Deer Limits and Insurance Companies

Jeff Phillips said:

If WRD could somehow communicate this to the average hunter we would be a lot better off!

Click to expand...

I agree Jeff, what we need is a much better staffed private lands program to work with more clubs and landowners. That way, harvest goals could be tailored to each property. It just takes money. It took quite a while to convince most hunters that they needed to kill more does when more does needed killing. It may just take time for more folks to understand.

Nicodemus said:

Charlie, I didn`t mean to put you in the hot seat.

Click to expand...

Nah, just knocking the rust off my debating skills. I'm just trying to inject pertinent information where it's lacking.

Nicodemus said:

And for the record, I was wrong, and stand corrected.

Click to expand...

Brother, you ain't entirely wrong. Don't believe all the hype you get from a few sources. Deer claims are just part of doing business for insurance companies. Insurance companies are much more interested in fraudulent claims than deer claims.

so why exactly should the number of deer/car collisions and people being hurt and or killed in deer related incidents NOT be a factor in the deer poplulation being reduced?





T

And as far as that article is concerned, does the author give specific references to how he got the info?

T

Wait a minute? Some of the same folks that tell us we need to kill every coyote we see because they are eating all the deer are on this thread concerned about hitting a deer in their car? Or concerned about a population explosion if the insurance industry's strong lobby hadn't influenced the season limits?

Todd E is a person who feels "shoot all yotes".
After 13 over 6 months and now working on them
again(done shot one with bow)......yes, shoot em all.

Me, concerned about hitting a deer.......nope. Hammer down.

Concerned about a population explosion......nope. But, I would like to see one.

Rather see more deer than yotes any day.

Just wanted to address your statement there, ol'cowman.

Back to the topic............
GFB desires a larger deer harvest in GA.

creation's_cause said:

Good points killmaster!

Good question Nic and thanks for putting it out there. Just my humble opinion, but to not manage deer by region or county just does not make sense to me and seems like a waste of the expertise and research that is out there on how to keep the deer herd healthy, and producing Big Bucks....you can't argue with the success of the midwest in states like Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. I am not saying GA should do it just like these states, but some strategy other than a dozen or more with some science and managment behind it just makes sense...IMHO! If the science is there, I just have not seen it.

Click to expand...

There are more big bucks killed in Georgia now than there have ever been, and that is in part due to the lower population. The "success" in Midwestern states is due to very conservative seasons and limits, and the fact that large percentages of those states are agricultural. When deer are allowed to grow up and have an unlimited source of food, they get big. Georgia will never be in the same category because you can't grow big deer on pine needles. That being said, you still see the deer produced around Atlanta that have been allowed to mature. Granted they are eating hostas and daylillies instead of corn and alfalfa, but with age they get big. If you wanted nothing but big bucks, you have to focus on allowing the bucks to mature. Being able to kill 10 does isn't the problem. In fact I think that has helped. Have a large number of hunters in the state, many of who swat multiple immature bucks per year, coupled with high hunting pressure over a long season is the reason there aren't more quality bucks killed. The bottom line is you are never going to make everyone happy, and people are going to complain no matter what you do. Fifteen to twenty years ago deer numbers where 1.4 -1.5 million. You could see tons of deer, but people complained because they weren't any quality bucks. Now there a million or less with better quality bucks, and people are fussing because they don't see 25 deer every time they go like they used to. It is the never ending battle between meat hunters and horn hunters.

Seems like a lot of you are saying the deer harvest limits cannot be improved, if managed by region or county based on yearly/current factors effecting browse conditions, weather, hunter density and so forth...that seems like just being satisfied with the status quo....I am not. Continuous use of the blanket dozen just makes little managment sense to me....and makes me think that the lobbyists and legislature's have more say than the biologists.

creation's_cause said:

Seems like a lot of you are saying the deer harvest limits cannot be improved, if managed by region or county based on yearly/current factors effecting browse conditions, weather, hunter density and so forth...that seems like just being satisfied with the status quo....I am not. Continuous use of the blanket dozen just makes little managment sense to me....and makes me think that the lobbyists and legislature's have more say than the biologists.

Click to expand...

the bigger limit gives the biologists flexibility.

no one is MAKING someone shoot a deer if your local population is a little low.

