There are two subspecies, the Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) which ranges from the Pacific Northwest of the United States and coastal British Columbia in Canada[1] to Santa Barbara County in Southern California,[2] and a second subspecies known as the Sitka deer (O. h. sitkensis) which is geographically disjunct occupying from mid-coastal British Columbia up through southeast Alaska, and southcentral Alaska (as far as Kodiak Island).

[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] The black-tailed deer lives along the Pacific coast from Santa Barbara County, California north to southeastern Alaska.

East of the Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada in Washington, Oregon and California, black-tailed deer are replaced by phenotypically different mainland mule deer, the latter being much larger, with lighter pelage, more prominent rump patches and larger ears.

Late spring to fall, they consume grasses, blackberries, apples, fireweed, pearly everlasting, forbs, salmonberry, salal, and maple.

This enables the mother to leave the fawn hidden while she goes off to browse and replenish her body after giving birth.

[citation needed] Deer communicate with the aid of scent and pheromones from several glands located on the lower legs.

[citation needed][18] In Southeast Alaska, the Sitka deer is the primary prey of the rare Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni), which is endemic to the region.

[21][22] However, the Forest Service's implementation of the deer provision in the Tongass wolf standard and guideline has been controversial for many years, and led to a lawsuit by Greenpeace and Cascadia Wildlands in 2008, over four logging projects.

Regarding the Traitors Cove Timber Sales project, in 2011 the plaintiffs noted in oral arguments before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the difference is between a claimed 21 deer per square mile carrying capacity in the project EIS, and 9.5 deer per square mile (about half of the Tongass Forest Plan's requirement) according to unpublished corrections the agency made in 2008.

[26] The 9th Circuit panel ruled unanimously on August 2, 2011, in favor of the plaintiffs, remanding the four timber sale decisions to the Forest Service and giving guidance for what is necessary during reanalysis of impacts to deer.

[27] The ruling says in part: We do not think that USFS has adequately explained its decision to approve the four logging projects in the Tongass.

... Because we must remand to the agency to re-examine its Deer Model, we need not decide whether the use of the VolStrata data was arbitrary and capricious.

We anticipate that, in reviewing the proposed projects, USFS will use the best available data ...[27]In a statement to the press, a spokesman for the plaintiffs said the errors in this lawsuit apply to every significant Tongass timber sale decision between 1996 and 2008, before the Forest Service corrected errors in the deer model when the agency issued its revised Tongass Forest Plan in 2008.

But he said despite those corrections, the agency still fails to address cumulative impacts to deer, especially on Prince of Wales Island, as is being challenged in the Logjam timber sale lawsuit, by ignoring substantial logging on nonfederal lands.