Skip to main content

Full text of "Miscellaneous publication - University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History"

See other formats 


i  # 


ffjfr 


r 


k 


y 


€' 


THE  STATUS  OF  DEER 

IN  KANSAS 

MUS.  COMP.  ZOOLL 
LIBRARY 


i 


>/ 


ftPP  1  4 1972 

HARVARD 
UjtsHVPPC^lTY 


'  \^-f    DONALD  D.  ANDERSON 


*».  "-•*• 


ir  ~-'*>a^    '  ^  ■<* 


r^. 


1    "'-■: 


r 


...jfe.^ 


y 


> 


.  r" 


^. 


•^ 


<*.*  - 


^  4»V/<. 


\TE   BIOLOCnCAL  SURVEY  OF  KANSAS   -'^'^^^^A/ 


The  Status  of  Deer 
In  Kansas 


BY 


Donald  D.  Anderson 


State  Biological  Survey  of  Kansas 


University  of  Kansas 

Museum  of  Natural  History 


editor:      E.    RAYMOND    HALL 

Miscellaneous  Publication  No.  39,  pp.  1-36,  8  maps 
Published  September  28, 1964 


Lawrence  •  Kansas 


PRINTED     BY 

HARRY     (BUD)      TIMBERLAKE,     STATE     PRINTER 

TOPEKA.     KANSAS 

1  964 

30-3969 


The  Status  of  Deer  in  Kansas 

BY 
DONALD   D.    ANDERSOX 

CONTExNTS 

PAGE 

Introduction    4 

History    5 

Mule  Deer 5 

White-tailed  Deer   6 

Present  Status  of  Deer  in  Kansas 8 

Mortality    17 

White-tailed  Deer  in  Northeastern  Kansas  .  .  . 21 

Description    21 

Status  in  Douglas  County   25 

Food  Habits   27 

Reproduction    30 

Parasites    32 

Conclusions  and  Recommendations 33 

Acknowledgments    34 

LiTERATLTRE    CiTED     35 

(3) 


INTRODUCTION 

Deer  are  without  doubt  the  most  popular  big  game  animals  in 
North  America.  They  are  widely  distributed,  are  more  numerous 
than  other  big  game  species,  and  are  able  to  maintain  themselves 
and  even  increase  in  areas  heavily  populated  by  man.  Econom- 
ically, deer  are  an  important  source  of  revenue  for  state  game  de- 
partments as  well  as  sporting  goods  stores  and  otlier  businesses  that 
serve  the  hunter.  For  the  sportsman,  deer  not  only  provide  meat 
for  the  table,  but  give  him  a  chance  to  test  his  skill  as  a  hunter  and 
a  marksman.  The  aesthetic  value  found  by  the  public  in  deer  is 
based  on  their  beauty  and  gracefulness  as  well  as  their  fascinating 
habits. 

Although  both  mule  deer  (Odocoilcus  liemiomis)  and  white- 
tailed  deer  {Odocoilcus  virginianiis)  occur  in  Kansas,  it  is  the  only 
state  that  has  not  had  an  open  season  within  the  past  several  years. 
As  the  white  man  advanced  westward  many  animals  including 
deer  were  extirpated,  or  nearly  so.  In  the  Great  Plains  region,  deer 
were  killed  off  during  the  late  1800's.  Lack  of  interest  in  conserva- 
tion of  natural  resources  along  with  inadequate  protection  and  law 
enforcement  were  responsible  for  slowing  the  recovery  of  deer 
during  the  early  1900's.  Nebraska,  Iowa,  IlHnois,  Oklahoma,  Mis- 
souri, and  Arkansas  all  experienced  a  decline  in  deer  herds,  which 
were  smallest  around  the  turn  of  the  century.  All  of  these  states 
succeeded  in  restoring  herds  through  management,  protection,  and 
natural  dispersal,  and  now  have  open  seasons.  Kansas  is  the  last 
of  the  Plains  states  to  benefit  from  natural  dispersal  of  deer  from 
surrounding  areas,  and  only  recently  have  deer  become  re-estab- 
lished in  the  state.  Adequate  law  enforcement  by  discouraging 
poaching  has  been  an  important  factor  enabling  deer  to  increase. 
As  a  result  of  increasing  numbers  of  deer  in  Kansas,  the  state  legis- 
latiue  in  1963  authorized  the  Kansas  Forestry,  Fish,  and  Game 
Commission  to  declare  an  open  season  on  deer  when  feasible  or 
necessary. 

Kansas  needs  a  research  program  for  deer  to  insure  proper  man- 
agement. It  was  with  this  thought  in  mind  that  my  study  was 
undertaken.     It  had  four  principal  objectives  as  follows: 

( 1 )  To  record  the  history  of  deer  in  Kansas. 

( 2 )  To  determine  the  overall  status  of  deer  in  Kansas  as  to  present  numbers, 
distribution,  and  population  trends. 

(4) 


Deer  in  Kansas  5 

(3)  To  determine  some  procedures  and  methods  best  applicable  to  manage- 
ment of  Kansas  deer. 

(4)  To  learn  as  much  as  possible,  incidental  to  objectives  1-3,  about  the 
natural  history  of  deer  in  Kansas. 

Information  was  obtained  in  the  following  ways: 

( 1 )  Examination  of  preserved  specimens. 

(2)  Cooperation  with  local  Game  Protectors. 

(3)  Observation  of  deer  and  their  sign. 

( 4 )  Review  of  pertinent  literature  on  deer. 

( 5 )  Interview  of  local  residents. 

( 6 )  Examination  of  mortality  reports  filed  by  Game  Protectors. 

( 7 )  Circulation  of  a  questionnaire  concerning  the  present  status  of  deer 
in  Kansas. 

Only  one  other  study  (see  Taylor  and  Elder,  1959)  dealing  e.\- 
clusively  with  the  deer  of  Kansas  has  been  made. 

Although  my  work  was  concerned  primarily  with  the  white-tailed 
deer,  considerable  information  was  obtained  about  mule  deer  from 
mortality  reports  and  the  questionnaire.  Some  of  the  statements 
beyond  are  based  on  conclusions  reached  by  workers  who  studied 
deer  in  other  states. 

HISTORY 

The  history  of  deer  in  Kansas  has  not  been  documented  well  and 
the  available  information  deals  primarily  with  the  presence  or  ab- 
sence of  deer  in  particular  areas  as  reported  by  various  persons. 
Apparently  both  the  mule  deer  (black-tailed  deer)  and  the  white- 
tailed  deer  occurred  in  Kansas  at  the  time  of  its  settlement  by  the 
white  man.  The  terms  "mule"  and  "black- tailed"  deer  were  used 
interchangeably  in  early  reports  as  they  are  today,  and  the  white- 
tailed  deer  often  was  called  the  "Virginia  deer." 

Mule  Deer 

According  to  Lantz  (1905A:342)  the  mule  deer  (Odocoilcm 
hemionus  Rafinesque)  was  rather  common  over  the  greater  part  of 
Kansas,  but  was  not  mentioned  as  occurring  there  by  explorers 
earlier  than  Thomas  Say  in  1823.  Pre\ious  explorers  mentioned 
deer  as  occurring  in  the  state,  but  did  not  distinguish  the  species. 

Mead  (1899:281)  observed  that  mule  deer  were  numerous  dur- 
ing the  winter  of  1859  in  the  hills  between  the  Saline  and  Solomon 
rivers,  occurring  in  groups  of  from  three  or  four  to  as  many  as 
twenty  or  thirt\'.  He  thought  they  came  down  from  the  Colorado 
foothills  to  winter,  as  he  did  not  see  them  in  summer.     Migrations 


6  Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 

of  mule  deer  of  from  50  to  100  miles  to  winter  ranges  were  reported 
by  Einarsen  (in  Taylor,  1956:461);  consequently,  Mead  may  have 
been  correct  in  assuming  that  the  deer  migrated. 

Phillips  (1890:351)  reported  that  small  bands  of  mule  deer  were 
present  among  tlie  bluffs  and  cedars  of  the  upper  reaches  of  the 
"Smoky,"  Saline,  and  Solomon  rivers  as  late  as  1866.  J.  A.  Allen 
(1874:48)  noted  that  the  species  was  more  or  less  common  along 
the  wooded  parts  of  streams  in  central  and  western  Kansas,  espe- 
cially on  the  Smoky  and  Paradise  rivers  in  1871.  Kellogg  (1915, 
manuscript)  reported  that  what  was  probably  the  last  mule  deer 
in  Logan  County  was  killed  in  1885  by  Jay  Swink  and  Jink  Davis. 
Baker  (1889:57)  observed  that  near  Wakeeney  in  Trego  County 
the  mule  deer  was  common  until  the  late  1880's.  After  that  indi- 
\iduals  were  found  only  occasionally,  and  in  the  roughest  country. 
Early  settlers  of  Wallace  County  told  Lantz  (1905A:342)  that  the 
mule  deer  occurred  in  considerable  herds  in  the  hills  south  of  Fort 
Wallace  during  the  seventies  and  early  eighties.  Lantz  (1905B: 
172)  reported  that  the  species  was  still  found  in  western  Kansas  in 
1884,  but  had  probably  disappeared  by  1905. 

Hibbard  (1933:247  and  1944:86)  and  P.  B.  Allen  (1940)  believed 
that  the  mule  deer  was  extinct  in  Kansas.  However,  Tihen  and 
Sprague  (1939:509)  noted  that  a  number  of  these  deer  were  intro- 
duced into  the  Meade  County  State  Park  area,  and  that  they  were 
increasing  each  year.  Also,  they  reported  that  a  few  wild  deer  still 
were  present  along  the  Cimarron  Breaks  in  the  southwestern  part 
of  the  state.  Cockrum  (1952:272)  noted  that  twenty  mule  deer  had 
been  moved  from  the  state  park  in  Meade  County  and  released  in 
Morton  County  in  1950. 

White-tailed  Deer 

According  to  Kellogg  (1915,  manuscript),  the  Lewis  and  Clark 
Expedition  reported  an  immense  number  of  deer  on  the  banks  of 
the  Missouri  River  near  the  present  site  of  Kansas  City,  Kansas,  in 
1804.  Kellogg  also  reported  that  Zebulon  Pike  found  deer  in  1806 
in  what  are  now  Woodson,  Coffey,  Lyon,  Chase,  and  Morris 
counties.  Edwin  James  (see  Thwaites  1905,  14:175)  reported  that 
between  two  and  three  thousand  deer  were  killed  by  the  detach- 
ment under  Captain  Martin  in  the  vicinity  of  Cow  Island  on  the 
Missouri  River  during  the  winter  of  1818-19.  This  island  was 
about  even  with  the  boundary  separating  Atchison  and  Leaven- 
worth counties.  Large  numbers  of  deer  must  have  been  present 
in  eastern  Kansas  at  that  time  if  the  above  accounts  are  correct. 


Deer  in  Kansas  7 

The  kind  of  deer  present  was  not  mentioned  in  any  of  the  accounts 
cited,  but  probably  was  the  white-tailed  deer  because  the  habitat 
in  the  area  is  primarily  the  oak-hickory  association  in  which  the 
mule  deer  does  not  occur. 

Mead  (1899:281)  wrote  that  white-tailed  deer  were  numerous  in 
the  hills  about  the  forks  of  the  Solomon  River  and  in  the  hilly 
country  of  Barber  and  Comanche  counties  in  1859,  and  were  occa- 
sionally found  elsewhere.  Kellogg  (1915,  manuscript)  reported 
that  in  1867  two  men  by  the  names  of  Livsa  and  Wilcox  killed 
more  than  one  hundred  whitetails  near  the  mouth  of  Lightning 
Creek  on  the  Neosho  River.  Ross  MacDonald  killed  a  doe  at 
Chetopa,  Labette  County,  in  1861,  and  Dave  Dunham  killed  a 
buck  on  Lightning  Creek  near  Columbus,  Cherokee  County,  in 
1896.  The  latter  was  the  last  deer  reported  in  that  part  of  Kansas 
according  to  Kellogg.  Knox  ( 1875 )  noted  that  the  "X'irginia  deer" 
was  common  in  large  bodies  of  timber  in  different  parts  of  the 
state. 

Lantz  (1905B),  Kellogg  (1915,  manuscript),  Hibbard  (1933  and 
1944),  Black  (1937),  and  P.  B.  Allen  (1940)  all  considered  the 
white-tailed  deer  to  be  extinct  in  the  state.  Tihen  and  SjDrague 
( 1939:509)  reported  that  the  species  was  introduced  into  the  Meade 
County  State  Park  where  it  became  well  adapted  and  increased  as 
long  as  the  herd  remained  in  the  protected  area.  Cockrum  (1952: 
273)  reported  that  three  whitetails,  two  bucks  and  one  doe,  were 
introduced  from  Texas  into  Cowley  County;  according  to  him 
these  deer  were  plentiful,  at  least  locally,  within  a  radius  of  50 
miles  of  Arkansas  City  b\'  1948.  Cockrum  further  wrote  of  the 
species  as  follows:  "In  eastern  Kansas,  since  1945,  several  white- 
tailed  deer  have  been  observed.  Every  year  a  number  of  news- 
paper accounts  concerning  such  observations  are  published.  Ap- 
parently the  white-tailed  deer  is  again  becoming  established  in  the 
eastern  part  of  the  state." 

