The Southern Pudu occurs between the sea level and 1,700 m (Miller et al. 1973, Jiménez 2010). Pudus can use both mature and disturbed forests (Eldridge et al. 1987, Jiménez 2010), and are associated to dense understory (Eldridge et al. 1987, Meier and Merino 2007, Silva-Rodríguez and Sieving 2012). In the Valdivian Coastal Range, Pudu uses primary and secondary evergreen forest, eucalyptus plantations (Silva-Rodríguez and Sieving 2012) and alerce (Fitzroya cupressoides) forests (Silva-Rodríguez pers. obs.) whereas in other areas it is associated to dense Chusquea sp. bamboos (Jiménez pers. obs.). In Argentina, Meier and Merino (2007) reported the presence of Pudu in Nothofagus dombeyi forests and was associated to dense understory. Eldridge et al. (1987) reported home-ranges between 10.2 and 26.1 ha. Pudus are considered solitary deer, although home-range overlapping occurs (Eldridge et al. 1987, Jiménez 2010).

The Southern Pudu occurs in southern Chile and southwestern Argentina from 35º10’ to 46º45’S (Jiménez 2010). In Chile, recent records within this range include Trehualemu at the coastal range of the Maule region (Simonetti et al. 2013), Valdivian Coastal Range (Silva-Rodríguez et al. 2010, Silva-Rodríguez and Sieving 2012), Nahuelbuta Mountain Range, Puyehue, Perez-Rosales and Chiloé National Park (Jiménez pers. obs.) and Huinay, Palena (Delibes-Mateos et al. 2014). In southern Chile, Pudus are also commonly recorded in Puma (Puma concolor) scats (Rau and Jiménez 2002). In Argentina, 54 localities have been recorded (Pastore 2004, Meier and Merino 2007) between Lago Quillén, Lanín NP (39º23’ S, 71º17’ W) and Arroyo Pirámide, Los Alerces NP (42º58’S, 72º00’W). The extent of occurrence of this species is much larger than 20,000 km² (see Pavez-Fox and Estay 2016).

Conservation actions in place
This species is listed on CITES Appendix I. Hunting is illegal in all the territory of Argentina (Law 22.421) and Chile (D.S. Nº 5/1998 MINAGRI). The Southern Pudu is listed as vulnerable in Chile (D.S. 151/2007 MINSEGPRES). Also, it is considered as a “Special Value Species” in Argentinean national parks where the species is present (Res. 284/91).

There is a large number of protected areas within Pudu distribution, and Pudu is known to be present in many of them (Jiménez 2010). In Argentina, 98% of localities recorded are located within national parks (Pastore 2004). A high proportion of the protected areas within the distribution of Pudu in Chile are larger than the minimum needed to sustain 500 individuals (Simonetti and Mella 1997). In addition, in Chile there are several private protected areas within Pudu distribution (Maule to Aysen, e.g., Valdivian Coastal Reserve, Tantauco, Pumalin, etc.), that as a whole, protect several hundreds thousands of hectares (see Praus et al. 2011).

Pudu is a conservation target for the Valdivian Coastal Reserve (Delgado 2005, Silva-Rodríguez et al. 2015). In this area, monitoring is in place, and different strategies such as promoting better care of dogs, forest restoration and cattle management are in different stages of implementation (Silva-Rodríguez, pers. obs.).

Finally, there is an important stock of Pudus in captivity. There is an international studbook for the species that, between 1966 and 2013, had registered 1159 individuals, including 122 animals that were alive (May 2013) in 40 different institutions (Stadler and Aurich 2013). In February 2016 there were 136 Pudus registered in the Zoological Information Management System (ZIMS) (International Species Information System  2016). In addition, captive Pudus in Chile were estimated in 295 (Jiménez 2010). The captive stock has allowed to conduct a large number of studies on the biology (especially reproductive biology) of the species (e.g., Reyes et al. 1988, Bubenik et al. 2000,  Stadler and Aurich 2015, see review in Jiménez 2010).

