Some deer mouse subspecies have undergone range extensions at the
expense of other subspecies due to habitat alteration . Lehmkuhl
and Ruggiero  listed the forest deer mouse at risk of local extinction
with increasing amounts of forest fragmentation.
Impact on Vegetation: Peromyscus species rarely alter vegetative cover
since they do not eat leaves, twigs, or stems to any great extent. Seed
predation may reduce establishment rate of preferred plant species .
Economic Impact: Hooven  summarized a number of publications on
seed predation by deer mice. He concluded that deer mice are capable of
causing substantial loss of tree seed crops. Deer mice are probably the
major seed predator of Douglas-fir [79,84]. Some seedlings establish
from rodent seed caches, but they are usually in small groups and often
subject to disease and/or intense competition . Numerous studies on
rodent control methods and their effectiveness have been published .
Rodenticides often temporarily reduce deer mouse populations, but rarely
effect complete population kill. For example, Hoffer and others 
reported that rodenticide reduced Peromyscus species to "target levels"
in redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) stands, but the treatment left
survivors. Deer mouse migration into depopulated areas is rapid; even a
small number of mice can quickly repopulate a treated area, rendering
control efforts futile. In British Columbia removal of deer mice only
slightly increased the amount of surviving tree seed in both forested
areas and clearcuts .
Economic Benefit: Deer mice are important in the diets of many
economically important furbearers, as well as that of other wildlife
. Deer mice consume insects that cause damage to crop trees. In
northern Ontario, deer mice and shrews (Sorcidae) consumed 13 percent of
the white pine weevils in a jack pine (Pinus banksiana) plantation .
- 3. Baker, Rollin H. 1968. Habitats and distribution. In: King, John Arthur, ed. Biology of Peromyscus (Rodentia). Special Publication No. 2. Stillwater, OK: The American Society of Mammalogists: 98-126. 
- 79. Maser, Chris; Mate, Bruce R.; Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1981. Natural history of Oregon Coast mammals. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-133. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 496 p. 
- 56. Hoffer, Marvin C.; Passof, Peter C.; Krohn, Robert. 1969. Field evaluation of DRC-714 for deer-mouse control in a redwood habitat. Journal of Forestry. 67: 158-159. 
- 73. Lehmkuhl, John F.; Ruggiero, Leonard F. 1991. Forest fragmentation in the Pacific Northwest and its potential effects on wildlife. In: Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Carey, Andrew B.; Huff, Mark H., technical coordinators. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 35-46. 
- 84. Moore, A. W. 1940. Wild animal damage to seed and seedlings on cut-over Douglas-fir lands of Oregon and Washington. Technical Bulletin No. 706. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 28 p. 
- 116. Sullivan, Thomas P. 1979. Repopulation of clear-cut habitat and conifer seed predation by deer mice. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(4): 861-871. 
- 8. Bellcoq, M. I.; Smith, S. M. 1992. Management of small mammals for the biological control of white pine weevil. In: Proceedings, 54th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. 54: 352-354. [Abstract]. 
- 58. Hooven, Edward F. 1973. Effects of vegetational changes on small forest mammals. In: Hermann, Richard K.; Lavender, Denis P., eds. Even-age management: Proceedings of a symposium; 1972 August 1; [Location of conference unknown]. Paper 848. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, School of Forestry: 75-97. 
No one has provided updates yet.