Cockrum  recognized  only  one  subspecies,  Odocoileus  cirg,inianiis 
mocrourus  (Rafinesque),  as  being  native  to  Kansas,  but  mentioned 
that  the  deer  present  in  the  state  at  that  time  might  be  a  mixture 
of  two  or  more  subspecies.  Kellogg  (in  Taylor,  1956:42-44),  in 
delimiting  the  geographical  distribution  of  the  subspecies  of  O. 
virginianiis,  indicated  that  two,  texamis  and  macrourus,  originally 
occurred  in  western  and  eastern  Kansas  respecti\ely.  No  speci- 
mens of  white-tailed  deer  from  western  Kansas  were  available  to 
me  for  study  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  the  subspecies 
texonus  occurs  there. 


8  Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 

In  the  early  1930's  several  deer  were  held  captive  in  Leaven- 
worth County  State  Park  near  Tonganoxie,  Kansas.  Remains  of 
two  of  these  deer  (skulls  alone)  are  in  the  Museum  of  Natural 
History,  The  University  of  Kansas,  and  seem  to  be  of  the  subspecies 
Odocoileus  virginmnus  virginianus.  Mr.  D.  R.  Brune  informed  me 
that  some  deer  were  believed  to  have  escaped  from  the  park  in  the 
1940's.  I  was  unable  to  determine  if  any  of  these  deer  survived 
and  reproduced. 

F.  R.  Henderson  ( in  litt. )  related  that  he  released  one  buck  and 
three  does  near  Eureka,  Kansas,  in  the  spring  of  1958;  wild  deer 
occurred  in  the  area  at  that  time.  Henderson  believed  these  deer, 
which  he  purchased  in  Missouri,  were  the  same  subspecies  that 
occurs  in  western  Missouri,  namely,  Odocoileus  virginianus  macro- 
urus. 

Many  other  introductions  of  deer,  of  which  we  have  no  record, 
probably  have  occurred  in  Kansas.  Introduction  may  have  played 
an  important  part  in  the  re-establishment  of  deer  in  the  state. 

PRESENT  STATUS  OF  DEER  IN  KANSAS 

In  the  spring  of  1958,  a  questionnaire  concerning  the  status  of 
deer  in  Kansas  was  sent  to  all  State  Game  Protectors,  Work  Unit 
Conservationists,  and  County  Agricultural  Agents  by  Dale  L.  Taylor 
and  James  B.  Elder  of  Kansas  State  University.  The  results  of 
their  surxey  were  printed  in  1959  in  the  "Transactions  of  the  Kansas 
Academy  of  Science"  (62:67-79)  and  indicated  that  deer  were  in- 
creasing in  number  in  Kansas.  According  to  them,  their  study 
aimed  "to  determine  the  extent  of  this  increase  in  terms  of  time, 
space,  and  relative  numbers." 

In  the  spring  of  1962,  I  sent  a  similar  questionnaire  to  the  same 
three  groups  as  did  Taylor  and  Elder.  The  purposes  of  my  survey 
were  to  determine  population  trends,  distribution,  present  numbers, 
and  attitudes  of  residents  toward  deer  at  the  present  time  so  that 
results  could  be  compared  with  those  obtained  in   1958. 

Of  the  246  questionnaires  distributed  by  me,  105  went  to  County 
Agricultural  Agents,  105  to  Work  Unit  Conservationists,  and  36  to 
State  Game  Protectors.  The  questionnaire  consisted  of  nine  items, 
each  of  which  required  only  a  check  mark  or  a  few  words  from  the 
respondent,  excepting  the  last  item  which  was  reserved  for  his 
comments. 

Item  No.  1  called  for  the  name  and  position  of  the  person  filling 
out  the  questionnaire.  The  resulting  data  are  shown  in  Table  1. 
Sixty-seven  counties  were  represented  by  three  returns,  36  counties 


Deer  in  Kansas  9 

by  two  returns,  and  two  counties  by  one  return.  All  counties  were 
represented  by  at  least  one  return.  Not  all  questions  were  answered 
on  some  questionnaires. 

Item  No.  2  requested  the  respondent  to  state  the  boundaries  of 
the  area  in  which  he  regularly  worked  (and  to  which  his  remarks 

Table  1.    Response  to  Questionnaire  on  Deer  in  Kansas. 


Respondents 

Number 
sent 
out 

Number 

re- 
turned 

Per 

cent 
return 

Number 

of 
counties 

Per  cent 

of  105 

counties 

County  Agricultural 
Agents 

Work  Unit  Con- 
servationists. .  .  . 

State  Game  Pro- 
tectors   

105 

105 

36 

93 
95 
32 

88.5 
90.4 
88.9 

93  of  105 
98  of  105 
84  of  105 

88.5 
93.3 
80.0 

Totals 

246 

220 

89.4 

appHed  unless  otherwise  noted).  The  answers  to  this  question 
were  used  in  connection  with  items  3  and  8  to  plot  numbers  and 
distribution  of  deer  on  maps  of  Kansas  (see  discussions  under  3 
and  8  below ) . 

Item  No.  3  called  for  an  estimate  of  the  total  number  of  deer 
in  the  area  reported  on.  The  results  are  given  in  Tables  2  and  3, 
and  Maps  1,  2,  and  3.  The  numbers  of  deer  estimated  by  each  of 
the  three  groups  of  respondents  were  plotted  by  me,  by  county  (b>' 
district  for  Game  Protectors)  on  a  map  of  Kansas  in  order  to  show 
the  distribution  and  to  compare  it  with  the  distribution  shown  by 
Taylor  and  Elder.  Deer  were  reported  as  absent  from  only  three 
counties.  County  Agents  reported  deer  as  absent  from  Lane, 
Stanton,  and  Seward  counties.  Conservationists  reported  no  deer 
in  Stanton  County,  whereas  each  Game  Protector  reported  deer 
present  in  his  district  that  included  Stanton  County.  With  regard 
to  distribution,  Taylor  and  Elder  reported  the  results  of  their 
questionnaire  as  indicating  that  no  deer  were  present  in  Pratt, 
Sumner,  Allen,  and  Neosho  counties.  They  reported  also  that  the 
respondents  did  not  agree  as  to  the  presence  or  absence  of  deer 
in  some  other  counties.  Apparently  deer  now  occur  in  all  counties 
of  Kansas  with  the  possible  exception  of  Stanton  County. 

The  estimates  made  by  each  group  of  respondents,  when  averaged 
together  for  each  county,  show  the  distribution  and  relative  num- 


10 


Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 


■  No  report 

, ,  r  _^  _  _-_  ^^      ^/-sr%  ^  Museum  6»  NalufOl  Hisfofy 

s^»"   ^  □  Less  than  25 per  County  ESS  100-200 per  County    o»i.er.i., «i  ko«os 

Jl       '   ^  25-IOOper  County  [23  More  ttian200per  County  "« 


100 


97 


Map  1.    Distribution  and  number  of  deer  in  Kansas  as  estimated  by  County 

Agricultural  Agents. 


39 


38 


Scole 

10        O  20  «0 

III  I  I 


■  No  report  Mus.um ..  No,ur„  „..,o„ 

□  Less  than  25  per  County     EH  100-200  per  County      um.er.ii, .t  «»,«> 


25-IOOper  County 


E3  More  than  200per  County 


38 


100 


97 


Map  2.    Distribution  and  number  of  deer  in  Kansas  as  estimated  by  Work  Unit 

Conservationists. 


Deer  in  Kansas 


11 


■  No   report 
,"   „   LJ  Less  than  25 per  County  ES3  IOO-200per  County    u.i.rr.,„ „  w..o. 
=^    ^  25-IOOper  County  E3  More  than  200  per  County"" 


100 


97 


Map  3.    Distribution   and   number   of   deer   in   Kansas   as   estimated   b>    State 

Game  Protectors. 


■  No  report 

MutSum  of  Nalurol  Hitlory 

□  Less  than  25  per  County  E3  100-200  per  County    ui-i,.r.i., ,t  «„„ 
^  25-IOOper  County         ^  More  than  200per  County  "" 


100 


97 


Map  4.    Combined  average  estimates  of  deer  in  Kansas  by  County  Agricultural 
Agents,  Work  Unit  Conservationists,  and  State  Game  Protectors. 


12 


Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 


Table  2.    Response  to  Question  Three  on  the  Questionnaire  Relating 

TO  Deer  Estimates  by  County. 


Respondents 

Number  of  counties 

for  which  estimates 

were  received 

Per  cent  of  counties 

for  which  estimates 

were  received 

County  Agricultural  Agents 

Work  Unit  Conservationists 

State  Game  Protectors 

69 

75 
81 

65.7 
71.4 
77.1 

bers  of  deer  in  Kansas  as  presented  on  Map  4.  The  estimates  made 
by  the  three  groups  of  respondents  act  as  a  check  on  one  another. 
For  some  counties  there  was  only  one  estimate,  and  from  some 
others  there  were  only  two  from  which  to  obtain  an  average  figure. 
Map  4  indicates  that  deer  are  most  numerous  in  the  northwestern, 
northeastern,  and  southeastern  areas  of  the  state,  whereas  fewer 
deer  occur  in  the  southwestern  and  south-central  parts  of  the  state. 
The  distribution  of  relative  numbers  of  deer  as  shown  in  Map  4 
agrees  with  the  distribution  presented  by  Taylor  and  Elder,  but 
many  respondents  reported  more  deer  in  1962  than  they  did  in 
1958.  For  example,  Taylor  and  Elder  reported  the  heaviest  con- 
centrations of  deer  in  northeastern  Kansas  to  be  in  Nemaha,  Brown, 
Doniphan,  and  Atchison  counties;  each  were  recorded  as  having 
more  than  100  deer.  Now  Jefferson,  Leavenworth,  Riley,  Potta- 
watomie, Washington,  Marshall,  Wabaunsee,  Douglas,  Jackson, 
and  Shawnee  counties  could  be  included  as  well.  Each  of  these 
counties  is  reported  to  have  more  than  100  deer  and  10  of  them 
have  more  than  200  deer,  according  to  the  estimates  made  by  the 
three  groups  of  respondents.  Taylor  and  Elder  reported  Cheyenne, 
Rawlins,  Wallace,  and  Thomas  counties  as  having  the  most  deer 
in  the  northwest,  but  now  Decatur  and  Sheridan  counties  are 
reported  to  have  more  than  100  deer.  Now  more  than  25  deer 
are  estimated  to  be  in  each  of  many  southwestern  and  south-central 
counties. 

Taylor  and  Elder  did  not  attempt  to  estimate  the  total  population 
of  deer  in  the  state,  realizing  the  potential  error  involved.  In  this 
questionnaire,  estimates  from  the  three  groups  were  totaled  sepa- 
rately in  order  to  determine  how  much  the  estimates  varied  from 
one  another  (see  Table  3).  In  many  returns,  estimates  were  given 
as  being  somewhere  between  two  numbers  such  as  50-100,  so  that 
a  minimum  estimate  was  derived  from  the  smaller  number  and  the 


Deer  in  Kansas 


13 


Table  3.    Total  Estimates  of  the  Number  of  Deer  Present  in  Kansas. 


Respondents 

Minimum 
estimate 

Maximum 
estimate 

Average 
estimate 

Number 
of  counties 
included  in 

estimates 

County  Agricultural  Agents .  . 
Work  Unit  Conservationists .  . 
State  Game  Protectors 

9,511 

8,210 

10,252 

10,049 

9,940 

10,909 

9,880 

9,075 

10,580 

69 
75 
81 

Average 

9,324 

10,300 

9.845 

75 

maximum  from  the  larger  number.  The  average  estimate  was 
determined  by  averaging  the  minimum  and  maximum  numbers  to- 
gether. The  estimates  are  in  close  agreement;  the  greatest  margin 
of  difference  in  the  average  estimates  was  approximately  1500. 
Total  number  for  the  state,  as  derived  from  the  reports  of  any 
one  group  of  respondents,  was  based  only  on  comities  for  which 
there  were  estimates.  Counties  included  or  omitted  are  not  the 
same  for  the  3  groups.  The  deer  population  in  Kansas  in  1961 
was  estimated  by  the  Kansas  Forestry,  Fish,  and  Game  Department 
at  10,686,  but  this  figure  was  based  on  all  counties,  whereas  the 
figures  in  Table  3  were  derived  from  only  about  60  to  80  percent 
of  the  counties.  The  total  estimated  population  of  deer  would 
probably  ha\e  been  20  to  40  per  cent  higher  if  all  respondents  had 
answered  item  No.  3  on  the  questionnaire. 