T

Throwback said:

the bigger limit gives the biologists flexibility.

no one is MAKING someone shoot a deer if your local population is a little low.

T

Click to expand...

CC does make a valid point.
There may exist areas of the state that need some time to recover from over harvest. That's why many states have gone to a regional management program where limits vary by zone. And it has worked well.

Throwback said:

the bigger limit gives the biologists flexibility.

no one is MAKING someone shoot a deer if your local population is a little low.

T

Click to expand...

So it is perfectly acceptable for the most ignorant among us to shoot all they want

Many hunters are intelligent enough to understand that every pull of the trigger is a management decision.

Many others still think we are over populated and have a real need to shoot every doe they see.

The Piedmont is a prime example of the damage over shooting the resource can have.

Nicodemus said:

I keep seeing posts, that the insurance companies are convincing the DNR to set the limits on deer. Where did these rumors originate? I`m not interested in hearsay and rumors. Show me some proof. If anybody has legitimate proof of this, post it up, right here on this thread.

I`m waitin`...

Click to expand...

Basic economics shows us the higher the insurance claims in a state the higher the insurance rates are.

Seem like more of this originates with wildlife managers & biologists are reacting to try to help make roads safer as high reports of deer & car collision annual reports are produce, but also to attempt to lower insurance claims & repairs from deer/car collisions and crop damage. Looks like wildlife managers, insurance companies, & politicians are trying to work together to improve situations with areas of higher deer population problems. Every year there appears to be regular numerous news articles & reports about this.

Here's a few quotes from articles:



http://www.iowagameandfish.com/hunting/bowhunting-hunting/ia_aa081903a/

WANTED: DEER HUNTERS

For years the IDNR managed the herd conservatively. Buck-only seasons were the rule to allow the herd to grow. Farmers, suburban gardeners, and even the insurance industry pressured the IDNR to change course and trim herds. The safety concerns of motorists were hard to ignore. "Today, 12 percent of all Iowa car accidents involve deer; it's 30 percent in rural areas. There's been an appalling increase in the number of insurance claims," said Fred Haskins of the Iowa Insurance Institute. As complaints mounted, biologists rapidly liberalized hunting. Farmers, gardeners and even the insurance industry see hunters as the good guys and girls who help to reduce their problems and costs. In response to pressure, the IDNR created special area deer hunts to stabilize or reduce deer densities in specific places.



http://journalstar.com/news/local/article_84baf0ae-d0ac-11de-b0dc-001cc4c03286.html

Open season: Nebraska needs hunters to control deer numbers

It's a staggering number, considering unregulated hunting once reduced deer populations to under 50 by about 1900. In 1907, a state law actually made deer off-limits to hunters.

Nonetheless, wildlife biologists, politicians, insurance companies, farmers and other motorists all agree the deer population currently is too high, especially in eastern Nebraska.

Over the next nine days, the state will employ its best tool for reducing deer numbers -- the firearm deer season.



http://www.prairiestateoutdoors.com/index.php?/pso/article/higgins_article/

Politics destroying Illinois deer herd

January 28, 2009

Today most hunters across North America still think of Illinois as “whitetail paradise.” But most resident deer hunters know better. Resident hunters have witnessed more than a decade of slow destruction of the Illinois deer herd caused by poor management decisions with bigger crushing blows apparently soon to come. The politically created “Illinois Deer Task Force” held a series of meetings across the state last summer for “public input” on proposed deer hunting regulation changes.

The problem with this is two-fold; first, the idea of “public input” was “misleading”, to be kind. While the public was allowed to submit written input or speak one on one with members of the task force, the proposed changes were already outlined before the first meeting took place and remain the same today. These meetings were seen by the hunting public as nothing more than a well-orchestrated political farce whereby the political task force could say they held meetings for public input. What they fail to mention is that 100 percent of that public input essentially went straight to the garbage can.

