Losing ground?

Mike Dobel is worried. A biologist with the Nevada Department of Wildlife, Dobel charts mule deer populations in California and Nevada, and he doesn’t like what he sees.

Development running along the backside of the Sierra Nevada, a 300-mile section of U.S. 395 running between Bishop and Susanville, appears to have compromised the deer’s habitat and may threaten the future of the herd. The problem is especially acute in and around Reno, where about 13,000 deer live.

“The three most important factors for deer? Habitat, habitat, habitat,” Dobel says. “It’s almost a 1-to-1 ratio between habitat loss and deer loss. For every 1% of habitat you lose, you lose 1% of deer.”

Winter is the most challenging time for the herd, which heads up slope in summer and down in winter, foraging for sagebrush, bitterbrush and other shrubs for food, shelter and protection from predators. Last January during the severe winter storms, 100 deer were struck and killed after straying onto highways in the region, and others ended up wandering into downtown Reno.

Some biologists estimate that 60% to 80% of deer habitat has been lost along the fast-growing front between Mono and Lassen counties.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the region had at least six to eight times more deer than it currently does, Dobel says.

Further declines can be expected as development zooms north and south of Reno.

The Eastern Sierra herds are the latest to be affected by growth pressures in the West. Mule deer also are being squeezed out by development along Utah’s Wasatch Range and Colorado’s Front Range.

Other factors have contributed to their sharp decline across the West, including wildfires, drought and a change in habitat due to the incursion of nonnative grasses.

The deer, named for their mule-like ears, inhabit a diverse terrain ranging from mountains to plains. They tend to be bigger and more muscular than white-tailed deer.

When Craig Stowers, California Department of Fish and Game deer program coordinator, considers the plight of the deer in the state, his language is sharp, turning on government officials who don’t “give a damn” about deer when making land-use decisions.

“To me, it’s all about money,” Stowers said. “When push comes to shove, the money wins out. Nothing impacts deer numbers like habitat. Provide enough and they’ll be fine.”

But Jim Galloway, a commissioner in Washoe County, counters that officials work closely with developers to cluster development that saves habitat.

“I don’t blame [biologists] for being frustrated, but their statements that we don’t care about wildlife are outdated,” he says.

The 10,000-member Mule Deer Foundation based in Reno is trying to restore land and improve areas where deer forage. Because soaring land costs rule out buying private property or fighting development projects in court that could save critical habitat, the foundation’s efforts include reseeding after wildfires and removing older shrubs to make way for newer growth.

“We look at it pragmatically and try to maximize habitat for deer,” says Mark Smith, a biologist with the foundation. “It’ll help every other plant and animal species if you do it right.”

The fate of Eastern Sierra herds primarily hinges on land-use decisions by local elected officials, says Chris Healy, spokesman for the Nevada wildlife department.

“No one entity is in charge of the land,” Healy says. “That’s why it’s difficult to protect habitat and prevent its fragmentation. Plus, private land issues are held close to the heart in the West.”

But according to Gerald Lent of the Nevada Hunters Assn., government officials can help by building more wildlife corridors such as freeway tunnels for deer and charging developers higher impact fees for new projects. Tunnels are an effective, if costly, measure to help migrating deer safely reach destinations.

“When developers destroy habitat, they have an obligation to do something about it,” Lent says. “They should be required to buy other land for deer” with habitat mitigation fees.

Such measures may be needed in California, but according to Mike Lynch, executive director of the Builders Assn. of Northern Nevada, they are unnecessary in Nevada because 87% of the state’s land is controlled by the federal government and off limits to development.

Lynch, a lifetime hunter, also questions whether 60% to 80% of habitat in the region has vanished and suggests the figure is lower.

“To me, they’re asking people to give up their property rights,” he says. “It doesn’t seem fair or legal. They don’t have an obligation to maintain that land in a native state. There’s hardly any private property in Nevada as it is.”