In  item  No.  4  it  was  asked  if  the  number  of  deer  had  increased, 
decreased,  or  remained  stable  in  the  period  1957-62.  The  results 
obtained  from  this  question  are  presented  in  Table  4.  In  the  south- 
western part  of  the  state,  28  replies  estimated  decreases  or  no 
change  for  24  counties  as  compared  to  30  reports  of  decreases  or 
no  change  for  the  other  81  counties.  The  apparent  slower  increase 
of  the  deer  population  in  the  southwest  probably  is  due  to  the 
smaller  number  of  deer  present  in  that  area  of  the  state.  The  three 
groups  of  respondents  did  not  always  agree  on  the  population 
trend  for  a  particular  county;  two  might  state,  for  example,  that 
there  had  been  no  change,  whereas  the  third  respondent  might 
state  that  deer  were  increasing  in  numbers.  Taylor  and  Elder 
stated  the  question  in  this  way:  "If  there  has  been  a  population 
increase  (or  decrease),  for  how  long  has  it  been  apparent?"  Ac- 
cording to  them,  about  95  per  cent  of  the  118  replies  received  re- 
ported that  increases  had  been  apparent  only  within  the  last  ten 


14 


Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 


Table  4.    Summary  of  Answers  to  Question  Four  on  the  Questionnaire 
Relating  to  Population  Trends  of  Deer  in  the  Period  1957-1962. 


Respondents 

Number 

of 
counties 

Deer 
in- 
creasing 

Deer 
de- 
creasing 

Deer 
un- 
changed 

No 

infor- 
mation 

County  Agricultin-al 
Agents 

91 
91 
84 

59 

(56.2%,) 

73 

(69.5%) 

71 

(67.6%) 

14 

(13.3%) 

5 

(4.8%) 

5 

(4.8%,) 

18 

(17.1%) 

13 

(12.6%) 

8 
(7.6%) 

14 

Work  Unit  Con- 
servationists.  .  .  . 

State  Game  Pro- 
tectors   

(13.3%) 

14 
(13.3%) 

21 

(20.0%) 

Totals 

266 

203 

24 

39 

49 

years,  and  73  per  cent  reported  increases  had  occurred  only  in  the 
last  five  years.  Four  per  cent  stated  that  increases  had  been 
apparent  for  more  than  ten  years.  In  my  questionnaire  203  replies 
were  received  reporting  increases  compared  to  118  in  the  study  of 
Taylor  and  Elder.  Nothing  was  mentioned  in  their  report  con- 
cerning decreases  or  no  change  in  population. 

In  item  No.  5  it  was  asked  if  a  change  in  the  deer  population 
occurred  in  the  period  1957-1962  and,  if  so,  was  the  change  abrupt 
or  gradual.  For  the  results  from  this  question  see  Table  5.  Taylor 
and  Elder  asked  a  similar  question.  Of  112  replies  received  by 
them,  92  per  cent  or  103  reported  a  gradual  increase  and  nine  con- 
sidered the  increase  abrupt.  I  received  196  reports  of  a  gradual 
increase  and  seven  reports  of  an  abrupt  increase.  Each  of  the 
seven  respondents  reporting  abrupt  increases  were  from  different 
counties;  12  returns  from  these  same  seven  counties  reported  a 
gradual  increase. 

In  item  No.  6  it  was  asked  whether  or  not  deer  were  evenly 
distributed  throughout  the  area  reported  on,  and,  if  not,  whether 
they  were  concentrated  in  grassland,  brushland,  upland  timber,  or 
bottomland  timber.  See  Table  6  for  the  replies  to  this  question. 
As  was  expected,  many  respondents  reported  deer  occurring  in  more 
than  one  type  of  habitat.  Only  six  reported  deer  in  all  four  types 
of  habitat.  If  this  question  was  unanswered  it  was  assumed  the 
respondent  meant  that  deer  were  evenly  distributed  in  his  area.  In 
general,  bottomland  areas  occur  in  all  parts  of  the  state  and  it 
would  seem  only  natural  to  have  more  reports  of  deer  occurring  in 


Deer  ix  Kansas 


15 


Table  5.    Summary  of  Answers  to  Question  Five  on  the  Questionnaire 
Concerning  Sudden  or  Gradual  Changes  in  the  Deer  Population  for  the 

Period  1957-1962. 


Respondents 

Number 

of 
counties 

In- 
crease 
gradual 

In- 
crease 
abrupt 

De- 
crease 
gradual 

De- 
crease 
abrupt 

Count}'  Agricultural 
Agents 

Work  Unit  Con- 
servationists. .  .  . 

State  Game  Prc- 
tectors 

73 
78 
76 

55 

70 
71 

4 
0 

14 
5 
5 

0 
0 
0 

Totals 

227 

196 

7 

24 

0 

this  type  of  habitat.  Upland  timber  is  absent  in  many  counties, 
especially  in  the  western  half  of  the  state,  resulting  in  fewer  reports 
for  this  type  of  range.  Taylor  and  Elder  stated  that  deer  were 
concentrated  in  rixer-  and  creek-bottoms,  with  some  dispersion 
into  upland  timber  in  some  eastern  counties.  They  also  reported 
that  of  197  replies  only  6.5  per  cent  credited  deer  with  being  uni- 
formly distributed,  whereas  7  per  cent  of  220  replies  to  my  survey 
indicated  that  the  distribution  was  uniform. 

In  item  No.  7  it  was  asked  what  the  general  attitude  at  present 
of  farmers  and  other  residents   was  regarding  deer  and  a   deer 


Table  6.    Numbers  of   Respondents   Reporting   Concentration  of   Deer 
IN  Bottomland  Timber,  Upland  Timuer,  Grassland,  and  Brushland. 


Respondents 

Bottom- 
land 
timl)er 

Up- 

land 
timber 

Brush- 
land 

Grass- 
land 

County  Agricultural  Agents .... 
Work  Unit  Conservationists .... 
State  Game  Protectors 

69 
89 
32 

22 
23 
12 

18 
16 
13 

11 

16 

4 

Totals 

190 

57 

47 

31 

season.  A  total  of  207  replies  was  received  for  this  question  (see 
Table  7).  A  favorable  attitude  toward  deer  was  reported  by  202 
respondents;  only  5  reported  an  unfavorable  attitude  by  residents. 
Of  197  rephes,  Taylor  and  Elder,  in  their  report,  stated  that  132 
indicated  a  favorable  attitude  toward  deer;  40  were  neutral;  only 


16 


Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 


three  reported  an  unfavorable  attitude.  With  regard  to  a  deer 
season,  22  respondents  to  my  questionnaire  reported  residents  gen- 
erally in  favor  of  a  season,  126  against,  and  59  expressed  no  opinion. 
Taylor  and  Elder  reported  that  of  194  replies,  57  were  favorable, 
77  unfavorable,  and  60  expressed  no  opinion  regarding  a  future 
deer  season  in  Kansas.  A  comparison  of  these  results  cannot  be 
made  as  my  question  concerned  a  season  at  the  present  time, 
whereas  Taylor  and  Elder  were  concerned  with  a  season  sometime 
in  the  future  if  deer  continued  to  increase.     Probably  this  question 


Table  7.    Summary  of  Answers  to  Question  Seven  of  the  Questionnaire 
Concerning    the    General    Attitude    of   People    at    the    Present    Time 

Toward  Deer  in  Kansas. 


Respondents 

Favorable 

Unfavor- 
able 

Want 

deer 

protected 

Want 

deer 

hunted 

County  Agricultural  Agents .... 
Work  Unit  Conservationists .... 
State  Game  Protectors 

83 
89 
30 

1 
3 

1 

44 
64 

18 

8 
8 
6 

Totals 

202 

5 

126 

22 

was  difficult  for  respondents  to  answer  because  the  farmer  and  the 
sportsman  often  have  differing  views  with  regard  to  wildlife  man- 
agement policies.  Even  so,  a  majority  of  each  group  of  respondents 
felt  that  public  sentiment  was  against  a  deer  season  at  the  present 
time.  Taylor  and  Elder  reported  that  a  majority  of  the  Game  Pro- 
tectors expressed  an  opinion  that  the  public  was  generally  in  favor 
of  a  season  in  the  future  if  it  was  feasible  or  necessary. 

In  item  No.  8  the  respondents  were  requested  to  indicate  what 
kind  of  deer  were  present  in  their  areas  and,  if  possible,  to  estimate 
the  ratio  of  mule  deer  to  white-tailed  deer  if  both  were  present. 
Maps  5,  6,  and  7  show  the  distribution  of  mule  deer  and  white-tailed 
deer  as  reported  by  each  group  of  respondents.  Mule  deer  were 
reported  from  38  counties  and  white-tailed  deer  from  101  counties. 
Most  mule  deer  apparently  occur  in  the  northwestern  part  of  the 
state  and  east  as  far  as  Republic  and  Cloud  counties.  Reports  of 
mule  deer  in  Linn,  Elk,  and  Wilson  counties  in  southeastern  Kansas 
are  viewed  with  suspicion  because  the  probability  of  the  species 
occurring  there  is  slight  (but  not  impossible).  Probably  the  distri- 
bution of  mule  deer  as  given  by  the  Game  Protectors  is  the  most 


Deer  in  Kansas  17 

nearly  accurate  as  they  should  be  more  familiar  with  the  kind  of 
deer  present  than  the  other  respondents.  The  three  groups  of 
respondents  were  in  agreement  that  the  mule  deer  outnumber  the 
white-tailed  deer  in  Cheyenne,  Rawlins,  and  Sherman  counties. 

Item  No.  9  stated  that  the  reverse  side  of  the  questionnaire 
could  be  used  for  additional  comments.  Most  comments  were 
about  deer  sightings,  road-kills,  where  most  deer  occurred  in  a 
county,  opinions  concerning  a  deer  season,  and  crop  damage.  Some 
respondents  thought  that  poaching  was  being  done  in  their  areas. 
Only  nine  comments  were  received  about  crop  damage,  indicating 
that  little  noticeable  damage  has  been  done  by  deer  up  to  now. 
Many  respondents  indicated  that  as  deer  increase  and  crop  damage 
thus  becomes  more  evident,  the  attitude  of  farmers  toward  deer 
may  become  less  favorable.  Many  farmers  were  not  in  fa\"or  of  a 
season  because  they  feared  for  their  livestock  and  themselves  if 
high-powered  rifles  were  used. 

A  great  difference  of  opinion  was  evident  among  individuals 
answering  my  questionnaire.  Nevertheless,  the  large  number  of 
respondents  helped  to  determine  general  trends  and  status  of  deer 
populations  in  Kansas. 

MORTALITY 

Information  on  deer  mortalities  was  obtained  from  the  reports 
filed  with  the  Kansas  Forestry,  Fish,  and  Game  Department  by  the 
State  Game  Protectors.  Of  283  deer  deaths  investigated  by  Game 
Protectors  from  April  8,  1962,  to  February  25,  1963,  231  or  82 
per  cent  were  involved  in  traffic  accidents,  21  or  7  per  cent  were 
shot  illegally,  14  or  5  per  cent  were  killed  in  miscellaneous  acci- 
dents, and  17  or  6  per  cent  died  from  causes  unknown. 

Probably  none  of  the  deer  star\ed  to  death.  Starvation  occurs 
primarily  in  the  more  northern  states  where  deer  herd  together  in 
deer  yards  for  protection  and  warmth  during  the  winter.  The 
deep  snow  prevents  them  from  mo\  ing  about  and  the  edible  vegeta- 
tion in  the  area  is  often  consumed  before  winter  is  over.  Deer  in 
Kansas  also  tend  to  herd  together;  herds  of  up  to  30  or  40  have  been 
observed  by  residents.  The  winters  are  less  rigorous  in  Kansas 
than  in  more  northern  states  and  snow  rarely  accumulates  to  more 
than  a  foot  in  depth.  Deer  thus  are  able  to  move  about  in  vdnter 
in  order  to  obtain  food.  I  have  seen  no  indication  of  over-browsing; 
nevertheless,  a  close  check  should  be  kept  on  browse  species  if 
deer  continue  to  increase. 


18 


Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 


100 


39 


38 


White-tailed  8.  Mule  Deer        ti£J  Wtiite-tailed    Deer  only 
"   «  CZH  No  Data 


Museum  of  Nolural  Hiilor) 

University  of  ((onsas 

I94S 


-38 


100 


97 


Map  5.    Distribution    of   mule    deer    and    white-tailed    deer    as    reported    by 

County  Agricultural  Agents. 


100 


39 


38- 


I      I  No  Data 
^aMule  Deer  only 


^M  White-tailed     Deer  only ""•""" •""'"""""""' 
■■  White-toiled  8  Mule  Deer      ,„5 


39 


38 


100 


97 


Map  6.    Distribution  of  mule  deer  and  white-tailed  deer  as  reported  by  Work 

Unit  Conservationists. 