Secondly, the changes proposed by the task force are all detrimental to the proper management of the Illinois deer herd and will do little to address the concerns for which they were designed.



http://www.carinsurancerates.com/news/150-worst-states-for-deer-vehicle-crashes.html

Worst States for Deer-Auto Accidents & Car Insurance Coverage Options

study released November 14, 2006 found that deer-related automobile accidents were up nearly 6 percent in the past year. These numbers also included crashes with moose and elk.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) says that approximately 1.5 million such crashes happen each year, but the numbers are on the rise. Urban sprawl has humans invading animal habitats and compounding matters are hunting regulations that have led to an increase in the deer population. All in all, $1.1 billion in property damage and 150 deaths are caused each year by deer-vehicle crashes.

The Ten Worst States for Auto-Deer Crashes

According to the recent study, these ten states are the worst for auto-deer collisions.

1. Pennsylvania

2. Michigan

3. Illinois

4. Ohio

5. Georgia

6. Virginia

7. Minnesota

8. Texas

9. Indiana

10. South Carolina

If you live in any of these states, it is especially important for you to be adequately covered by other-than-collision (comprehensive) coverage.

How Much Coverage is Enough?

The average deer-related car insurance claim in 2006 is for $2,800 - $300 more than in 2005. If you live in an area with a lot of deer, particularly one of the top ten states listed above, you should consider lowering your other-than-collision deductible. Sure, this will result in higher monthly premiums, but if there is a decent chance that you will encounter a deer, the higher monthly charge will more than pay for itself. Since the average deer-related claim is for $2,800, a $1,000 out-of-pocket deductible expense could be very painful. If you drive a smaller vehicle, deer accidents almost inevitably result in broken glass, which is very expensive to repair.

The only way to make sure you have enough of the right kinds of coverage is to spend a little time increasing your car insurance IQ.



http://www.statefarm.com/about/media/media_releases/wv_deer_collisions.asp

West Virginia Leads Nation Again In Frequency Of Deer-Vehicle Collisions

Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Arkansas Round Out Top Five

Bloomington, Illinois, October 8, 2008


http://www.statefarm.com/_pdf/deer_chart.pdf

Chart of Likelihood of Collision with Deer

Jeff Phillips said:

So it is perfectly acceptable for the most ignorant among us to shoot all they want

Many hunters are intelligent enough to understand that every pull of the trigger is a management decision.

Many others still think we are over populated and have a real need to shoot every doe they see.

The Piedmont is a prime example of the damage over shooting the resource can have.

Click to expand...

my point was when you LOWER the limit, you remove ANY flexibility. It can't be changed back overnight.

And as far as it being damaged in the piedmont, perhaps the population is more balanced, and what many percieve as good is actually an overpopulation.

and as far as the ignorant people, I guess that's kind of like many people I know that want to consider a "shooter" buck 150 +, when biologists tell them 120 plus, or 110 plus and complain about lack of shooting size bucks, and want to impose MORE restrictions on their neighbors from shooting smaller bucks so they can "get big enough to shoot" -- Many on the other end don't listen, either.

T

C.Killmaster said:

Even county level management wouldn't solve those types of issues, varying deer densities are fragmented on a much finer scale. The only real solution is property level management, which DNR has been harping on for at least the last decade. They provide free biological assitance for that very reason.

Click to expand...

That makes good common sense that the smaller or finer the scale or size of land wildlife management for deer the better & more effective the deer herd management can be so that it comes down to the property owner level.



http://www.prairiestateoutdoors.com/index.php?/pso/article/higgins_article/

When whitetail hunters across North America hear the word Illinois they envision monster bucks and a well-managed deer herd. These thoughts are understandable, since decades ago Illinois had a pair of whitetail biologists who thought outside the box and through sound biological practices created the premier whitetail herd in all of North America. Jack Calhoun and Forest Loomis were responsible for innovative management ideas such as “either sex” deer hunting when other states were shooting only bucks.

They also micro-managed Illinois’ limited but growing deer herd on a county-by-county basis rather than on a statewide level. Realizing that Illinois is a vast state with a variety of terrain, data was gathered through county check stations manned with college students during the firearms season. Because of the innovative ideas of these pioneers in whitetail management, Illinois became the model that other states mimicked as they tried to better manage their own herds.

