Murraycroexp
Veteran Expediter
If settle for deer that just WALKED across the road. I think I could avoid Major Speedbump if he was strolling!!!!
Deer season beware - photo evidence
- Thread starter xiggi
- Start date
If settle for deer that just WALKED across the road. I think I could avoid Major Speedbump if he was strolling!!!!
No, it's down. It has been going down now for about 10-15 years. Most states, even the the two "biggies" for deer hunting, Michigan and PA, have been cutting down the size of the herds for a long time.
The herds had reached the point where the habitat could no longer support it. In PA there were entire sections of woods where NO trees that deer would eat were regenerating. Both PA and Michigan have cut their herds by about 30%, more in certain areas.
Michigan and PA both had major losses to disease last year as well. In the area where my friend has land in Michigan the herd is down close to 60% In those areas Michigan is cutting back on doe permits to get the herd up a bit.
You are seeing more deer because their habitat is being taken from them for strip malls etc. As their habitat shrinks they are being forced into smaller and smaller areas which increases the chances of deer/human/auto interactions.
Where the heck is that?
Bridle trail? Does not sound like a place that is fit for man nor beast. 
Things get the ugliest between deer and drivers during the month of November, with October and December taking second and third places, respectively. Deer-vehicle crashes are three times more likely to occur in November than any day between February and August.
The reason most accidents happen in Oct-Dec is because of the rut, but also because of increased foraging for the winter months. The rut and increased foraging mean the deer are less cautious.
Most collisions happen in the two hours after sunset, and the two hours before sunrise.
The numbers are fun. 1.23 million deer-car collisions happened in the U.S. between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012, putting the probability of a motorist-deer accident at 1 in 171, up from the previous year's odds of 1 in 183. This means the cost of insurance claims is also on the rise, with the average deer damage claim at $3,305, which is 4.4% higher than the previous year.
1 in 171. That's pretty high odds. But where are the odds even higher? West Virginia, hands down. For the sixth year in a row, West Virginia tops the list for the most deer-motorist collisions. Research by State Farm shows that the chances of a West Virginia motorist striking a deer over the next 12 months are 1 in 40. Holy crap!
In second place is South Dakota, followed by Iowa, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
You’re least likely to hit a deer if you live in Hawaii.
Here's a graphic of the 2011-2012 season that shows all the states and the odds of hitting a deer in each. Pretty interesting.
The reason most accidents happen in Oct-Dec is because of the rut, but also because of increased foraging for the winter months. The rut and increased foraging mean the deer are less cautious.
Most collisions happen in the two hours after sunset, and the two hours before sunrise.
The numbers are fun. 1.23 million deer-car collisions happened in the U.S. between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012, putting the probability of a motorist-deer accident at 1 in 171, up from the previous year's odds of 1 in 183. This means the cost of insurance claims is also on the rise, with the average deer damage claim at $3,305, which is 4.4% higher than the previous year.
1 in 171. That's pretty high odds. But where are the odds even higher? West Virginia, hands down. For the sixth year in a row, West Virginia tops the list for the most deer-motorist collisions. Research by State Farm shows that the chances of a West Virginia motorist striking a deer over the next 12 months are 1 in 40. Holy crap!
In second place is South Dakota, followed by Iowa, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
You’re least likely to hit a deer if you live in Hawaii.
Here's a graphic of the 2011-2012 season that shows all the states and the odds of hitting a deer in each. Pretty interesting.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
The deer population had exploded in northern Illinois, but then the coyote population also exploded, coyotes having been intentionally introduced to help control rodents in Chicago. They expanded across northern Illinois and made a serious dent in the deer population, but now we have to keep our dogs within arms reach. Not sure I like the trade-off.
Here's an article from the WSJ November 2, 2012 America Gone Wild: Nature Wars - WSJ.com
I can't find a single credible article showing that coyotes were "introduced" to IL. As far as I know coyotes are native to IL. They are in Michigan.
I think you will find that deer/car interactions are primarily up due to shrinking habitat more than increasing numbers. Most states have been cutting down the size of the herds, rather drastically. Habitat loss is forcing deer into more urban areas.