Deer  in  Kansas 


l\) 


39 


38 


IZH  No  Data 

g7?^  Mule  Deer  only 


E23  White-toiled   Deer  only 


ttntum  e(  N«tvf«l  HUtorf 


Wtilfe -toiled  a  Mule  Deer  <'-'*";^''' «•"••• 


100 


97 


Map  7.    Distribution  of  mule  deer  and  white-tailed  deer  as  reported  by  State 

Game  Protectors. 


100 


39 


38 


97 

— r— 


1RA«U«S      ToECAIUR 

ilOM     i3M 
ijW     i2W 

isHEHNAN  r™MAr'"n;;(i,i)Aii 

i  I  M       i  .-^3M 
i  |2W 

[locau 
ilM 

M  w 

rcsfElnJiijHifA^lcpTf  ]iJu 
ilM    i        ilW 

|H«"MllC(iT«rA"Rtrr;  f  INNIt 

J  M  !  I  W 


jCHKfNNE 

jSM 


fiAUACE 

jlOM 


jNORION  j  PHILLIPS 

i2M  i2M 

iGRAHAN  lioOKS 

i3W  ilM 

I  -ew 


T«f"!Llc"iii»SHINCI0if"»«SH*LL  ;NEMAHA  IBROWM  jOOKIPHAf 

I7W     I  IlW    jlW   i^W  \\4Vf 


SMITH       iJEfELL 

2W    i3W     i 

Ka'oRNE^iiirCHELL !  OM        iCLAT    TRILEyfollAKAIOMIf  J*t«SO«. ., 


;     ,  .     I  — -«* 

_._.j,5ljj       ■ T--— 7 ■—r—'       l«J"lSj)«rLE«EIIIIORIH 


IW 


RUSSELL    ; 


3yno'c«^cErgtii3,^s^t2^^ 


39 


rsTAVrONTGRANrtHASHELL;  '  ^ 


iPAIHEE 

HODGEHAN    :|^ 

IW 

■fORO  '^ 


iVo¥drT/i'i£««?'\sMffiDi''""   i'^'-*"*   VcTMAiii:«r 


iEUS»ORrMl  oyy 

|2W-J^- 

•STTT         •IICPH£RS«l(' 

;6W   • 


SUMNER 


JPRAII       1----- , 

i  \\l\l        ;IIIMCMAN 

i  I 

Iba'rbeI"" 


IW 


;HARPER 


r^-~>. 


Tw  FmoIrIs'-tSWWe  •.20w3-W.^ 
:2W    Ti»"    ■,2W  in'*''ALiii! MIAMI    1 

CHASE     '  ►- ' i i 

''"1 Sy"f'   WKOERSW  LIHH       • 

^ -,__.    Mj -TXilWj i 

■  ?"w    ;  BUTLER  "y"""*""'wiooosi)iKAlLE«  \»mm]  ' 

r^rmJ4W      ilW     i i(lWJ     _! 

'4W\,  '  '■  -       miisoM  i  ieoshoIcrwforS 

.rEu:yy"i2w  i  Ni 

-J  iL*«"''.CHERO»E( 


iCWUTAUOUA! 

i2W    • 


MONTGOMERr/ 

Uitttam  of  Natural  Hitlor; 

UnWmlty  of  Koniai 

1945 

IS 


38 


100 


97 


Map  8.    Numbers  of  mule  deer  ( M )  and  white-tailed  deer  ( W )   accidentally 
or  illegally  killed  in  each  county  from  April,  1962,  to  February,  1963,  as  re- 
ported by  State  Game  Protectors. 


20  Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 

The  numbers  of  deer  that  died  from  various  causes  are  Hsted  in 
Table  8,  and  the  numbers  of  deer  killed  in  each  county  are  shown 
on  Map  8.  Only  three  deaths  were  attributed  to  animals.  Dogs, 
coyotes,  and  possibly  bobcats  are  the  only  known  predators  of  deer 
in  Kansas.  However,  I  know  of  no  actual  observation  of  a  predator 
killing  a  deer  in  Kansas.  Deaths  investigated  by  Game  Protectors 
were  blamed  on  animals  by  such  evidence  as  footprints  and  partially 
eaten  carcasses.  Dogs  have  been  observed  chasing  deer  and  may 
be  indirectly  responsible  for  their  death  by  running  them  into 
fences  or  into  the  path  of  xehicles.  Gier  (1957)  did  not  mention 
deer  remains  in  stomachs  of  1190  coyotes  killed  in  Kansas.  Preda- 
tors probably  do  not  pose  a  serious  problem  in  limiting  population 
increases;  however,  they  may  be  responsible  for  many  more  deaths, 
especially  of  fawns,  than  are  brought  to  man's  attention. 

Fifty-one  mule  deer  were  killed  in  19  counties  and  222  white- 
tailed  deer  were  killed  in  64  counties;  ten  were  not  identified  as  to 
species.     Both  kinds  of  deer  were  killed  in  nine  counties.     Most  of 

Table  8.    Numbers  of  Deer  that  Died  From  Various  Causes  as  Reported 
BY  Kansas  State  Game  Protectors  From  April,  1962,  to  February,  1963. 

Vehicles 231         Food  poisoning 1 

Shot  illegally 21         Predation .  .  .  ._ 3 

Trains 3         Mowing  machines 2 

Falls 1         Plate  glass  window 1 

Fences 3         Unknown 17 


the  mule  deer  that  were  killed  were  in  northwestern  Kansas,  al- 
though one  was  in  Chase  County  in  east-central  Kansas.  Most 
white-tailed  deer  were  killed  in  northeastern  Kansas,  but  Rawlins, 
Kearny,  and  Logan  counties  in  western  Kansas  each  were  repre- 
sented by  one  kill  of  this  species. 

Deer  killed,  from  all  causes,  by  month  from  April,  1962,  to  Feb- 
ruary, 1963,  are  shown  in  Table  9.  Most  mortalities  occurred  in 
May  and  November  when  48  and  68  deaths,  respectively,  were 
reported.  Mortalities  increased  from  April  to  May,  decreased  from 
May  to  July,  increased  from  August  to  November,  and  decreased 
from  November  to  February. 

The  rutting  season  is  probably  responsible  for  the  sharp  increase 
in  kills  in  November  as  deer  move  about  more  at  that  time.  Almost 
twice  as  many  males  as  females  were  killed  in  November,  In  May, 
three  more  females  than  males  were  killed.  Erickson,  ct  ah  ( 1961 ) 
listed  the  following  possible  reasons  why  road-kills  increase  in 
Minnesota  in  May  and  June:    herbaceous  food  plants  growing  along 


Deer  in  Kansas 


21 


roadsides  attract  deer;  does  are  leading  fawns  about;  deer  seek 
openings  to  avoid  insects;  and  as  the  days  grow  longer  more  motor- 
ists drive  in  the  evening  hours. 

Table  10  shows  the  number  of  deer  mortalities  by  sex  and  age 
class.  Almost  58  per  cent  were  adults,  28  per  cent  were  yearlings, 
and  10  per  cent  were  fawns;  5  per  cent  were  not  aged. 


Table  9.    Deer  Killed,  From  All  Causes,  by  Month  by  Sex  From  April, 
1962,  TO  February,  1963,  as  Reported  by  Kansas  State  Game  Protectors. 


April. 
May. 
Juno . 
.Inly.. 
AiifT. . 
Sept. . 


Fe- 
male 

Male 

Sex? 

Total 

12 

8 

0 

20 

24 

21 

3 

48 

9 

8 

1 

18 

6 

6 

0 

12 

7 

5 

0 

12 

12 

8 

0 

20 

Oct. 
Nov 
Dec. 
Jan. 
Feb. 


Fe- 
male 


20 
24 

7 
10 

5 


Male 


15 

42 

7 

6 

5 


Sex? 


0 
2 
2 

0 
0 


Total 


35 

68 
16 
16 
10 


Table  10.    Se.x  and  Ace  of  Deer  Killed  in  Kansas  From  April,  1962,  to 
February,  1963,  as  Reported  by  Kansas  State  Game  Protectors. 


Females 

Males 

Total 

Adults      

71 
46 
17 

90 
32 
10 

164 

Yearlings 

Fawns 

78 
27 

Unclassified    

14 

Total    

137 

1 32 

283 

WHITE-TAILED  DEER  IN  NORTHEASTERN  KANSAS 

Description 

Deer  of  the  genus  Odocoileiis  are  even-toed  ungulates  and  nuiii- 
iiants  belonging  to  the  family  Cer\idae  that  can  be  characterized 
as  follows : 

Size  medium;  antlers  present  onh  in  males,  large  and  forked; 
face  long  and  narrow;  ears  variable  in  size  and  hairiness;  tail  long 
or  of  average  length;  coat  unspotted  in  adults;  tarsal  and  metatarsal 
glands  present,  along  with  interdigital  gland;  lacrimal  pits  and 
preorbital  glands  small;  upper  canines  and  incisors  absent;  young 
spotted. 

The  differences  in  external  physical  characteristics  between  the 
white-tailed  deer  and  the  mule  deer  are  sufficient  for  distinguishing 
the  two  species.     The  mule  deer  averages  slightly  larger.     Its  tail 


22  Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 

is  tipped  with  black  and  is  white  or  brown  elsewhere,  the  ears  are 
approximately  two-thirds  the  length  of  the  head,  antlers  of  males 
branch  dichotomously,  and  the  metatarsal  gland  is  more  than  25 
mm.  in  length.  In  the  white-tailed  deer  the  tail  is  longer  than  in 
the  mule  deer,  brown  above,  white  below,  and  fringed  with  white 
around  the  edges.  The  ears  are  approximately  half  the  length 
of  the  head,  the  antlers  have  vertical  prongs  arising  from  a  main 
beam,  and  the  metatarsal  gland  is  less  thn  25  mm.  in  length. 

Size 

Weight. — Weights  of  Kansas  white-tailed  deer  estimated  by  State 
Game  Protectors  range  from  90  to  350  pounds  for  adults,  60  to  175 
for  yearlings,  and  10  to  100  pounds  for  fawns.  Table  11  shows  the 
extremes  in  weight  and  the  average  weight  for  each  age  class  by 
sex  for  white-tailed  deer  as  compared  with  mule  deer.  For  pur- 
poses of  classification,  deer  less  than  one  year  old  are  listed  as  fawns, 
those  between  one  and  two  years  old  as  yearlings,  and  deer  two 
years  old  or  older  as  adults. 

White-tailed  deer  in  Kansas  grow  rapidly,  weigliing  100  pounds 
or  more  when  10  to  11  months  old.  Large  fawns  may  be  mistaken 
easily  for  adults  by  the  casual  observer.  In  the  field,  examination 
of  the  teeth  is  the  best  method  for  determining  age.  Yearlings, 
17  to  18  months  old,  may  weigh  175  pounds  or  more.  Table  12 
shows  actual  and  estimated  weights  of  12  Kansas  whitetails  by 
sex  and  age. 

External  measurements. — Measurements,  taken  by  me,  of  a  male  18  months 
old,  a  male  11  months  old,  a  male  8  months  old,  and  a  female  11  months 
old  are,  respectively,  as  follows:  Total  length,  1880,  1837,  1764,  1651  milh- 
meters;  length  of  tail,  300,  294,  269,  234;  length  of  hind  foot,  490,  466,  441, 
453;  length  of  ear  from  notch,  150,  159,  147,  150. 

Measurements  of  the  skuU. — Measurements  were  taken  of  30  skulls  in  the 
Museum  of  Natural  History.  Five  subspecies  of  Odocoileus  virginianus  were 
represented  and  included  the  following:  barealis  (3),  dacotensis  (3),  texanus 
(4),  virginianus  (1),  and  macrourus  (19).  Seventeen  skulls  were  from  Kansan 
deer,  one  virginianus  and  the  rest  macrourus.  The  largest  skull  of  an  adult 
male  of  macrourus  had  the  following  measurements:  Condylobasal  length, 
294  mm.;  zygomatic  width,  115;  interorbital  breadth,  73.7;  length  of  maxillary 
tooth-row,  86.0.  Corresponding  measurements  of  the  largest  skull  of  an  adult 
female  macrourus  were  as  follows:    277,  110.6,  65.0,  80.1. 

In  general,  the  skulls  of  O.  v.  macrourus  examined  were  smaller  than  skulls 
of  horeaUs,  but  larger  than  those  of  dacotensis,  texanus,  and  virginianus.  It 
is  impossible  to  identify  subspecies  accurately  on  the  basis  of  cranial  characters 
alone.  Table  13  shows  individual,  secondary  sexual,  and  age  variation  in 
skulls  of  17  white-tailed  deer  from  northeastern  Kansas. 


