As I have discussed in some of my recent posts (Roe deer observation (Jun 19, 2024) – males redefining ranges), it appears that, as the fawns are becoming more mobile and their foraging requirements are changing, the residential males are redefining their ranges.
I have touched upon the subject of a particular family exploring the adjacent areas some of which are definitely ruled over by the neighbouring male as this family largely has nowhere else to go.
In this particular case, it seemed that the ‘poor father’ (as I called him) walked deeper into the neighbour’s range by himself first eliciting some response which was not violent.
Perhaps this non-aggressive response while still presented in the form of ‘territorial barks’ was, in fact, a communication to indicate tolerance on some parts of the ‘prosperous neighbour’s’ range.
On June 22, at about 5 am, I observed a somewhat similar situation although it was not clear to me, in the beginning, what exactly I was witnessing (we were witnessing – my dog was with me, of course).
While by the river watching beavers (hoping they might not yet have ceased activity which they had), I heard some barks by a roe deer male and I assumed it was the resident, the father of the fawn concealed in the nearby riparian grove.
The barks were rather few and I decided there might have been some disturbance to which the male had reacted.
Soon thereafter, we proceeded along the river and out in an area where a trail runs along a larger hayfield (currently, in bloom).
We spotted two roe deer in the distance. They were quite far, there was a slight mist over the grassland, and the sun was shining in my face but I managed to discern that they were females, one of them smaller than the other (probably, a yearling daughter).
As the resident family (the family using this hayfield and the adjacent areas whence we came) also has a female and a yearling daughter (I believe, a typical combination in many roe deer families), I simply rejoiced at seeing them out in the open as they had been spending most of the time on the smaller hayfield which is more sheltered and closer to the fawn.
The females were, in fact, leaping and almost dancing, obviously taking delight at their interaction and at the movement of their own body.
Unfortunately, this particular trail is very difficult to be stealthy on as it is entirely open, the background is not of a dark hue, and it is also uphill relative to the hayfield.
The females soon spotted us even if I tried standing still and crouching behind the grasses (my dog was probably not as visible as I was as she is shorter and of the colour of gold).
The yearling female immediately took off for the river.
The adult female was watching us from her position in mid-field and toward the river.
The two had apparently been keeping close to the river although there is not much in the way of woody plants to offer true cover (but it is possible to cross the river itself).
I thought we should leave as the yearling female might return and the two might still keep enjoying themselves.
We turned to head along the trail when I almost stumbled upon a roe deer male.
The male was standing mere metres from us on the hayfield although he had apparently come out of the orchard area and he had been walking toward the females.
It should be explained that the orchard lies on the other side of the trail, away from the hayfield and the river (further inland, further into the resident family’s territory) as it will be of relevance in a moment.
When we encounter the locals at such close quarters, I sometimes say something polite (while not trying to speak in a cooing manner), the way one would to a fellow citizen.
I said how nice it was that his family was playing on the field.
Then I though the male looked a bit different than usual but I was not certain of it as the conditions were very difficult on the eyesight. I thought he looked darker and smaller.
The male entered the hayfield and, at this point, I was even more confused as he was definitely smaller than he had been mere days ago (judging by the height of the vegetation relative to his own height).
But many such details depend on the perspective, and I simply watched as the male began walking toward the female who then leaped to meet him.
Together, they retreated toward the apple trees on the left side of the hayfield (the line of trees separates two adjacent hayfields). There they stood watching us, only their ears visible above the grass. But, in a few seconds, I only saw the female and I could not tell where the male went.
I wondered briefly over the change in strategy as the resident male, typically, while with his females, attempted to entice us to follow him instead (barking, trotting off in the direction away from the females etc.).
In several seconds (perhaps half a minute), as we were already moving along the trail, once more, indeed, I heard barking in the orchard.
I was surprised how far the male had gotten in this short period but I was a bit sleepy and I though perhaps I had underestimates the amount of time that had elapsed. Also, the deer can be very fast if they want to.
The barking male retreated deeper into the orchards, and we abided by his behest to retreat from the females although we did not pursue him, either.
However, as we climbed uphill to return to the main road, there was barking heard also from the hayfield that we just left.
I was utterly confused as, clearly, the male could not have managed to return to the females as he was too deep into his territory while these barks resounded from the very riverside across the large hayfield.
But those were barks by a male rather than a female.
Additionally, the barks were different as I reckoned now. Those were two different males barking – one in the orchards, the other by the river.
The orchard male (the resident, close to his family’s core area) had a deeper, more resonant bark while the other male’s bark was sharper, higher pitched.
It was then I also believed the first barks we had heard yet in our beaver observation spot had been those issued by the riverside male (higher pitched).
At that time, the riverside male had not been responded to by another male (the resident buck).
I became very curious as I suspected that this had been the neighbouring buck who had crossed from over the river where his family resides in the riparian forest.
I was also interested to learn whether the females had been his own family or the resident females, the mate and daughter to the resident buck from this side of the river.
Thus, we stole back to the hayfield as I hoped to observe the female(s) in order to determine whether they might have followed the neighbouring buck or whether they have stayed on this side which would suggest the buck had come alone and he had been friendly with the local females (as he approached them, and one of them, the adult female, followed him to safety).
The buck was already across the river, and the females were gone which might imply they belonged to his family and the trio had arrived together (and now left together).
I remembered having seen this buck before as, one morning, we had been sitting quietly in our beaver observation spot and the male came out of the riparian forest to browse on some shrubs right across the river from us without noticing us.
Verily, this male had been darker in colour than the resident male with but with a similarly pronounced facial features (they both have very beautiful faces).
I am fairly certain that the resident male (the one who was in the orchards at the time) comes from the over-river deer population and these two might be related.