Important conservation actions needed
As stated above there is a large number of protected areas within the distribution of the Pudu. However, there are some key issues that may affect the effectiveness of these areas in Chile. First, there is an important gap between the funds needed to manage adequately the protected areas and the funds available (Ladrón de Guevara et al. 2014). Consequently, adequate funding for protected areas is a fundamental issue to address. Second, private protected areas are important, but currently lack a normative framework (Praus et al. 2011), and consequently, securing the long term conservation of private protected areas is an important challenge.

Efforts to address the dog problem are being implemented in both Argentina’s (Pastore pers. obs.) and Chile’s Protected Areas System (CONAF 2015), through regulations that limits the entrance of dogs into officially protected areas. However, there is still an impact by dogs from the surrounding areas (Silva-Rodríguez and Sieving 2012), therefore limiting the ranging behavior of local dogs is fundamental but at the same time challenging due to the important roles that dogs play for rural households (e.g., Silva-Rodríguez and Sieving 2012, Sepúlveda et al. 2015). These measures, need to be supported by better nation-wide policies on dog-ownership and responsibility.

Rehabilitated, rescued and confiscated Pudus are often released, but this management has been innefective in the coastal range as released individuals are quickly killed by pumas (A. Aleuy pers. comm.). Additionally, the release is a concern (Silva-Rodríguez et al. 2011, 2015), because released animals may represent a risk for the receptor population if protocols are inadequate. Animals should not be translocated between mainland and Chiloé because they present important genetic and morphological differences (Fuentes-Hurtado et al. 2011). Following international standards (e.g., IUCN 2000) for the release (or not) of the rehabilitated animals is fundamental and animals that can not be released could be allocated to environmental education (Silva-Rodríguez et al. 2011).

Research needed
Pudu conservation has been limited by the fact that up to recently most information available was anecdotal (Jiménez 2010). In recent years, this has began to change (e.g., Meier and Merino 2007, Fuentes-Hurtado et al. 2011, Silva-Rodríguez et al. 2010, Silva-Rodríguez and Sieving 2012). However, and despite major advances, still there are no estimates of Pudu population size or density. This major gap requires urgent attention.

There has been recent advances in the understanding of some of the threats that affect Pudu, including exotic plantations (Silva-Rodríguez and Sieving 2012, Simonetti et al. 2013) and domestic dogs (e.g., Silva-Rodríguez et al. 2010; Silva-Rodríguez and Sieving 2011, 2012; Sepúlveda et al. 2014). However, there are still very important gaps in understanding. First, recent evidence suggest that the presence of native understory is a key factor explaining the use of exotic plantation by forest mammals, including Pudu (Simonetti et al. 2013), however it is unclear how the long-term management of plantations (including clearcuts), affect or will affect Pudu. Second, Pumas, the main native Pudu predator, commonly prey on invasive species such as the European hare (Lepus europaeus) (Rau and Jiménez 2002). This alternate prey may keep high puma population that in turn may prey on Pudus (Silva-Rodríguez and Sieving 2011, Jiménez per. obs.). Third, the potential impact of wild boar on Southern Pudu habitat need to be clarified as this invasive species might affect the distribution of Pudu (Meier and Merino 2007). Forth, the potential effect of cattle-related pathogens on Pudu, such as pestivirus (Pizarro-Lucero et al. 2005) and Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (Salgado et al. 2015), is unknown and should be elucidated by further research. Fifth, it is important to determine whether poaching for commercial or subsistence purposes is a threat for some of the populations of this species. Finally, there are multiple threats, so assessing their relative importance (and the contexts in which they become important) is fundamental (Silva-Rodríguez et al. 2011).

Fuentes-Hurtado et al. (2011) suggested that Chiloé and mainland Pudu populations were different Evolutionary Significant Units. The authors proposed nomenclature for potential subspecies, however D’Elia (2012) indicated that minimum criteria to establish the new nomenclature was not met. Whether populations from Chiloé should be named as a different subspecies or not, is still waiting for an answer.