Deer  in  Kansas 


23 


Table  11.    Lrv'E  Weights  of  Deer  Killed  in  Kansas  From  April,  1962,  to 
February,  1963,  as  Estimated  by  State  Game  Protectors  (  Age  Also  Is  an 

Estimate  by  Gam£  Protectors  ) . 


White-tailed  Deer 

Mule  Deer 

Age  and  Sex 

Num- 
l:)er 

Weight 
extremes 

Average 
weight 

Num- 
ber 

Weight 
extremes 

Average 
weight 

Adult  Bucks 

Adult  Does 

Yearling  Bucks .... 

Yearling  Does 

Male  Fawns 

Female  Fawns 

72 
55 
23 

38 
8 
9 

90-350 
90-300 
80-175 
60-160 
10-100 
35-100 

207 

156 

116 

99 

51 

61 

13 
16 
6 
6 
1 
7 

125-275 
100-300 

95-140 

80-150 

80 

10-80 

195 
168 
118 
111 

49 

Table  12.    Weights  (Actual  or  Estimated),  Age,  and  Sex  of  12  Kansas 
White-tailed  Deer  (  Odocoileus  virginianus  macrourus  ) . 


Sex 

Age  in  months 

Weight  in  pounds 

? 

I 

70* 

9 

10 

120 

9** 

10-11 

105 

9 

10-11 

100* 

9** 

11 

145* 

9 

17 

125 

9** 

23-24 

150* 

cT 

8 

100 

cf 

11 

140 

d^ 

17 

ISO* 

cf 

17-18 

174 

d" 

23-24 

200 

•  Indicates  estimate  of  weight. 
*"'  indicates  pregnant  doc. 


Coloration 

Winter  pehiac.—Vom  skins  (KU  89196,  89197,  89963,  89969)  of  Odocoileus 
virginianus  macrourus  from  Kansas  were  available  for  examination.  Two  of 
these,  one  of  each  sex  that  was  approximately  17-18  months  old,  were  killed 
in  November,  1961.  These  two  were  in  prime  winter  pelage  as  evidenced 
by  the  longer  and  denser  hair  and  less  reddish  color  of  the  dorsal  pelage, 
than  deer  in  summer  pelage.  In  the  male,  the  overall  color  of  the  dorsum, 
sides,  neck,  and  Hanks  is  dark  cinnamon  brown,  becoming  bufly  adjacent  to 
the  pure  white  hair  on  the  venter  and  on  the  insides  of  the  upper  legs.  The 
lateral  or  more  exposed  areas  of  the  legs  are  pale  brown  to  pale  buff.  The 
tail  is  cinnamon  dorsally,  fringed  with  white,  and  is  white  ventrally.  The  face 
has  a  grayish  grizzled  pattern  except  for  a  ring  around  the  eyes  of  gray  hairs 


24 


Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 


Table  13.    Variation    in    Cranial    Measurements    by    Sex    and    Age    of 
White-tailed  Deer  From  Northeastern  Kansas  (Figures  Within  Paren- 
theses Are  Averages ) . 


Sex 

Age 
(months) 

Number 
measured 

Condylohasal 
length 

Zygomatic 
breadth 

Interorbital 
breadth 

c? 

6 

1 

243 

105 

57 

9 

10-11 

5 

237-251 

(242) 

97-103 
(100) 

53-59 
(56) 

c^ 

9-11 

3 

242-251 

(247) 

100-103 
(101) 

54-59 
(56) 

d" 

17-18 

2 

278-287 
(283) 

116-120 

(118) 

68-73 
(70) 

9 

24-30 

2 

262-269 

(265) 

106-107 
(106.5) 

61-65 
(63) 

d" 

2-t 

1 

294 

115 

74 

9 

36 

2 

263-277 

(270) 

106-111 
(108.5) 

60-65 
(63) 

d" 

48 

1 

254 

115 

65 

tipped  with  white  and  a  band  of  pale  buff  immediately  behind  the  nose  pad. 
A  whitish-gray  patch  composed  of  gray  hair  with  white  tips  is  present  on  the 
throat  and  underside  of  the  jaw.  The  black-tipped  hairs  having  a  subtemiinal 
band  of  pale  buff  followed  by  second  band  of  cinnamon  brown,  and  that  are 
white  basally,  give  a  slight  grizzled  appearance  to  the  dorsum,  sides,  and  neck. 

The  November-taken  female  is  slightly  darker  dorsally  and  the  face  is  less 
grizzled  than  in  the  male;  the  tliroat  patch  is  buffy  instead  of  gray. 

Another  female,  10  to  11  months  old,  killed  on  April  23,  1962,  still  carried 
most  of  her  winter  coat.  Small  patches  of  the  reddish  brown  summer  coat 
were  visible  on  the  dorsum  and  sides  where  the  winter  coat  was  being  shed. 
The  winter  coat  had  faded  from  the  dark  cinnamon  found  in  the  November- 
taken  deer  to  a  grayish  brown,  which  was  darker  on  the  dorsum  than  on  the 
sides.  The  venter,  the  insides  of  the  legs,  and  the  ventral  side  of  the  tail 
were  yellowish.  The  tliroat  patch  was  gray  and  the  tail  was  dark  brown 
dorsally.  The  old  winter  hair  was  brittle  and  broke  easily  when  bent.  Also, 
it  was  not  so  glossy  or  smooth  as  in  early  winter  coats  or  as  new  summer 
hair  just  coming  in.  The  summer  hair  was  less  than  one  inch  in  length  and 
was  thinner  than  the  winter  hair. 

One  deer  of  the  subspecies  O.  v.  texanus  (KU  84921),  killed  in  Te,\as  in 
December,  was  compared  with  the  November-taken  deer  described  above. 
In  the  Texas  specimen  the  dorsum,  sides,  and  flanks  were  gray  to  grayish 
brown,  becoming  brownish  gray  on  the  legs.  The  facial  pattern  was  the  same, 
but  the  cheeks  were  pale  gray  instead  of  pale  brown  as  in  macrourus.  The 
hair  of  macrourus  is  more  than  twice  the  length  of  the  hair  of  texanus. 

Summer  Pelage. — An  adult  male,  killed  on  May  22,  1962,  had  shed  its 
winter   coat   except   for   several   patches.     The   summer   coat   is   dark    reddish 


Deer  in  Kansas  25 

brown  on  the  dorsum  and  upper  sides,  and  dorsum  of  the  tail,  and  paler  near 
the  venter.  The  legs  are  the  same  color  as  those  of  the  winter  coat.  The 
top  of  the  head  is  reddish  brown,  and  the  cheeks  pale  brown.  A  band  of 
dark  brown  hair  on  the  rostrum  becomes  wider  nearer  the  eyes.  The  tail 
is  fringed  with  white  dorsally  and  is  white  ventrally.  The  venter  and  throat 
patch  are  white  except  where  the  \elIowish  winter  hair  still  is  present.  In 
comparison  with  a  specimen  of  Odocoileus  virginiamis  dacotensis  taken  in  July 
in  South  Dakota  (KU  87115),  O.  v.  nmcrourus  is  slightly  darker  and  more 
reddish  on  the  dorsum  and  sides,  but  the  rest  of  the  coat  closely  resembles 
that  of  dacotensis. 

Judging  from  the  specimens  examined,  Odocoileus  virginianus  in  Kansas 
has  a  well-developed  winter  coat  by  the  middle  of  November.  This  coat  is 
retained  at  least  partially  into  April  of  the  following  year.  In  the  latter  part 
of  April,  the  winter  Jiair  ha.s  been  replaced  by  the  summer  hair  except  for 
a  few  small  scattered  patches.  More  specimens  need  to  be  collected  to  show 
individual  age  and  secondary  sexual  variation  in  deer  of  Kansas. 

Status  in  Douglas  County 

The  white-tailed  deer  occurs  primarily  in  woodland  areas  and 
nearly  every  indi\idual  spends  at  least  several  hours,  usually  most 
of  the  time,  in  timber.  McGregor  ( 1948 )  reported  that  woodlands 
of  Douglas  County  consisted  of  three  types:  oak-hickory,  mixed 
woodland,  and  willow-cotton  wood.  White-tailed  deer  occur  in  each 
of  these  types  of  woodland. 

The  oak-hickory  association  is  the  most  common  and  is  found 
on  the  more  or  less  imdisturbed  hilltops  and  hillsides.  The  domi- 
nant trees  are  oak  and  hickory. 

The  mixed  woodland  association  occurs  in  disturbed  areas  that 
have  been  cut  over  or  burned,  and  along  small  streams.  This  type 
of  woodland  is  slowly  replaced  by  the  oak-hickory  association  in 
undisturbed  areas.  The  dominant  tree  of  the  mixed  woodland  is 
the  American  elm. 

The  willow  and  cottonwood  association  occurs  in  many  places 
along  the  Kansas  River.  In  some  places  willows  occur  in  solid 
stands,  in  other  places  cottonwoods  are  found  in  solid  stands,  and 
in  still  other  places  the  two  kinds  of  trees  occur  together.  Above 
the  normal  flood  plain,  they  occur  along  with  elm,  ash,  maple,  and 
other  trees. 

Figures  obtained  from  the  U.  S.  Soil  Conservation  Ser\ice,  Law- 
rence, Kansas,  show  that  there  were  24,871  acres  of  woodland  in 
Douglas  County  as  of  June  1962.  This  is  approximately  9  per  cent 
of  the  total  acreage,  which  includes  170,996  acres  of  cropland, 
74,050  acres  of  pastureland,  and  4,014  acres  of  urban  and  related 
areas. 


26  Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 

According  to  local  residents,  deer  were  rare  in  the  county  10 
years  ago,  and  probably  moved  in  from  the  north  and  east;  the 
earliest  observations  were  in  that  part  of  the  county. 

At  present  (1963),  white-tailed  deer  occur  tliroughout  Douglas 
County.  Heaviest  concentrations  appear  to  be  in  the  northwestern 
part  of  the  county,  judging  from  the  relative  abundance  of  sign. 
Many  residents  of  that  area  reported  seeing  several  groups  of  five 
and  six  deer.  Late  in  the  winter  of  1963,  Mrs.  Wilham  Hess,  RFD 
1,  reported  that  she  saw  a  herd  of  more  than  20  deer  about  one  mile 
south  of  Kanwaka.  Deer  sign  also  was  abundant  in  the  south- 
western part  of  the  county,  near  Baldwin.  Eddie  Bond,  State  Game 
Protector,  reported  seeing  23  deer  in  one  herd  two  miles  north  of 
Baldwin  in  the  spring  of  1963. 

Aerial  counts,  group  pellet  counts,  road  track  counts,  and  deer 
drives  are  some  of  the  methods  that  have  been  used  in  other  states 
in  attempts  to  determine  the  size  of  deer  herds.  Actually,  no 
accurate  method  has  been  devised;  nevertheless,  deer  drives,  when 
conducted  properly,  probably  would  be  best  suited  in  Kansas  for 
determining  the  number  of  deer  present  in  small  areas  of  one  or 
two  square  miles.  Deer  drives  usually  require  a  large  number  of 
men  and  therefore  are  expensive.  The  small  patches  of  timber 
in  Douglas  County  would  allow  observers  to  be  placed  at  strategic 
points  to  count  any  deer  that  ran  out  of  the  tiinber.  This  would 
decrease  the  number  of  men  needed  in  the  driving  line  as  the  area 
driven  would  not  have  to  be  completely  surrounded.  A  line  of  15 
men  spaced  about  40  yards  apart  should  be  sufficient  to  drive  any 
body  of  timber  in  Douglas  County.  Another  five  or  six  men  would 
be  needed  around  the  sides  of  the  area  to  count  deer  flushed  into 
the  open. 

Aerial  censusing  often  is  used  in  mountainous  terrain  and  open 
range,  and  probably  would  prove  satisfactory  in  western  Kansas. 
Between  11:00  a.m.  and  noon  in  January  of  1963,  I  attempted  an 
aerial  survey  of  two  areas  in  Douglas  County  known  to  contain 
deer.  The  areas  were  (1)  the  Natural  History  Reservation,  four 
miles  north  and  one  and  one-half  miles  east  of  Lawrence,  and  (2) 
the  Kansas  River  Bottom  from  Eudora  to  Lecompton.  Three  and 
one-half  inches  of  snow  covered  the  ground  and  the  temperature 
was  near  zero.  No  deer  were  sighted,  probably  because  they  had 
sought  shelter  from  the  cold  in  the  dense  stands  of  timber.  Dense 
timber  would  reduce  the  effectiveness  of  airplane  counts  in  eastern 
Kansas. 


Deer  in  Kansas  27 

The  number  of  100  to  200  deer  in  Douglas  County  as  derived 
from  the  questionnaires  seems  to  me  to  be  conservative.  I  esti- 
mated 400  deer  in  Douglas  County  in  January  of  1963.  This  esti- 
mate was  based  on  relative  abundance  of  sign  in  different  areas  and 
observations  of  deer  by  local  residents. 

