Our deer biologist s moving on...to Michigan

[Willie]

This was not a surprise to me. Chad is a good one and Indiana can't seem to keep the good ones.

His email...


Please excuse the general nature of this email, as it is being distributed across a wide range of individuals.

If you are receiving this email, you have had some sort of prolonged relationship with me and/or the deer program in Indiana over my nearly 8 years in the position. I wanted to take this time and let you know that I will be leaving the IDNR to pursue a similar position with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. My final day is today. The decision to leave Indiana was not an easy one as I’ve become very fond of the state and the individuals working in it. However, this new position as the deer, elk, and moose management specialist in Michigan affords me both professional and personal opportunities that unfortunately are not available in Indiana.

I will truly miss working in the deer program in Indiana and the highs and lows that come with it. If you have questions pertaining to Indiana deer management moving forward, please contact Falyn Owens, assistant deer biologist, or Gary Langell, Wildlife Science Supervisor, and they will be able to assist you. If I can assist you in any way in my new duties in Michigan, please let me (at this email by today) or Gary Langell (after today) know and I or he will forward my contact information to you once I have it.

Thank you for the relationship and respect you’ve shown me over these past 8 memorable years.

Chad


Chad Stewart
Certified Wildlife Biologist

 

[JimH]

Wonder if Michigan's deer population will be destroyed like Indiana's has.

 

[One Shot One Kill]

Wonder if Michigan's deer population will be destroyed like Indiana's has.

That's more an opinion then fact. Have you worked in conservation? I have, and there is untold amounts of scientific and physical evidence that the deer population is so large that it is negatively affecting the environment. Just because you don't see them, that doesn't mean jack for the entire area of the state. Coyote populations are the highest they've ever been, that could not happen if deer populations were down. Also, I've NEVER seen a coyote in my entire life, and I used to be surrounded by woods and cornfields for a good portion of my life.. so they must be down in numbers right? No... not even close.
Deer distribution is getting all wonky, because more urban areas aren't managed well by hunters. There aren't LESS deer, there are just more in areas with no/little hunting pressure than there are in areas where people hunt (i.e. wherever YOU hunt).

 

[88GT]

That's more an opinion then fact. Have you worked in conservation? I have, and there is untold amounts of scientific and physical evidence that the deer population is so large that it is negatively affecting the environment. Just because you don't see them, that doesn't mean jack for the entire area of the state. Coyote populations are the highest they've ever been, that could not happen if deer populations were down. Also, I've NEVER seen a coyote in my entire life, and I used to be surrounded by woods and cornfields for a good portion of my life.. so they must be down in numbers right? No... not even close.
Deer distribution is getting all wonky, because more urban areas aren't managed well by hunters. There aren't LESS deer, there are just more in areas with no/little hunting pressure than there are in areas where people hunt (i.e. wherever YOU hunt).

Actually, the population curves of predator and prey are commonly off-set from each other. So it's very possible that the deer populations are down relative to recent history, but that in no way indicates the numbers are "destroyed."

 

[phylodog]

That's more an opinion then fact.

It's the opinion of a whole lot more people that those who believe the herd is where it should be. I don't know the gentleman in question and I don't know enough about him to make a determination but from what I've read here and on a few other forums, precious few are seeing the numbers they saw several years ago. Even fewer agree that one hunter should be allowed to kill 8 deer in one season.

I'd like to find some of the property where there is little to no hunting pressure. It's a lot more common to hear "someone else is already hunting here" than "I don't allow hunting" when you go knocking on doors looking for a place to hunt. Doesn't seem to be much suitable habitat in this state which isn't already being hunted and just about everyone this year is complaining about not seeing deer. They aren't crawling into holes in the ground.

 

[88GT]

It's the opinion of a whole lot more people that those who believe the herd is where it should be. I don't know the gentleman in question and I don't know enough about him to make a determination but from what I've read here and on a few other forums, precious few are seeing the numbers they saw several years ago. Even fewer agree that one hunter should be allowed to kill 8 deer in one season.

I'd like to find some of the property where there is little to no hunting pressure. It's a lot more common to hear "someone else is already hunting here" than "I don't allow hunting" when you go knocking on doors looking for a place to hunt. Doesn't seem to be much suitable habitat in this state which isn't already being hunted and just about everyone this year is complaining about not seeing deer. They aren't crawling into holes in the ground.

State and City Parks.

 

[One Shot One Kill]

Actually, the population curves of predator and prey are commonly off-set from each other. So it's very possible that the deer populations are down relative to recent history, but that in no way indicates the numbers are "destroyed."

Strictly speaking, yes, but in this case the predator population has been steadily rising for quite some time without a significant decrease in prey being seen. Looking at the scale of things, I find it easier to believe that deer populations are just fine. One would expect a crash from the coyotes soon if deer numbers are down, particularly if the deer population has dropped significantly over time (talking 20+ years) as some seem to believe it has. You are correct though that predators often are at highs when prey is at lows, but this negative feedback system always brings predators back down. It seems coyotes haven't had their "down" yet, if their populations numbers are to be believed.

 

[Willie]

Over the years we have become very spoiled deer hunters...... I've deer hunted since 1968 and have seen ups and downs..mostly an upward trend. My first season I saw 6 deer all season. Now this year I've hunted about 25 times and seen deer every sit except two. I've seen as many as a dozen in one sit and as few as one. I still enjoy it seeing 1 to 12 ..or none at all.

The EHD in 2007 turned my deer hunting clock back to the 70s as I went 17 times straight to the stand without seeing a deer and some of that was on a well established food plot. . In 3 years it fully recovered. I don't care what kind of a deer manager you are EHD cant upset your's or the states plans big time.

The first coyote I ever saw in Indiana was in the early 80s. Now I see and hear them ALL the time. I did not see any does with twin fawns this year and my best guess is the coyotes are making a major impact on fawn recruitment.

