700-708.

Verme, L.J. 1968. An index of winterseverity for northern deer. J. Wildl.Manage. 32:566-574.

Verme, L.J. 1967. Influence ofexperimental diets on white-tailed deerreproduction. Trans. N.A. Fish and Wildl.Confer. 32:405-420.

Verme, L.J. 1965. Swamp conifer deeryards in northern Michigan. J. For. 65:523-529.

Verme, L.J., and J.J. Ozoga. 1987.Relationship of photoperiod to puberty indoe fawn white- tailed deer. J. Mammal.68:107-110.

Verme, L.J., and J.J. Ozoga. 1980. Effectsof diet on growth and lipogenesis in deerfawns. J. Wildl. Manage. 44:315-324.

Verme, L.J., and D.E. Ullrey. 1984.Physiology and nutrition. p. 91-118. InHalls, L.K., ed. White-tailed deer ecologyand management. Wildlife ManagementInstitute, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg PA.

Voigt, D.R., G. Deyne, M. Malhiot, B. Ranta,B. Snider, R. Stefanski, and M. Strickland.1992. White-tailed deer in Ontario:background to a policy. Ont. Min. Nat. Res.,Wildl. Policy Br. Draft Document. 83 p.

Wallmo, O.C., L.H. Carpenter, W.L.Regelin, R.B. Gill, and D.L. Baker. 1977.Evaluation of deer habitat on a nutritionalbasis. J. Range Manage. 30:122-127.

Whitlaw, H., B. Naylor, and T. Bellhouse.1993. The influence of residual stockingand time since harvest on winter browsesupply for white-tailed deer. Ont. Min. Nat.Res., CRST, Tech. Rpt. No. 32. 8 p.

32

Wiggers, E.P., D.L. Robinnette, J.R.Sweeney, R.F. Harlow, and H.S. Hill, Jr.1978. Predictability of deer forages usingoverstory measurements. Proc. Ann.Confer. S.E. Assoc. Fish and Wildl.Agencies. 32:187-194.

Worden, K.A., and P.J. Pekins. 1995.Seasonal changes in feed intake, bodycomposition, and metabolic rate of white-tailed deer. Can. J. Zool. 73:452-457.

33