From the QDMA’s 2009 Whitetail Report on Page 27 from the web link below:


http://www.qdma.com/media-room/

Deer-Vehicle Collisions

(References: State Farm Deer-Vehicle Collision data, 2002-2007)

Many areas within the whitetail’s range have abundant or overabundant herds. Overabundant herds cause hundreds of millions in damage each year to the forestry and agricultural industries, and they damage homeowners’ shrubs, flowers, ornamentals and vegetable gardens. While these damages are costly, they don’t compare to the expense caused by deer-vehicle collisions (DVCs).

According to Dr. Michael Conover, Director of the Berryman Institute at Utah State University, DVCs are responsible for an estimated 200 human fatalities, 29,000 injuries and over $1.1 billion in property damage each year.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates there are 1.5 million DVCs each year in the U.S. Given there are about 32 million whitetails in the U.S., this suggests one of every 21 deer will be involved in a DVC. These DVCs are a public safety concern and a waste of a natural resource, in addition to being a personal expense for motorists. DVCs occur most often at dawn and dusk and during spring (fawning) and autumn (breeding).

Actual DVC data is difficult and time consuming to collect. Obtaining comparable data among states is even more difficult as some do not record this information while others rely on various state agencies or private contractors for their figures. Fortunately, State Farm Insurance Company compiles a state-by-state list of projected DVCs based on their insurance claim reports. This data may or may not be completely accurate for a given state, but it is the best data available to track annual DVCs within a state and compare DVCs among states. The following statistics are from State Farm data collected from 2002 to 2007.

DVCs State by State

Pennsylvania led the nation four of the five years in DVCs by averaging about 99,000 per year. Michigan led the nation once and was second four of the five years by averaging about 93,000 DVCs. Pennsylvania and Michigan more than double the average of the next top five states. At the other end of the spectrum, the District of Columbia and Nevada averaged about 300 and 900 per year, respectively. The top 10 states for DVCs over the five year period were Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas.

Texas and California lead the nation in public road miles and vehicle miles traveled but ranked 10 and 20 in DVCs. While Pennsylvania and Michigan led the nation in DVCs, they were ranked 8 and 9 in the number of road miles and miles traveled. Pennsylvania also led the nation in the average number of DVCs per mile of road, at 0.82. This means Pennsylvania motorists hit one deer for every 1.22 miles of public road. Similarly, Maryland drivers hit one deer for every 1.23 miles of public road.

You can also analyze DVCs by the number of vehicles in a state. West Virginia led this list with a DVC for every 57 vehicle registrations. Michigan (1 in 86), Wisconsin (1 in 99), Pennsylvania (1 in 100) and Iowa (1 in 109) round out the top five, and the national likelihood of hitting a deer is 1 in 216.

DVCs and Deer Harvest

An additional way to analyze these data is to compare the number of DVCs to the legal harvest by hunters. Ideally, DVCs would be equivalent to a small percentage of the legal harvest. Looking at the top 10 DVC states in 2006-07 revealed that DVCs averaged 20 percent of the 2006 legal harvest in those states, meaning
that motorists hit a deer for every five taken by hunters. Texas and Wisconsin led the list with DVCs equivalent to only 9 percent of their legal harvests. New York was at the bottom of the top 10 with DVCs equivalent to 34 percent of its 2006 legal harvest. Ohio and Pennsylvania were close behind with DVCs equivalent to 27 percent of their 2006 harvests.

Reducing DVCs

In closing, let’s look at one final piece of DVC data. Of the top 10 DVC states, the average number of DVCs had increased over 9 percent from 2002-03 to 2006-07. North Carolina led this list with a 31 percent increase. Only two of the top 10 states had fewer DVCs in 2007 than in 2002-03. New York had nearly 3 percent fewer, and Pennsylvania reduced the number of DVCs by nearly 12 percent from over 111,000 to just over 98,000. This reduction was over 20 percentage points above the average. While that may still be a lot of DVCs, Pennsylvania implemented a progressive deer management program in 2002 and a large reduction in DVCs is just one of its many benefits. So, what’s the best technique for reducing DVCs? Balancing the deer herd with the available habitat.