I can guarantee you no one in this site or my own could do half the job that Chad has done. We do good to manage our own little parcels. much less state wide..

Chad "moving on" is Michigan's gain and our loss.

.

 

[foamkiller]

Hooray for Michigan

 

[88GT]

Strictly speaking, yes, but in this case the predator population has been steadily rising for quite some time without a significant decrease in prey being seen.

Strictly speaking is all that is necessary. You made an illogical statement. You associated high predator populations as evidence that deer populations must be healthy/high/insert characteristic of choice. I simply pointed out that no such conclusion could be accurately drawn from simply predator population numbers since there is a point in the predator-prey population cycle that will show higher predator numbers than prey numbers. All high predator numbers tell us is that in recent history, prey numbers were relatively booming.

I'll add that discussing population numbers necessarily must include multiple complete cycles before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn regarding population numbers and their relative health. To that end, knowledge of the length of a cycle is pretty much a mandatory bit of info in these discussions.

One would expect a crash from the coyotes soon if deer numbers are down, particularly if the deer population has dropped significantly over time (talking 20+ years) as some seem to believe it has.

It's not really a crash when it's part of the cyclical nature.

You are correct though that predators often are at highs when prey is at lows, but this negative feedback system always brings predators back down. It seems coyotes haven't had their "down" yet, if their populations numbers are to be believed.

Of course I'm correct. I have 2 degrees in biological sciences focused on applied ecology.

 

[phylodog]

State and City Parks.

Those don't so me much good lol.

 

[88GT]

Those don't so me much good lol.

I know. But those are the points of comparison between hunting pressure and no/low hunting pressure.

 

[One Shot One Kill]

Of course I'm correct. I have 2 degrees in biological sciences focused on applied ecology.

I'm one semester away from an biology ecology/conservation-oriented bachelor's degree. But that's irrelevant, my main point was that evidence supports that deer populations are rising. I figured someone with your background would have more to add to the situation, besides the systematic breakdown and ridicule of my post.
I don't have a problem being told I'm wrong, but doing so in a "neener-neener I'm obviously infallible because I'm/I have "such and such"" fashion contributes nothing to the conversation. I had an opportunity to learn from someone who may have more experience than me, but instead I was just shot down. Back down my toilet I go.

 

[phylodog]

What evidence are they using to determine that deer numbers are on the rise in Indiana? Serious question as I have no idea. I would think that input from the thousands of hunters in this state who spend tens, if no hundreds of thousands of hours in the woods in the fall would carry some weight. As I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of those I spoke with during three weeks of hunting as well as reports from hunters across the state on several forums have overwhelmingly been dismal this year and last year wasn't much better.

 

[JimH]

That's more an opinion then fact. Have you worked in conservation? I have, and there is untold amounts of scientific and physical evidence that the deer population is so large that it is negatively affecting the environment. Just because you don't see them, that doesn't mean jack for the entire area of the state. Coyote populations are the highest they've ever been, that could not happen if deer populations were down. Also, I've NEVER seen a coyote in my entire life, and I used to be surrounded by woods and cornfields for a good portion of my life.. so they must be down in numbers right? No... not even close.
Deer distribution is getting all wonky, because more urban areas aren't managed well by hunters. There aren't LESS deer, there are just more in areas with no/little hunting pressure than there are in areas where people hunt (i.e. wherever YOU hunt).

You worked in conservation,are convinced that there aren't less deer,but say the coyote population are the highest they have ever been,yet you have never seen one in your life?You either believe everything you are told-plenty of deer,coyotes at an all time high,or you need to look out the office window every now and then at the great outdoors.

 

[One Shot One Kill]

https://bloomington.in.gov/media/media/application/pdf/8021.pdf
This isn't a scientific article, but they do cite several scientific journal articles. This presentation seems to be a good read for those who aren't aware of the data collected on this issue.
http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2013deerseasonsummary.pdf
From what I gather, they use deer-harvest numbers and browsing impact data to estimate the deer population.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Strictly speaking is all that is necessary. You made an illogical statement. You associated high predator populations as evidence that deer populations must be healthy/high/insert characteristic of choice. I simply pointed out that no such conclusion could be accurately drawn from simply predator population numbers since there is a point in the predator-prey population cycle that will show higher predator numbers than prey numbers. All high predator numbers tell us is that in recent history, prey numbers were relatively booming.

And, the relationship of coyote populations and deer populations are further complicated by the fact that coyotes are not the most significant control mechanism of deer, and deer are not the primary prey of coyotes. The populations of coyote and deer will most likely have their ups and downs with sometimes very little effect one from the other.

 

[One Shot One Kill]

You worked in conservation,are convinced that there aren't less deer,but say the coyote population are the highest they have ever been,yet you have never seen one in your life?You either believe everything you are told-plenty of deer,coyotes at an all time high,or you need to look out the office window every now and then at the great outdoors.

Well considering they're nocturnal, the fact my trail-cam has seen PLENTY (I don't count this as ME seeing one), and that data/public opinion provide valid information that their populations are rising is reason for me to believe. It was a temporary summer job, and it was 100% outdoors... I've not yet had the displeasure of working on outdoor subjects inside an office.

@bigbox - I used coyotes as an example because they are currently the only native predator of deer, since we killed all the other ones long ago. Now that you mention it though, I suppose that coyotes may have less impact on deer populations then one may expect. Though that doesn't stop locals from shooting coyotes on sight to "protect the local huntable deer".

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Though that doesn't stop locals from shooting coyotes on sight to "protect the local huntable deer".

You got that right.

 

[SSGSAD]

I really don't know, but if the deer population, is so low, then why are they closing State Parks, for "special" hunts, with "sharpshooters" ?????