The Deer Debate
~ by Jim Eagleman
Having served on various local committees over the years, I know there will always be debates. This is a normal aspect of working in a group. Sometimes with personality clashes we often wonder why we continue to serve. Other perspectives and different opinions often shed light on the topic and help in“ social discourse.” They require patience and a willingness to see issues thru different eyes. I can say I’ ve learned more on committees by being quiet than offering my own comments. Maybe this is why I am asked to return.
As early as the mid-70s, when the debate arose over what to do with too many park deer, discussions were often hot and contested. I worked at the Nature Center as a seasonal employee and recall deer being thin and small. Campers feeding tame deer became a daily ritual. Research projects to document overpopulation eventually proved overbrowsing caused the disappearance
54 Our Brown County • July / August 2015
of plants, shrubs, and wildflowers. With time, the demise of the forest’ s herbal layer resulted in a decrease in the number and variety of nesting birds, small mammals, and insects. The ecologic upset was at the root of why deer had to be reduced. In our community, it did not meet with unanimous approval.
In the early 90s, a deer task force by the Indiana Natural Resources Commission was established to look at the problem at Brown County State Park’ s 16K acres. It was chaired by biologist and professor, Dr. Damian V. Schmeltz. A report, complete with open comment opportunities and from nearly two years of study, was to be presented for commissioner review. As the park’ s full-time naturalist, I was asked to appear on the committee.
Holding strong to one’ s convictions isn’ t an easy task— you come under fire and tensions flare. When true feelings are expressed, what was a friendly connection among friends can deteriorate. Both sides become polarized due to previous experiences, education, or training. Opinions and emotions are expressed openly. Debates ensue. Sides are drawn.
My job as interpreter was to reveal deer impact on park resources. Tours to park enclosures built to keep deer out confirmed severe impacts on vegetation. Nearby plots into which deer could freely venture were depleted of nearly all vegetation. These sideby-side graphic examples seemed so well expressed. How could some people not see the problem? As the task force examined data and considered alternatives, it was clear some kind of reduction would eventually occur. The mission was to restore ecologic balance that a“ keystone” specie( other species are impacted / affected by it by its mere presence, diet, over-population, etc.) had drastically altered.
I had been trained from my studies that certain indicators reveal disturbances in otherwise natural systems. That deer were causing them was no new story,