WV is a "Special Case". Not sure what is going on there.
WV is a "Special Case". Not sure what is going on there.
The more that can be done to reduce the deer population, the better. While some people see them as wild game, I see them as pests and hazards. Deer strikes produce millions of dollars of damage per year to cars and trucks, and some injuries to people. Let hunters have their way with them. The fewer deer there are, the fewer deer strikes their will be.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
I don't know that they were ever totally gone, but they were intentionally introduced to the City of Chicago specifically for rodent control and their numbers exploded. One coyote made the news for trotting into a Chicago convenience store and hopping into the cooler for relief from the heat. Pictures made the paper. It looked tame, friendly, even, but of course it wasn't.
Nobody I know had ever seen one, then they were roaming the neighborhood, trotting down the sidewalk in broad daylight.
Last edited:
And what problems would too few deer cause? In Michigan it would likely be a net lose in economic activity. The loss of revenue and jobs would likely be greater than the cost of deer strikes. In fact, it would likely be devastating in many states. The damage to forest lands would be massive. Some tree species would go away. Others would over populate and it would all result in the loss of other animal species.
Deer hunting accounts for hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity, some go as far as to say billions. Much of the income provides a living in areas where there is no other means.
Deer have to be managed in a responsible manner. There is a VERY fine line between too many and too few. Also, Man, as a species, is short lived. We have a responsibility to look beyond our own lives and life span, and insure the survival of all species. It is called "stewardship" and we all have a responsibility to be good stewards.
Can you show me a link for that? It sounds VERY strange. I cannot find anything on the subject.
Coyotes are moving into urban areas, but not introduced as far as I can find. They move in because the is food and no one hunts or traps them much any more. In the cities, EVERYTHING is illegal so they kinda have free reign.
It is widely believed that the coyotes were intentionally let loose in Chicago to eat rodents and stuff, but they weren't intentionally introduced to Chicago, they came there all on their own. What Animal Control did do intentionally, though, was tag and GPS-collar several of them. It's part of the Urban Coyote Ecology and Management project, which captures coyotes that make their way into urban areas, fits them with radio collars, and re-releases them in order to study them more closely. Since 2008, the project has captured and collared 250 coyotes. The animals-as-pest-control is more of a side effect of letting the coyotes do their thing in order to find out more about them.
That one was famous. Another one, Holly, was rescued by helicopter off an ice berg in Lake Michigan.
Here a video of the coyote in the fridge at Quiznos.
Looks comfortable, right up until the animal control officer snags him with that pole.
Some "stats" on the economics of hunting in the US. LOTS of "charts" to see if you scroll down.
http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/HuntingInAmerica_EconomicForceForConservation.pdf
http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/HuntingInAmerica_EconomicForceForConservation.pdf
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
There was a segment on the news in which some Chicago TV station did a feature on a rural coyote hunter who was getting increased business in coyote removal. A camera crew went out into the suburbs with him to see how many he could scare up. He leaned against a tree and started doing coyote calls. In a couple minutes, the camera showed several come running. They also showed one getting real close to a guy cutting grass, unafraid of the lawnmower, and it was a huge, commercial one.
Coyotes in the boonies, fine. In cities and suburbs, aw hey-ell no! My dog is the most important mammal in town, and anything that threatens her must die.
Coyotes in the boonies, fine. In cities and suburbs, aw hey-ell no! My dog is the most important mammal in town, and anything that threatens her must die.
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
Most animals see us as pests and hazards, we are the ones who have moved into or destroyed many of their habitats. Maybe we should take care of humans...they are the real problem! Open season!
Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app
Most animals see us as pests and hazards, we are the ones who have moved into or destroyed many of their habitats. Maybe we should take care of humans...they are the real problem! Open season!
Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app
Too be we do have "open season" on humans, they are called war. Evil nasty things. They also mess up wildlife habitat. Nothing good there.
If it were up to the tree huggers and global-warmists, eliminating people would be precisely what would happen.Most animals see us as pests and hazards, we are the ones who have moved into or destroyed many of their habitats. Maybe we should take care of humans...they are the real problem! Open season!