In  talking  with  rural  residents  of  Douglas  County  about  deer,  I 
found  that  all  were  inclined  favorably  toward  the  animal.  When 
local  residents  were  asked  if  they  thought  enough  deer  were  present 
to  warrant  a  hunting  season,  most  did  not,  but  many  felt  that  a 
season  would  be  necessary  if  the  numbers  of  deer  continued  to 
increase. 

Over-browsing,  o\  er-population,  and  diseases  were  not  found  and 
seem  not  to  be  limiting  the  increase  of  deer  in  the  county  at  present. 
However,  a  close  check  on  range  conditions  and  population  trends 
should  be  maintained  in  order  to  harvest  a  part  of  the  annual  in- 
crease at  an  appropriate  time  and  so  prevent  the  population  from 
exceeding  the  range  capacity. 

Food  Habits 

Deer  utilize  a  great  variety  of  plants,  browsing  on  twigs,  buds, 
leaves,  fruits,  and  stems  of  trees,  shrubs,  broad-leafed  herbaceous 
plants,  and  grasses.  Atwood  ( 1941 )  listed  614  species  of  plants 
known  to  be  eaten  by  the  white-tailed  deer  in  the  United  States. 
Korschgen  (1954)  listed  more  than  200  kinds  of  plants  taken  from 
440  stomachs  of  Missouri  deer  oxer  a  five-year  period. 

In  agricultural  areas  deer  feed  on  almost  any  crop  available,  in- 
cluding truck  crops  and  fniit  trees.  But,  so  long  as  populations 
remain  at  a  level  at  which  native  habitat  can  support  them,  crop 
damage  tends  to  be  minor.  A  thorough  study  revealing  which 
plants  are  preferred  foods  in  Kansas  has  yet  to  be  made.  The 
material  that  follows  is  merely  some  data.  These  data  on  plants 
eaten  by  white-tailed  deer  in  Kansas  were  obtained  by  observing 
sign  and  by  analysis  of  rumen  contents. 

Stomach  contents  of  nine  deer  were  collected  from  November 
14,  1961,  to  January  26,  1963.  Three  stomachs  were  collected  in 
November  and  three  in  May,  two  in  April,  and  one  in  January.  All 
deer  were  killed  in  Douglas,  Lea\enworth,  and  Wyandotte  counties. 
The  rumen  samples  were  preserved  in  a  10  per  cent  formalin  solu- 
tion and  approximately  one  pint  from  each  sample  was  examined. 
The  samples  were  washed  on  consecutive  one-quarter,  one-eighth, 
and  one-sixteenth  inch  screens  to  facilitate  separation  and  identili- 


28  Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 

cation  of  plants.  The  plant  material  was  then  placed  on  an  enamel 
tray  and  air-dried.  After  drying,  identifiable  portions  were  removed 
and  placed  in  vials  to  be  identified  later.  Plants  were  identified 
with  the  help  of  Dr.  R.  L.  McGregor,  Department  of  Botany,  Uni- 
versity of  Kansas.  Plant  classification  follows  that  in  Gray's  Manual 
of  Botany,  Eighth  Edition  (Fernald,  1950).  I  measured  the  volume 
of  identified  plants  and  apportioned  the  remainder  by  ocular  esti- 
mate and  on  the  basis  of  volume  of  identified  items.  Percentages 
by  volume  were  obtained  by  dividing  the  total  volume  of  a  specific 
food  item  by  the  total  volume  of  all  samples. 

Analysis  of  the  stomach  contents  showed  35  identified  food  items. 
Many  plants,  including  grasses  and  leaves  of  some  slirubs,  could 
not  be  identified  because  mastication  resulted  in  the  loss  of  diag- 
nostic characters.  Table  14  shows  the  number  of  occurrences  and 
the  percentage  by  volume  for  each  food  item.  "Trace"  was  entered 
in  the  table  for  each  food  item  that  comprised  less  than  one-tenth 
of  one  per  cent  of  the  total  volume.  Patterns  of  plant  utilization 
by  season  could  not  be  determined  from  nine  stomachs. 

Grasses  made  up  the  largest  percentage  (12.8%)  of  native  forage 
and  occurred  in  seven  of  the  nine  stomachs.  The  largest  volume 
of  grass  (78%)  was  found  in  deer  killed  in  spring.  Fifteen  kinds  of 
woody  plants  were  identified  and  comprised  18.2  per  cent  of  the 
total  volume.  Broad-leafed  herbaceous  plants,  fungi,  and  aquatic 
plants  made  up  6.1  per  cent  of  the  total  volume. 

Field  observations  showed  extensive  though  not  heavy  utilization 
of  dogwood  (twigs  and  leaves),  mushrooms,  willow  (twigs  and 
leaves ) ,  buckbrush,  ragweed,  and  mule's  tail. 

Korschgen  (1954)  reported  that  oak  mast  was  the  principal 
source  of  food  for  deer  in  Missouri.  I  did  not  find  oak  mast  present 
in  stomach  contents  examined,  although  various  species  of  oaks 
occur  throughout  the  areas  in  which  the  deer  were  killed.  Korsch- 
gen also  reported  that  a  decrease  in  oak  mast  production  resulted 
in  an  increase  in  utilization  of  agricultural  crops. 

Grain  of  sorghum  and  corn,  and  stems  and  leaves  of  soy-bean 
were  identified  in  the  stomachs  examined.  Corn  and  sorghums 
made  up  53  per  cent  of  the  total  volume.  Lespedeza  and  clover 
were  found  in  "trace"  amounts.  Although  commonly  grown  as 
feed  for  livestock,  lespedeza  and  clover  also  grow  extensively  under 
natural  conditions. 

In  the  field  I  noticed  at  one  time  or  another  places  where  deer 
had  fed  on  wheat,  sorghum,  corn,  soy-bean,  and  alfalfa.  In  no 
case  was  the  damage  severe.     Most  evidence  of  feeding  activity 


Deer  in  Kansas 


29 


Table  14.    Plants  Identified  From  Stomachs  of  Nine  White-tailed  Deer 

IN  Kansas. 


Food  item  and  parts  eaten 


Per  cent 

by 
volume 


Sorghum  (Sorgum  vidgare)  grain , 

Corn  (Zea  Mays)  grain 

Grasses  (unclassified)  plant 

Smooth  sumac  (Rhiifi  glabra)  seed 

Cottonwood  (Popnliis  deltoides)  leaves 

Fragrant  sumac  (Rhus  aromatica)  plant 

Honey-Locust  (Gledilsia  triacanthos)  seed-pods.  .  . 

Horse-nettle  {Solanum  carolinense)  seed 

Morning-glory  (Ipomoea  hederacea)  plant 

Black  Oak  (Qiiercus  vehdina)  leaves 

Dogwood  {('ornns  sp.)  [)lant 

Lamb's  quarters  (('hcnopodiinn  hybridum)  leaves. 

Smart  weed  {Polygonum  sp.)  seed 

Fungus  (Ceasler  sp.)  plant 

Tick-trisfoils  (Desmodiiim  sp.)  seed 

Ash  (Fraxinus  sp.)  plant 

Sunflower  (Hclianthits  sp.)  seed 

Kentucky  CofTee-tree  {Gymnocladus  dioica)  seed. 

Pond  weed  {Polamogeton  sp.)  seed 

Lespedeza  (Lespedeza  sp.)  plant 

Clover  (Trifoliiim  sp.)  plant 

American  Kim  (Ulmus  americana)  leaves 

Switchgrass  {Poninnn  virgaliim)  need 

Willow  (Snlix  interior)  plant 

Pink  weed  {Polygornnn  pennsylvanicutii)  seed 

Tall  Red- top  (Triodi a  flava)  plant 

\U'(\  Cedar  (Juniperus  virginiana)  buds 

Mull)('ri\\'  (.^forjis  sp.)  buds 

Hazehnit  (('orylus  americana)  buds 

Beard- Tongue  {Pensiemon  sp.)  seed 

Panic-Grass  (Panicum  sp.)  seed 

Soy-Bean  (Glycine  Max)  plant 

Sedge  (f^arex  sp. )  seed 

Broad-Iiafeii  shrub  (unclassified)  leaves 

Legume  (unclassifi(>d)  .seed 

L'nidentified  [)lant  material 


Total. 


was  concentrated  at  the  edges  of  fields  adjacent  to  wooded  areas. 

In  agricultnral  areas  such  as  Kansas,  ciiltixated  crops  may  form 
an  important  part  of  the  diet  of  deer.  Crop  damage  at  present 
does  not  seem  to  be  great.  Only  nine  reports  of  crop  damage  were 
reported  in  the  questionnaire  mentioned  previously.  Most  of  these 
complaints  involved  damage  to  corn,  grain  sorghum,  soy-bean  and, 
in  one  instance,  a  fruit  orchard. 

As  the  population  of  deer  in  Kansas  continues  to  increase,  crop 
damage  probably  will  become  more  apparent  as  the  availability  of 
natural  food  decreases.    Analysis  of  rumen  contents  would  show  if 


30  Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 

the  utilization  of  cultivated  plants  is  increasing  from  year  to  year. 

In  proper  management,  it  is  essential  that  a  deer  herd  be  kept 
in  balance  with  its  food  supply.  To  accomplish  this  the  principal 
foods  utilized  by  deer  must  be  determined,  as  well  as  the  main 
browse  species,  so  that  they  can  be  used  as  indicators  of  the  carry- 
ing capacity  of  the  range. 

Probably  the  most  accurate  method  of  determining  the  principal 
foods  is  by  analysis  of  rumen  contents.  Plant  material  in  deer 
stomachs  can  be  identified  and  its  volume  measured.  Because  deer 
eat  a  great  variety  of  plants,  a  large  number  of  stomachs  must  be 
examined  to  determine  what  plants  are  most  heavily  utilized.  Also, 
since  availability  of  many  plants  changes  by  season,  deer  stomachs 
should  be  obtained  in  each  month  of  the  year. 

Trends  in  range  condition  can  be  determined  by  comparing  in- 
creases or  decreases  of  certain  plants  that  deer  utilize  from  year  to 
year.  For  example,  in  Missouri,  Korschgen  (1954)  reported  that 
red  cedar  and  oak  leaves  were  poor  browse  species  and  were  con- 
sidered close  to  a  starvation  diet.  An  increase  of  these  two  species 
in  the  diet  of  deer  would  indicate  deterioration  in  range  conditions 
resulting  from  over-population  or  other  factors.  Plants  that  show 
trends  in  range  conditions  or  range  carrying-capacity  are  called 
indicators.  Indicator  plants  should  be  those  that  have  a  wide 
distribution  and  are  most  utilized  as  browse.  Korschgen  {op.  cit.) 
reports  that  Coralberry,  the  sumacs.  Red  Cedar,  and  wild  grapes  may 
serve  as  the  principal  indicators  of  range  carrying-capacity  in 
Missouri.  When  deterioration  of  range  conditions  is  evident,  steps 
must  be  taken  to  reduce  the  deer  herd,  usually  by  hunting. 

Reproduction 

An  adult  white-tailed  doe  usually  bears  one  fawn  or  twins. 
Triplets  are  less  common;  quadruplets  have  been  recorded.  Accord- 
ing to  Severinghaus  and  Cheatum  (/;i  Taylor,  1956:95),  well-nour- 
ished doe  fawns,  at  least  in  the  white-tailed  deer  of  the  northern 
woodlands,  breed  when  six  to  eight  months  old.  A  doe  breeding  at 
an  early  age  usually  gives  birth  to  a  single  fawn;  rarely  are  there 
twins  or  triplets.  Each  of  two  pregnant  does  from  Leavenworth 
County,  Kansas,  that  I  examined,  was  10  to  11  months  old  and  carried 
a  single  fetus  at  the  time  of  death.  According  to  the  age  of  the 
fetuses,  these  does  bred  when  about  six  months  old.  A  third  doe 
from  Leavenworth  County  that  was  23-24  months  old  carried  twins. 
Mortality  reports  of  State  Game  Protectors  revealed  13  pregnant 


Deer  ix  Kansas  31 

does,  of  which  six  were  carrying  single  embryos,  six  had  twins, 
and  one  had  triplets;  the  13  females  were  carrying  21  fetuses  for 
an  average  of  1.61  per  doe.  Cheatum  and  Severinghaus  (1950) 
found  a  direct  correlation  between  range  condition  and  fertility 
of  does  in  New  York  State.  They  reported  does  one  and  a  half 
years  old  or  older  averaged  1.71  embryos  in  the  best  western  range 
and  1.06  embryos  in  the  poorest  central  Adirondack  range.  The 
average  of  1.61  fetuses  per  doe  in  13  pregnant  females  from  Kansas 
indicates  a  high  rate  of  fertility,  which  may  be  correlated  with 
good  quality  of  range.  Of  course  13  is  too  small  a  number  to  yield 
a  statistically  reliable  average. 

