Water Deer Field Signs
Most water deer field signs are easily confused with those of Reeves's muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi). What we know about them comes largely from the meticulous studies by Arnold Cooke and Lynne Farrell at Woodwalton Fen and Monks Wood, both in Cambridgeshire. My own observations in Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Norfolk support or extend theirs.
Perhaps the most obvious sign of water deer activity in an area is tufts of hair lying on the ground in autumn and winter. The hair is hollow, 40-55 mm (1.6-2.2 in.) long, and white, cream or buff with a darker tip. As bucks establish and defend territories -- a process that often begins in mid-autumn ahead of the winter rut (see: Territory Establishment) -- they use their long canine teeth (tusks) to fight one another for access to females, and these battles often involve fur loss by one or both combatants. The amount varies, from a few clumps to enough to make you wonder whether the animals involved had any left. Cooke and Farrell found that tufts start appearing in October, with the majority found in December. That's consistent with my own observations in Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, where tufts are most apparent in December and January.
Cooke and Farrell's work also provides most of what we know about water deer slot marks. The cleaves of the hoofs are approximately equal in length, with straight inner edges. The slots are intermediate in size between those of muntjac and roe (Capreolus capreolus): typically 4-5 cm (1.6-2 in.) long by 3-4 cm (1.2-1.6 in.) wide, and larger in soft mud or snow.
Gait and choice of route may help to separate water deer paths from those of muntjac. At Woodwalton, Cooke and Farrell observed that muntjac tended to cross rides on their way between patches of cover, whereas water deer preferred to walk along the length of rides. The pattern of the slots differs too: in muntjac, the slots from the right feet fall exactly midway between successive left-foot slots, but in water deer they fall slightly behind that midpoint. According to Rowland Brown, Michael Lawrence and Joyce Pope in their 2004 book Animals: Tracks, Trails and Signs, the registration of the tracks (i.e., the degree to which the rear foot steps into the slot left by the corresponding forefoot) while walking is "near perfect" in water deer, and the same-foot stride length is 30-40 cm (12-16 in.). Water deer use regular paths that become worn over time: these end up about 20-25 cm (8-10 in.) wide and, where a path forms a tunnel through reeds or other tall, rank vegetation, about 50 cm (20 in.) high.
Droppings are very similar to those of muntjac. When I asked Arnold Cooke how to tell them apart, he told me, "I'm never totally confident in distinguishing their dung". Nonetheless, water deer pellets are typically slightly longer than those of muntjac, about 10-15 mm long by 5-10 mm wide (0.4-0.6 x 0.2-0.4 in.), and more cylindrical in shape. One end is pointed and the other slightly rounded, and they're dark brown or black.
Defaecation behaviour is somewhat variable. In his 2019 book Muntjac and Water Deer, Cooke noted that muntjac tend to leave their droppings in latrines, particularly around the base of trees, when living at high densities. In my experience, water deer usually deposit theirs in discrete heaps. These heaps may be spread across the home range or repeatedly deposited in the same place.
During the rut, bucks create small scrapes in the ground, into which they deposit about half a dozen pellets (and, in my close-range observations, often urine too) as they patrol their territories. This is part of the scent marking they use to signal ownership. Presumably, leaving only a few pellets in each scrape lets a buck mark more sites and refresh them from time to time by over-marking. My camera trapping in Buckinghamshire is consistent with repeated visits: in December 2025, one buck moved back and forth across a scrape, re-marking it at least 12 times in seven days. Each time it hunched to urinate or defaecate, usually after scraping the ground with a front foot, although the footage isn't close enough to show which.
Repeated use of the same spots has also been reported in captive animals. Paul Childerley noted that his hand-reared buck fawn tended to leave droppings in one of two places in his garden rather than scattering them, and Chris Whyke told me that his hand-reared doe still defaecates in the same places that she used as a fawn. As these are captive animals, we cannot say whether wild individuals behave in the same way.
We know little about the defaecation behaviour of wild does. My observations have generally been that females defaecate seemingly randomly as they move around, even during the winter, when they may cluster around bucks, which may try to keep them within their territories. My camera trapping in Buckinghamshire suggests that something latrine-like may occur, though: of 18 urination/defaecation events by one adult female in the winter of 2020/2021, 13 (72%) were at one or other of two spots about a metre apart in a rush bed. That's a single animal, so it can't tell us how typical the behaviour is, but it hints that any difference from muntjac, in either sex, may be one of degree rather than kind.
Water deer spend a significant amount of their time lying up, resting and ruminating (see Activity). This produces an oval area of flattened vegetation called a bed or couch, those of water deer being larger than those of muntjac. In a sample of couches Arnold Cooke assessed in Cambridgeshire fenland vegetation, the average size was 60 x 40 cm (24 x 16 in.), which corresponds with those I have found in Buckinghamshire. By contrast, the muntjac couches Cooke measured were about 40 x 30 cm (16 x 12 in.). Cooke also noted that the couches often contained droppings, which matches my own observations (usually with a small pile of pellets at one end). I know of no data on whether couches are re-used, either by the same deer or different individuals.
Deer, like other ruminants, have no upper incisors; they bite their lower incisors against a tough dental pad in the upper jaw. This leaves ragged stalks, or leaves with sections missing, which allows their feeding to be separated from that of tidier feeders such as the lagomorphs (rabbits and hares), whose incisors meet tooth on tooth and cut cleanly. Where water deer take bramble, Cooke noted that they tend to take the tips of the leaves, leaving half a leaf with its midrib and veins exposed. Nonetheless, it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish vegetation damage inflicted by water deer from that caused by Reeves's muntjac, particularly as the two feed in the same way, often share the same habitat, and are of similar size.
Finally, unlike red, fallow and sika deer (Cervus elaphus, Dama dama and Cervus nippon), water deer do not wallow during the rut, so there are no large muddy, strong-smelling patches within the territory to indicate their presence. Males also lack antlers, meaning there's generally no fraying or thrashing of saplings to look for. I'm aware of a handful of anecdotal reports of tusk damage to saplings during the rut, however. My experience has been that the tusks do little more than rub/scratch the bark and I have never observed bark removal, though I'd be interested to hear from anyone with experience of this.
References
Brown, R.W. et al. (2004). Animals: Tracks, Trails & Signs. Octopus Publishing Group Ltd., London.
Cooke, A. (2019). Muntjac and Water Deer: Natural history, environmental impact and management. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter.
Cooke, A. & Farrell, L. (1983). Chinese Water Deer. The British Deer Society. No. 2 (Double Volume).
Lawrence, M.J. & Brown, R.W. (1974). Mammals of Britain: Their tracks, trails and signs. Blandford Books, London.
Smith-Jones, C. (2023). Field Guide to British Deer. Coch-y-Bonddu Books, Powys.