Perhaps they are even brothers although I would venture to guess that the resident on this side of the river could be older – he is larger, his antlers are larger, and his voice is deeper (although the pitch of the voice could have been affected by the communicative context rather than by size, age etc. as the over-river male was not in his territory when he was barking at first and his barks were probably not a message of a territorial nature but rather a message of someone who is visiting on their neighbour’s range).
Accordingly, I concluded that the neighbour had brought his mate and his yearling daugther across the river to the hayfield perhaps to explore the future opportunity of bringing their fawn there.
I have formerly observed a family bringing their yearling daughter to a site where, a few days later, they would be seen with a fawn as if the yearling daughter served as a fawn substitute (smaller-sized individual whom the parents feel protective of and thereby regard their environment differently than when alone) to make assessments over the safety and suitability of the site for the fawn.
Thus, the daughters might be brought to where fawns would later be guided, as well.
Perhaps the two females pranced with the exact purpose of determining whether this might be a good place for the fawn to come by playful exercise.
This family’s range across the river constitutes from a mature riparian forest which might provide browse abundant enough although the forest is not too large.
However, the forest is very dense (possibly due to eutrophication), and it would be most difficult to find a spot there for the fawn to leap and to bounce.
The areas surrounding their core habitat are comprised largely of crop fields some of which (oilseed rape) are far too thick and tall to be utilized at all (for forage or for play, exploration) and others might be used for foraging purposes but they are probably too open for the family to unwind and to play.
In fact, it seemed to me that the females themselves were enjoying this opportunity to dance on the hayfield which is open but secluded, the vegetation is tall there (shelter provided) but one can also keep vigilance.
Perhaps because this family’s intent was not to browse extensively but to find an area for the fawn to be a fawn (to play and to explore), the appeal to the neighbours over their range was not considered a rude intrusion as they were not attempting to graze the field bare.
The interesting consideration is that the over-river male, after having led his family onto the hayfield and left them there to wait, apparently walked deeper into his neighbour’s territory while barking.
It is hardly a wise strategy to announce one’s presence in such manner if the roe deer were, indeed, living in societies characterized by fierce male competition and aggressive defense of territories.
Especially, as the family would have been safe enough because it was very easy to overview the orchard area from the hayfield and they would have soon spotted anyone approaching (as they did us in perhaps 20 – 30 seconds after we emerged from the riparian forest trail).
I can only assume that the male was, in truth, ‘knocking on the door’ to politely ask for permission and to inform that they had arrived briefly to elicit a response from the territorial male.
This could have been one of the reasons why his bark was higher pitched as it was perhaps not territorial (after all, he was not in his territory and while the two families might have met, I am not certain that they are very closely associated during winter because the river is quite deep there and not always frozen over).
The visiting male’s bark could have been submissive and soliciting.
It is possible that, at first, the residential male was not nearby as he did not respond until after several minutes (when we heard him barking in the orchard and when I mistook him for this over-river male coaxing us away from the females).
Not having received a response, the over-river male returned to his family who has, meanwhile, not even foraging but taking delight in this type of habitat which they do not have on their range.
I cannot tell how they would have acted. Perhaps they would have returned to the river as permission had not been granted. Perhaps they would have waited as the territorial male barked soon thereafter.
As they retreated back to their own home after having encountered us, I suppose they did not want to risk us chasing them if they happened to thusly be forced to run deeper into the neighbours’ home.
The territorial male who is larger than the visitor (possibly, also older, more experienced) must have heard the neighbour from wherever the territorial male had been located and he must have travelled back to his core range.
There the male barked, and his barks were definitely territorial – very prominent, confident, loud, resonant but, if I may, not aggressive.
And here is another interesting aspect – the territorial male was larger, with bigger antlers, he was on his home range and he is known as a highly protective individual who is not easily spooked (he has turned his butt on us to keep feeding when alone).
Yet this male did not run out on the hayfield to chase the neighbour off despite even the fact that the male could not have been sure where his own females were.
I suppose that the neighbour’s visit had not been regarded as a threat and as an intrusion but it was tolerated.
The residential male stayed close to his core range and barked thence as if to demonstrate where the neighbour should not go (to set certain limits to the visitation privilege) as that is where his fawn is growing up and those are the key areas for his family.
This is also a very frank communication as, upon conditions the neighbours were hostile toward one another, it would be best to chase them out of the male’s range without ever giving away where the most vulnerable parts of that range lay.
It seems to me that the resident male was tolerant of his neighbour and that they simply communicated their intents, needs and boundaries.
The resident male did not even walk out to face the ‘intruders’ despite the fact that he was certainly not cowardly and had all the advantages.
It might be beneficial for this male to have the neighbours visiting if they left scent cues of their presence.
I have developed a theory that the autumn mating is not ‘physiologically natural’ for the roe deer females and that it is prompted by social cues (Roe deer observation (Jun 20 and 21, 2024) – a male pampering his female?).
Accordingly, exposure to neighbouring females (and even fawns) might be of assistance to the female who would become primed for producing adequate estrogen levels and approaching the oestral state in autumn rather than in winter.
It does not even appear to me that the residential male viewed the neighbour as a threat to his mating chances.
Perhaps the resident knew where his females were located at the time and maybe it is not as essential to keep other males away in June as the true mating season begins in August.
On the other hand, courtship has possibly begun already.
My assumption is that neighbours who have their own families and home ranges are not viewed as mating competitors due to the strong bond that long-term mates form with one another.
I cannot wait to see whether there will be other social interactions between families or even between families and single individuals and whether these interactions might take a form of a gathering rather than vocalizing from separate spots.
I would like to note that the hayfield does not appear to be a ‘commonwealth area’ (an area used by several families during summer or during winter) and it is probably quite strictly the residential family’s territory.
Notes by Ieva 