By  knowing  the  length  of  gestation  and  the  age  of  the  fetus, 
one  can  determine  with  a  fair  degree  of  accuracy  both  the  date  of 
conception  and  the  projected  date  of  birth.  Se\eringhaus  and 
Cheatum  (in  Taylor,  1956:62)  report  that  gestation  periods  ranging 
from  189  to  222  days  have  been  observed  in  white-tailed  deer. 
Twenty-one  records  of  whitetails  reported  by  \arious  authors 
yield  an  a\erage  gestation  period  of  199.4  days.  I  obtained  meas- 
urements of  fi\e  fetuses  from  three  docs  (two  with  a  single  fetus 
and  one  with  triplets).  The  fetuses  were  aged  according  to  size 
and  physical  characteristics  on  the  basis  of  Armstrong's  (1950) 
work  on  fetal  development.  One  fetus  was  about  125  days  old, 
another  was  about  148  days  old.  The  triplets,  one  male  and  two 
females,  were  approximately  90  days  old.  The  125-day  old  fetus 
was  killed  on  April  23,  1962,  and  would  ha\e  been  born  sometime 
around  Tulv  7.  The  148-dav  old  fetus  was  killed  on  Mav  5,  1962, 
and  would  ha\e  been  born  around  June  26.  The  triplets  were 
killed  on  February  6,  1963,  and  would  have  been  born  around 
May  26.  The  approximate  dates  on  which  these  fetuses  were  con- 
ceived, therefore,  are  December  20,  December  9,  and  November  8, 
respectively. 

Although  the  above  information  gives  some  indication  as  to  when 
mating  and  fawning  occur,  it  does  not  indicate  when  peaks  of  the 
rutting  and  fawning  seasons  are  reached. 

In  other  states  the  sharp  increase  of  road-kills  in  autumn  is  cor- 
related with  the  breeding  season,  a  time  when  deer  move  about 
more  than  in  other  seasons.  In  Kansas  the  incidence  of  road-kills 
is  highest  in  November,  probably  because  this  is  the  rutting  season. 
If  the  gestation  period  is  approximately  200  days,  then  the  peak 
of  the  fawning  season  should  occur  in  the  latter  part  of  May  and 


32  Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 

the  first  part  of  June.  Determination  of  age  of  more  embryos  from 
does  killed  in  Kansas  will  probably  show  that  most  fawns  are  born 
at  this  time. 

Parasites 

Three  white-tailed  deer  were  examined  for  external  parasites  and 
six  for  internal  parasites.  I  was  not  able  to  examine  any  of  these 
individuals  until  several  hours  after  death.  Visceral  organs  exam- 
ined included  the  heart,  liver,  lungs,  stomach,  and  intestines. 
These  were  opened  and  washed  over  a  fine  screen,  but  no  parasites 
were  found.  All  of  the  organs  examined  appeared  to  be  in  good 
condition  as  no  lesions  or  discolorations  of  the  tissues  were  noted. 
Neither  were  external  parasites  found  on  the  specimens  examined 
(but  some  external  parasites  may  have  dropped  off  the  carcasses 
as  they  lost  body  heat  prior  to  my  examination).  Anderson  (1962: 
162)  indicated  that  about  66  different  organisms  parasitize  the 
white-tailed  deer  and  the  reader  is  referred  to  his  work  for  detailed 
information. 

Many  parasites  of  deer  are  limited  in  their  distribution  to  certain 
areas  of  North  America  by  factors  such  as  climate,  topography,  soil 
characteristics,  and  distribution  of  intermediate  hosts  and  reservoir 
hosts.  Soil  conditions  or  climate,  for  example,  may  not  be  suitable 
for  the  hatching  of  eggs  or  larval  development.  Topography  may 
limit  the  distribution  of  intermediate  hosts  such  as  certain  snails 
that  are  necessary  in  completing  life  cycles  of  some  trematodes. 
Reservoir  hosts  such  as  cattle  may  be  absent  in  some  areas  locally 
and  as  a  result  a  parasite  common  to  both  cattle  and  deer  in  an 
area  nearby  will  not  be  found  in  or  on  deer  occupying  an  area 
lacking  cattle. 

Although  no  parasites  were  found  in  deer  that  I  examined,  exam- 
ination of  a  larger  number  would  be  expected  to  reveal  some  para- 
sites, especially  if  the  population  of  deer  becomes  dense.  However 
further  investigation  probably  would  show  also  that  the  incidence  of 
parasites  is  low  in  Kansas  deer.  Van  Volkenberg  and  Nicholson 
(1943:220-223)  reported  that  poor  food  supplies  tended  to  increase 
parasitism,  especially  on  ranges  where  livestock  was  plentiful,  but 
that  deer  having  a  good  diet  of  browse  were  less  likely  to  have 
heavy  infestations  of  parasites.  I  have  found  no  evidence  of  over- 
browsing  in  any  of  the  areas  that  I  examined,  indicating,  at  least 
in  these  areas,  that  deer  have  a  good  food  supply.  Severinghaus 
and  Cheatum  (in  Taylor,  1956:170-171)  reported  that  incidence  of 
parasitic  infections  may  increase  where  concentrations  of  deer  are 


Deer  ix  Kansas  33 

heavy,  as  in  "wintering  yards,"  because  the  chances  of  ingesting 
eggs  or  larvae  are  increased.  Although  groups  of  30  or  more  deer 
have  been  observed  by  residents  in  Kansas,  deer  are  not  restricted 
to  small  areas  by  heavy  snowfalls  as  they  are  in  some  northern 
states,  and  transmission  of  some  parasities  may,  therefore,  be  rela- 
tively low. 

CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS 

When  white  men  first  reached  Kansas,  mule  deer  occurred  in  the 
western  part  of  the  state  and  white-tailed  deer  occurred  in  the 
eastern  part  and  along  streams  farther  west.  The  original  sub- 
species of  the  white-tailed  deer  in  Kansas  probably  were  Odocoileus 
virginiamis  macronrus  and  O.  v.  texanus.  Introductions  of  deer 
possibly  resulted  in  crosses  between  two  or  more  subspecies. 

Today,  mule  deer  occur  at  least  as  far  east  as  Cloud  and  Republic 
counties  in  north-central  Kansas,  and  Chase  County  in  east-central 
Kansas.  White-tailed  deer  occur  in  most  areas  of  the  state,  but  are 
most  abundant  in  the  eastern  half. 

On  the  basis  of  questionnaires  to  selected  observers,  I  estimate 
that  Kansas  had  no  fewer  than  12,()0()  deer  in  1962. 

Deer  occur  in  all  counties  of  Kansas,  with  the  possible  exception 
of  Stanton  County,  and  they  are  increasing  in  most  areas  of  the 
state.  From  areas  having  large  populations  of  deer,  the  populations 
are  expanding  toward  the  interior  of  the  state.  Deer  populations 
are  increasing  more  slowly  in  the  southwestern  counties  than  else- 
where. The  rate  of  population  increase  seems  to  ha\e  remained 
at  about  the  same  level  o\er  the  past  four  years.  Most  deer  in- 
habit rixer  bottoms  or  creek  bottoms  but  some  occur  in  upland 
timber,  brushland,  and  grassland. 

At  present,  deer  in  Kansas  are  healthy  and  no  evidence  was 
found  of  deaths  from  parasites,  disease,  or  lack  of  food. 

Deer  in  Kansas  weigh  about  100  pounds  when  one  year  old.  and 
some  female  white-tailed  deer  in  Kansas  breed  when  six  to  eight 
months  old. 

Any  increase  in  crop  damage  in  various  areas  within  the  state 
justifies  intensive  studies  designed  to  reveal  how  many  deer  can 
reasonably  be  supported  in  those  areas.  Carrying-capacity  of  deer 
range  in  Kansas  needs  to  be  determined  as  well  as  the  number  of 
deer  present.  Knowledge  of  the  rate  of  increase  in  populations 
of  deer  can  be  obtained  by  annual  censuses  in  given  areas  in  suc- 
cessive years  and  will  help  to  indicate  when  the  maximum  carrying- 
capacity  of  the  deer  range  will  be  reached. 


34  Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

I  am  grateful  to  Drs.  E.  Raymond  Hall  and  J.  Knox  Jones,  Jr.  for  their 
advice  and  counsel,  to  Dr.  A.  Byron  Leonard  for  assistance  with  the  illustra- 
tions and  to  Dr.  Ronald  L.  McGregor  for  identifying  plants.  Thanks  are 
extended  to  Kansas  State  Game  Protectors  Eddie  Bond  and  E.  L.  Bryan  for 
providing  specimens  in  the  course  of  my  study,  and  for  their  interest  and 
encouragement.  Thomas  H.  Swearingen  made  parts  of  the  maps.  Thanks 
are  extended  also  to  Mr.  Dave  Coleman,  Chief  of  the  Game  Division,  and  Mr. 
^^'illiam  Peabody,  Game  Biologist,  of  the  Kansas  Forestry,  Fish  and  Game 
Commission,  for  allowing  me  to  examine  information  in  their  files.  I  am 
indebted  also  to  those  persons  who  answered  my  questionnaire.  A  Teaching 
Assistantship  in  Zoology  at  the  University  of  Kansas  in  two  semesters  and  a 
Research  Assistantship  on  the  State  Biological  Survey  of  Kansas  in  the  terminal 
semester  of  my  study  provided  essential  financial  support. 


Deer  in  Kansas  35 

LITERATURE  CITED 
Allen,  J.  A. 

1874.  Notes  on  the  mammals  of  portions  of  Kansas,  Colorado,  Wyoming 
and  Utah.    Bull.  Essex  Institute,  Salem,  Mass.,  6:43-52. 

Allen,  P.  B. 

1940.  Kansas  mammals.  Kansas  State  Teachers  College  Emporia,  Bull. 
Information,  Nat.  Hist.  Surv.,  20(5):l-62. 

Anderson,  R.  C. 

1962.  The  parasites  of  white-tailed  deer.  Proc.  First  Nat'l  ^^^lite-tailed 
Deer  Disease  Symposium.  Univ.  Georgia  Center  for  Continuing 
Education,  Athens,  Georgia,  pp.  162-173. 

Armstrong,  R.  A. 

1950.  Fetal  de\elopment  of  the  northern  white-tailed  deer  (Odocaileus 
virginianus  burealis  Miller).     Amer.  Midland  Nat.,  43(3)  :650-666. 

Atwood,  E.  L. 

1941.  White-tailed  deer  foods  of  the  United  States.  Journ.  Wildlife  Mgt., 
5(3):314-332. 

Baker,  A.  B. 

1889.    Mammals  of  western  Kansas.     Trans.  Kansas  Acad.  Sci.,  11:56-58. 

Black,  J.  D. 

1937.  Manunals  of  Kansas.  Kansas  State  Board  Agric,  30th  Biennial 
Report,  35:116-217. 

Cheatum,  E.  L.  and  Severinchaus,  C.  W. 

1950.  Variations  in  fertility  of  white-tailed  deer  related  to  range  condi- 
tions.     Trans.    Fifteenth    N.    Amer.    \\'ildlife    Conf.,    pp.    170-190. 

COCKHUM,  E.  L. 

1952.    Mammals  of  Kansas.     Uni\-.  Kansas  Puiil.,  Mus.  Xat.  Hist.,  7:1-303, 
37  figs. 
Erickson,  a.  B.,  Gunvalson,  V.  E.,  Stenlund,  M.   IL,  Burcalow,   D.  W., 
and  Blankenship,  L.  H. 

1961.  The  white-tailed  deer  of  Minnesota.  Minnesota  Department  of 
Conservation,  Tech.  Bull.  No.  5,  pp.  viii  -|-  64,  illust. 

Fernalu,  M.  L. 

1950.  Gray's  manual  of  Botany,  8th  ed.,  American  Book  Company,  New 
York.     1,632  pp. 

GiEH,  H.  T. 

1957.  Covotes  in  Kansas.  Kansas  Agric.  Exp.  Station  Bull.  393,  97  pp., 
32 'figs.,  14  tables. 

HlHH.^RO,  C.  W. 

1933.    A    revised    checklist    of    Kansas    mammals.      Trans.    Kansas    Acad. 

Sci.,  36(3)  :230-249. 
1944.    A  checkhst  of  Kansas  mammals,   1943.     Trans.  Kansas  Acad.  Sci., 

47:61-88. 

Knox,  M.  V.  B. 

1875.    Kansas  mammalia.    Trans.  Kansas  Acad.  Sci.,  4:19-22. 

KORSCHGEN,  L.  J. 

1954.  A  study  of  the  food  habits  of  Missouri  deer.  Nhssouri  Conservation 
Commission,  Pittman-Robertson  Series,  pp.  iv  -f  44,  1  fig.,  17 
tables. 

Lantz,  D.  E. 

