My observations during the past days (Roe deer observation (Jun 17, 2024) – a calf brought out on a foraging trip) suggest that the roe deer males who have families with fawns, are currently redefining their ranges according to the new needs of the growing fawns.
I believe there was the first territory-defining period in early spring during which time the males claimed ranges not exactly for themselves but for the female and her fawn.
They barked in areas which were highly suitable for fawning and where it appears that fawns were, indeed, born at a later time.
Then the activity if not ceased, then lessened in intensity as the fawns were born and kept hidden from threat.
Currently, the fawns are already big enough to take solid food (while probably still nursing) and to travel.
I think that this is the second territoriality period for the males whereby they are, once more, walking around their ranges and barking in order to coordinate their family’s new needs with the neighbours.
The new requirements are those of a habitat which is suitable for the fawn’s nutritional needs, which is concealed enough (but not necessarily as sheltered as the birthing site), which is located near enough to the fawn’s current location and which can be accessed by the fawn (granted that the fawn is more limited in its mobility and travelling skills than adults are).
In fact, I have realized that the adults might be involving the yearlings in this planning activity as two families were seen foraging together – the father, the mother, the yearling daughter – and later, in these two families, the yearling daughter was replaced by the fawn in the same exact spot.
As yearling females tend to be slightly smaller than adults, it is conceivable that the parents are bringing her to the prospective foraging patches in order to determine whether the area might be safe for the little one.
I suppose that this redefinition activity is not ‘mandatory’ as the family which has optimal forage near the fawning site and where the fawn can move around and explore without leaving the birthing area, does not appear to invest in the resumed male barking, patrolling activity.
The other families, meanwhile, appear to be informing one another of the new status and reconciling their plans with regard to areas that are on the margins of the neighbouring ranges or that perhaps befall within the ‘commonwealth areas’.
It appears to me that there are such areas which the territorial families are not using very actively and where, for example, older sons are tolerated but also families that are not as fortunate in their resources (see below and see the post – Roe deer observation (Jun 17, 2024) – a calf brought out on a foraging trip).
The daughters, however, are kept close to the core area. While the yearling daughters and the fathers frequently forage in less optimal patches than the mothers and fawns, these less optimal areas are still supervised and guarded by the territorial male.
Accordingly, it seems that the family’s territory is defined by, first and foremost, the needs of the mother and her current offspring but it also includes the areas that are used by the yearling daughters.
In the previous post (see above), I described a father who had to make a difficult decision regarding where to bring his family on these foraging trips.
I also believe this is a family where the trips are not really and adventure as much as they are a must because the fawning site is no longer supportive of the growing fawn.
On June 18, the male was inspecting areas across the river from the fawning site which, in my view, belong with the ‘commonwealth’ but there is also a resident family that mainly dwells further by the river but that might be in charge over the general area.
On June 18, as the male simply walked the patches where I have not seen roe deer since winter, nobody showed up to contest him.
In the morning of June 19, however, this male (the father of the less fortunate family) apparently had trodden deeper into the private garden plot area that belongs to another family.
The ranges on the ‘commonwealth’ might be acceptable during winter but, presently, these areas offer nothing much else but goutweed and three or four osier shrubs.
Accordingly, the male might have had to communicate with his closest across-river neighbour to see whether the other family would tolerate his mate and fawn in their core area.
The male was walking further in the garden plots and barking. He was not hiding, and the entire exchange appeared more as a question (Could we come here?) followed by an answer which was delivered by the resident buck who showed up and barked, as well.
The two males did not engage in conflict. They simply barked. The ‘poor father’ then retreated back to the river and crossed into his own home. There was no chasing, the ‘poor father’ was not even running.
I was under impression that the two males held a parley whereby the ‘poor father’ announced his situation and received a response from the territorial male.
It will be interesting to see what the response entitles (whether the ‘poor family’ will be seen on this side of the river, deeper in the garden plots). Certainly, there was no aggression. It is easy to perceive all barking as aggression but it is not necessarily so.
It seems that the ‘poor father’ had tested taking his fawn to the far foraging site up and down hills and out in the open (crop fields) and he was not satisfied with such design.
There was a third male who engaged in this barking.
It is rather curious because this male dwells in a rather secluded area.
It is not secluded in the sense of providing much shelter (on the contrary) but it is separated from the rest of the roe deer family ranges due to the configuration of the river bends as well as due to the presence of a smaller tributary to the larger river.
This male was hardly involved in the resolution of the social problem because the poor family could not have used his range even if he offered it.
The river is very deep there, and the fawn would not be able to pass across.
It seemed that perhaps the third male was familiar with the two other males (as he might have met them during winter), and I, personally, believed he was vouching for his almost neighbour (their ranges sort of verge but the rivers make the separation more distinct than the borders between other ranges).
Perhaps the two fathers who were conferring regarding the foraging plans were not as familiar with one another as the poor family, during winter, probably uses the crop fields and does not come over into the garden plots.
Meanwhile, the third male might be a visitor once the river freezes over or if he finds a shallower ford.
The third male sounded supportive of the poor father’s plight.
It might be in the interest of the territorial male to keep good relations with the neighbours.
The poor family might not be as unfortunate in other years.
I believe, this year is difficult on them because of the decisions the local farmers have made.
Many fields have been sown with rapeseed which is overgrown, tangly, offers no travel routes and barely any forbs/grasses grow there.
There are three smaller fields that, in other years, might have been more appealing to the roe deer but, this year, squashes will be grown there.
The fields are otherwise bare of vegetation, and the farmer mowed the field edges to the very forest line annihilating all wild plants.
Next year could bring better fortunes to this family and the timing might be better (the fawn might start travelling around before or slightly after the great midsummer mowing craze).
Also, the family suffers due to the successional stage of the clearing on which they largely reside but as the shrubs grow taller, they might shade one another out offering some space for ground vegetation.
Currently, it is simply an osier thicket, dense as a jungle.
Similarly, as the osiers grow, it would become easier to pass through them and they might reduce the miry character of the ground as well as the tallness of the nearby ruderal vegetation.
The home would not be a bad home as the regrowing forest matures.
I am very eager to see whether the resident family admitted the unfortunate neighbours to their range.
They can be easily distinguished as the residents are very dark brown but the neighbours are of a more hazelly hue.
I think it is important to note that:
- The territoriality is not resumed just once in spring but it is redefined and the redefinition concurs with the changing requirements of the fawn which attests to my theory that the territoriality is assumed on behalf of the female in order to ensure mainly her needs and the needs of the offspring (fawns and yearling daughters);
- Roe deer parents might be using yearling daughters as ‘surrogates’ to check whether the fawns would be noticeable in certain plots;
- Neighbours are conferring regarding the dynamic needs of their families and there might be social tolerance (indeed, social help) for those who must push further with their claims.
Notes by Ieva 