QDMA’s Recommendations

The majority of deer-vehicle collisions occurs during spring (fawning) and fall (breeding). The best techniques for reducing deer-vehicle collisions are to reduce overabundant deer herds and make motorists aware of high-risk time periods. The QDMA recommends private, state and federal deer managers use regulated hunting to manage deer herds at levels that are in balance with the habitat. Balanced populations reduce the number of animals available for collisions, and knowledgeable motorists can drive more defensively.

Yeah what he said!!

2010 October State Farm Deer Collisions Update

Updated State Farm 2010 report, map, & chart:

Georgia:

14,446 Deer-Vehicle Collisions 2009-2010

6,257,484 Licensed Drivers in 2008

1 in 150 Likelihood of Collision with Deer



http://www.statefarm.com/aboutus/_pressreleases/2010/deer-vehicle-collision-frequency.asp

Deer-Vehicle Collision Frequency Up 21 Percent in Five Years

West Virginia Continues Domination of Collision Likelihood List


BLOOMINGTON, Ill., October 4, 2010 – While the number of miles driven by U.S. motorists over the past five years has increased just 2 percent, the number of deer-vehicle collisions in this country during that time has grown by ten times that amount.

Using its claims data, State Farm®, the nation’s leading auto insurer estimates 2.3 million collisions between deer and vehicles occurred in the U.S. during the two-year period between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2010. That’s 21.1 percent more than five years earlier. To put it another way, during your reading of this paragraph, a collision between a deer and vehicle will likely have taken place (they are much more likely during the last three months of the year and in the early evening).

Likelihood of Deer-Vehicle Collisions

For the fourth year in a row, West Virginia tops the list of those states where a driver is most likely to collide with a deer. Using its claims data in conjunction with state licensed driver counts from the Federal Highway Administration*, State Farm calculates the chances of a West Virginia driver striking a deer over the next 12 months at 1 in 42.

Iowa is second on the list. The likelihood of a licensed driver in Iowa striking a deer within the next year is 1 in 67. Michigan (1 in 70) is third. Fourth and fifth on the list are South Dakota (1 in 76) and Montana (1 in 82).

Pennsylvania is sixth, followed by North Dakota and Wisconsin. Arkansas and Minnesota round out the top 10.

The state in which deer-vehicle collisions are least likely is still Hawaii (1 in 13,011). The odds of a Hawaiian driver hitting a deer between now and 12 months from now are roughly equivalent to the odds of finding a pearl in an oyster shell.

*** U.S. map showing likelihood of deer-vehicle collision by state

*** Chart listing likelihood of vehicle-deer collision by state

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, deer-vehicle collisions in the U.S. cause about 200 fatalities each year.

The average property damage cost of these incidents was $3,103, up 1.7 percent from a year ago.

Avoiding Deer-Vehicle Collisions

These collisions are more frequent during the deer migration and mating season in October, November and December. The combination of growing deer populations and the displacement of deer habitat caused by urban sprawl are producing increasingly hazardous conditions for motorists and deer.

“State Farm has been committed to auto safety for several decades and that’s why we want to call attention to potential hazards like this one,� said Laurette Stiles, State Farm Vice President of Strategic Resources.


“We hope our updated information will inspire motorists to make safe decisions.�

Here are tips on how to reduce the chances that a deer-vehicle collision involving your vehicle will be part of the story we tell in next year’s version of this news release:

•Be aware of posted deer crossing signs. These are placed in active deer crossing areas.

•Remember that deer are most active between 6 and 9 p.m.

•Use high beam headlamps as much as possible at night to illuminate the areas from which deer will enter roadways.

•Keep in mind that deer generally travel in herds – if you see one, there is a strong possibility others are nearby.

•Do not rely on car-mounted deer whistles.

•If a deer collision seems inevitable, attempting to swerve out of the way could cause you to lose control of your vehicle or place you in the path of an oncoming vehicle.

*State Farm has changed its methodology for computing the likelihood of deer vehicle collisions, using number of licensed drivers instead of number of registered vehicles, thereby computing the likelihood a driver will collide with a deer over the next 12 months rather than the likelihood a vehicle will collide with a deer over the next 12 months.

Here you go, Joe. This might shed some light.

Nicodemus said:

Here you go, Joe. This might shed some light.

Click to expand...

According to that chart, Hawaii has deer.

Reckon they'd throw us a Luau if we went out there and killed a big buck?