1905 A.  Kansas    mammals    in   their   relation    to   agriculture.      Kansas   State 

College  Exp.  Sta.  Bull.,  129:331-404. 
1905B.  A  list  of  Kansas  manunals.     Trans.  Kansas  Acad.  Sci.,  19:171-178. 

McGregor,  R.  L. 

1948.  The  flora  of  Douglas  Coimtv,  Kansas.  Trans.  Kansas  Acad.  Sci., 
51:77-106. 


36  Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Miscl.  Publ. 

Mead,  J.  R. 

1899.  Some  natural  history  notes  of  1859.  Trans.  Kansas  Acad.  Sci., 
16:280-281. 

Phillips,  W.  A. 

1890.    Kansas  history.     Trans.   Kansas  Historical  Soc,  4:351-359. 

Taylor,  D.  L.  and  Elder,  J.  B. 

1959.  A  prehminarv  survev  of  deer  in  Kansas.  Trans.  Kansas  Acad.  Sci., 
62:67-79,  4  figs.,  6  tables. 

Taylor,  W.  P.  ( ed. ) 

1956.  The  deer  of  North  America.  Washington,  D.  C.  and  Harrisburg, 
Penn.;  The  Wildlife  Management  Institute,  and  The  Stackpole 
Company,  pp.  xx  +  668,  Col.  frontispiece,  illustrated. 

Thwaites,  R.  G.  ( ed. ) 

1905.  Earlv  western  travels,  1748-1846.  The  Arthur  H.  Clark  Company, 
Cleveland,  Ohio,  14:1-321. 

TiHEN,  J.  A.,  and  Sprague,  J.  M. 

1939.  Amphibians,  reptiles  and  mammals  of  the  Meade  County  State 
Park.    Trans.  Kansas  Acad.  Sci.,  42:499-512. 

Van  Volkenberg,  H.  L.,  and  Nicholson,  A.  J. 

1943.  Parasitism  and  malnutrition  of  deer  in  Texas.  Journ.  Wildlife 
Mgt.,  7:220-223. 

Trammittcd  July  8,  1964. 


n 

30-3969 


6  0  93    0  7  1 


University  of  Kansas  Museum  of  Natural  History,  Miscellaneous  Publications 

Institutional  libraries  interested  in  publications  exchange  may  obtain  this 
series  by  addressing  the  Exchange  Librarian,  University  of  Kansas,  Lawrence, 
Kansas. 

Requests  of  individuals  are  handled  instead  by  the  Museum  of  Natural 
History,  The  University  of  Kansas,  Lawrence,  Kansas.  There  is  no  provision 
for  sale  of  this  series  either  by  the  Library  or  the  Museum.  However,  when 
individuals  request  copies  from  the  Museum,  the  amount  indicated  below 
should  be  included  tor  the  purpose  of  defraying  some  of  the  costs  of 
producing,  wrapping  and  maihng. 

Nos.  6,  12,  17,  27,  36,  37  and  38  obtainable  only  from  tlie  Arctic  Institute. 

■»  1.    The  Museum  of  Natural  History,  the  University  of  Kansas.     By  E.  R.  Hall  and  Ann 

Murray.     Pp.   1-16,  illustrated.     January  5,   1946. 
0  2.    Handbook  of  amphibians  and  reptiles  of  Kansas.     By  Hobart  M.  Smith.     Pp.  1-336, 

233  figures  in  text.     September   12,   1950. 
»  3.     In  memoriam,  Charles  Dean  Bunker,  1870-1948.     By  E.  Raymond  Hall.     Pp.   1-11, 

1  figure  in  text.      December    15,    1951. 

'  4.    The   University  of   Kansas,  Natural  History  Reservation.      By   Henry   S.   Fitch.      Pp. 

1-38,  4  plates,  3  figures  in  text.     February  20,   1952. 
"  5     Prairie  chickens  in  Kansas.     By  Maurice  F.  Baker.     Pp.  1-68,  4  plates,  15  figures  in 

text.     March   10,   1953. 

6.  The  barren  ground  caribou  of  Keewatin.  By  Francis  Harper.  Pp.  1-163,  28  figures. 
October  21,  1955.  Copies,  paperbound,  $1.50  postpaid  from  the  Arctic  Institute  of 
North   America,    1619    New    Hampshire    Avenue,    NW,   Washington,    D.    C.    20009. 

7.  Handbook  of  mammals  of  Kansas.  By  E.  Raymond  Hall.  Pp.  1-303,  illustrated. 
December   13,   1955.     Paperbound,  $1.50  postpaid. 

8.  Mammals  of  northern  Alaska,  on  the  arctic  slope.  By  James  W.  Bee  and  E. 
Raymond  Hall.  Pp.  1-309,  frontispiece  colored,  4  plates,  127  figures  in  text.  March 
10,    1956.       Paperbound,    $1.00    postpaid. 

9.  Handbook  of  amphibians  and  reptiles  of  Kansas.  2nd  [revised]  edition.  By  Hobart 
M.  Smith.  Pp.  1-356,  253  figures  in  text.  April  20,  1956.  Paperbound,  $1.50 
postpaid   (cloth  $4.00). 

«  10     The  raccoon  in  Kansas.     By  Howard  J.  Stains.     Pp.  1-76,  4  plates,  14  figures  in  text. 

July  6,  1956. 
'  11.    The  tree  squirrels  of  Kansas.     By  Robert  L.  Packard.     Pp.  1-67,  2  plates,  10  figures 

in  te.xt.     August   20,   1956. 
12.    The  mammals  of  Keewatin.     By  Francis  Harper.      Pp.    1-94,   6  plates,   8  figures   in 

text,   1  map.     October  26,   1956.     Copies,  paperbound,  75  cents  postpaid  from   the 

Arctic  Institute  of  North  America,  1619  New  Hampshire  Avenue,  NW,  Washington, 

D.  C.  20009. 

'  13.     Museum  of  Natural  History      .      .      .     University  of  Kansas.     By  Roy  R.  Moore  and 

E.  R.  Hall.      [An  unpaged,   illustrated   "flier,"    141/:;   in.   x   8Vi   in.,   printed   on   both 
sides,   and  folded  twice.]      June    1,    1957. 

14.     Vernacular  names  for  North  American  mammals  north  of  Mexico.     By  E.  RajTnond 
Hall,  Sydney  Anderson,  J.  Knox  Jones,  Jr.,  and  Robert  L.  Packard.     Pp.  1-16.     June 
19,  1957. 
'  15.    The  ecology  of  bobwhites  in  south-central  Kansas.     By  Thane  S.  Robinson.     Pp.  1-84, 

2  plates,   11   figures  in  te.\t.      September  6,    1957. 

"  16.  Natural  history  of  the  prairie  dog  in  Kansas.  Ry  Ronald  E.  Smith.  Pp.  1-36,  4 
plates,   9  figures   in  text.      June   17,    1958. 

17.  Birds  of  the  Ungava  Peninsula.  By  Francis  Harper.  Pp.  1-171,  6  plates,  26  figures 
in  text.  October  15,  1958.  Copies,  paperbound,  $2.00  postpaid  from  the  Arctic 
Institute  of  North  America,  1619  New  Hampshire  Avenue,  NW,  Washington,  D.  C. 
20009. 

18.  Furbearers  in  Kansas:  A  guide  to  trapping.  By  Howard  J.  Stains  and  RoUin  H. 
Baker.  Pp.  I -100,  2  plates,  13  figures  in  text.  November  19,  1958.  Paperbound, 
50  cents  postpaid. 

"•  19.  Natiu-al  History  Museum.  By  Roy  R.  Moore  and  E.  R.  Hall.  [An  unpaged, 
illustrated  "flier,"  14V':  in.  x  8Vi  in.,  printed  on  both  sides,  and  folded  twice.]  May 
29,  1959. 

20.  Handbook  of  gastropods  in  Kansas.  By  A.  B>Ton  Leonard.  Pp.  1-224,  plates  1-11, 
87  figures  in  text.     November  2,  1959.     Paperbound,  $1.00   (cloth  $2.00)   postpaid. 

21.  Management  of  channel  catfish  in  Kansas.  By  Jackson  Davis.  Pp.  1-56,  8  figures 
in  text.     November  2,   1959. 

22.  Hand-list  of  the  birds  of  Kansas.  By  Richard  F.  Johnston.  Pp.  1-6  [folded  twice]. 
May  7,  1960. 

»  23.  Directorv  to  the  bird-life  of  Kansas.  Bv  Richard  F.  Johnston.  Pp.  1-69,  1  figure 
in  text.  '  .August  31,  1960. 

»  24.  Natural  History  Museum.  By  Roy  R.  Moore  and  E.  R.  Hall.  [An  unpaged, 
illustrated  "flier,"  14'2  in.  x  S'i  in.,  printed  on  both  sides,  and  folded  twice.] 
October  19,  1960. 
25.  Guide  to  the  panorama  of  North  American  mammals.  By  E.  Raymond  Hall,  ct  ah 
Pp.  1-31,  silhouettes  in  black  and  white  of  panorama,  life-zones,  and  taped  com- 
mentary for  each  zone.     December  15,  1960. 

•  Out  of  print. 

(Continued  on  outside  of  back  cover) 


(Continued  from  inside  of  l)ack  cover) 

26.  Beaver  in  Kansas.  Bv  F.  Robert  Henderson.  Pp  1-85,  illustrated.  December  16, 
1960. 

27.  Land  and  fresh-water  mammals  of  the  Ungava  Peninsula.  By  Francis  Harper.  Pp. 
1-178,  plates  1-8,  3  figm-es  in  text.  August  11,  1961.  Paperbound,  $2.00  postpaid 
from  the  Arctic  Institute  of  North  America,  1619  New  Hampshire  Avenue,  NVV, 
Washington,    D.    C.    20009. 

28.  Handbook  of  unionid  mussels  in  Kansas.  By  Harold  D.  Murray  and  A.  Byron 
Leonard.  Pp.  1-184,  45  plates,  42  figmes.  May  10,  1962.  Paperbovmd,  $1.00 
postpaid. 

29  Farm  ponds  in  Douglas  County,  Kansas.  By  Claude  E.  Hastings  and  Frank  B.  Cross. 
Pp.    1-21.   May    17,    1962. 

30.  Collecting  and  preparing  study  specimens  of  vertebrates.  By  E.  Raymond  Hall.  Pp. 
1-46,  34  figures.     May  2.1,  1962.     Paperbound,  50  cents  postpaid. 

31.  Natural  History  Museimi.  Bv  Roy  R.  Moore  and  E.  R.  Hall.  [An  unpaged,  illus- 
trated "flier,"  14V,  in.  x  8V'  in.,  printed  on  both  sides,  and  folded  twice.]  June  1, 
1962. 

32.  The  bobwhite  in  Kansas.  Bv  Garv  Packard.  Pp.  1-12,  illustrated.  November  16, 
1962. 

33.  Spiders  of  the  University  of  Kansas  Natural  History  Reservation  and  Rockefeller  Ex- 
perimental Tract.  By  Henry  S.  Fitch.  Pp.  1-202,  104  figures  in  text.  December  20, 
1963. 

34.  Habits  of  the  red  fox  in  northeastern  Kansas.  By  William  C.  Stanley.  Pp.  1-31,  3 
plates,   3   figures   in  text.      December   21,    1963. 

35.  Natural  History  Museum.  By  Roy  R.  Moore  and  E.  R.  Hall.  [An  unpaged,  illustrated 
"flier,"  14%  in.  x  8V2  in.,  printed  on  both  sides,  and  folded  twice.]     Xlarch  2,   1964. 

36.  Caribou  Eskimos  of  the  Upper  Kazan  River,  Keewatin.  By  Francis  Harper.  Pp.  1-74, 
10  plates.  April  20,  1964.  Paperbound,  $1.50  postpaid  from  the  Arctic  Institute  of 
North  America,  1619  New  Hampshire  Avenue,  NW,  Washington,  D.  C.  20009. 

37.  The  friendlv  Montagnais  and  their  neighbors  in  the  Ungava  Peninsula.  By  Frencis 
Harper.  Pp.  1-120,  20  plates.  April  20,  1964.  Paperbound,  $2.00  postpaid 
from  the  Arctic  Institute  of  North  America,  1619  New  Hampshire  Avenue,  NW, 
Washington,  D.  C.  20009. 

38.  Plant  and  animal  associations  in  the  interior  of  the  Ungava  Peninsula.  By  Francis 
Harper.  Pp.  1-58,  7  figs.,  1  map.  April  20,  1964.  Paperbound,  50  cents  postpaid 
from  the  Arctic  Institute  of  North  America,  1619  New  Hampshire  Avenue,  NW, 
Washington,  D.  C.   20009. 

39.  The  status  of  deer  in  Kansas.  B\'  Donald  D.  Anderson.  Pp.  1-36,  8  maps.  Septem- 
ber 28,    1964. 


3  2044  093  361    582