- 39,121
- 274
Article: Deer Vehicle accidents the past 8 years.. Shocking
- Thread starter Jackalope
- Start date
Dear Joe,
All these numbers can be explained quite easily. This is the direct result of the lack of acorn crop, weather, and drivers no longer aiming for the deer since it is no longer a "challenge" to hit one anymore. The deer are also not having near as much fun playing chicken, therefore they are staying off the roads.
Love,
Tonk
All these numbers can be explained quite easily. This is the direct result of the lack of acorn crop, weather, and drivers no longer aiming for the deer since it is no longer a "challenge" to hit one anymore. The deer are also not having near as much fun playing chicken, therefore they are staying off the roads.
Love,
Tonk
- 39,121
- 274
Oh come on man.... Everyone knows that drivers are simply holding out for bigger bucks and as a result not hitting as many deer.
Or they failed to adapt to a deers changing food source and drove by the wrong places..
Or maybe it's the aging driver population not hitting as many deer because it's too easy.
Maybe weather caused 64 Counties to stay home 73% more instead of driving.
Or they failed to adapt to a deers changing food source and drove by the wrong places..
Or maybe it's the aging driver population not hitting as many deer because it's too easy.
Maybe weather caused 64 Counties to stay home 73% more instead of driving.
Last edited:
saddlepants
Member
Oh no, Im sure it because we are all becoming safer drivers due to vanishing deductibles! Oh and BTW...Its my money and I want it NOW
- 39,121
- 274
Ohio unemployment rate now compared to 2002 is only like a 5% difference. Can we explain the other 68% decrease in 64 counties? Lol
huntn2
Senior Member
Thanks for posting the data tables Joe!
As Joe mentioned I compiled data for Ohio deer-vehicle accidents. The threads we have had throughout the 2011-2012 deer season discussing hunter perceptions of the Ohio deer population have led me to run analysis to better understand and illustrate what the herd population may be.
I already shared an analysis that illustrates the herd size may be less than the ODNR’s estimates. In that analysis I used harvest data, fawn per doe ratio, and buck to doe ratio data published by the ODNR. In addition to this information, I leveraged a fawn mortality study by the Pennsylvania Game Commission to incorporate another contributing factor that impacts the deer population besides hunter success. When I posted the results of this analysis I stated there are still many other variables that I hadn’t accounted for.
After spending another weekend in the woods without seeing a deer I decided to dig into one of those additional variables. As Joe posted, I pulled deer-vehicle accident statistics from the Ohio Insurance Institute. I reviewed deer-vehicle accidents by county and year from 2002 – 2010. The statewide result is deer-vehicle accidents are down 23% in 2010 compared to 2002. This alone was staggering but I began to ask myself several follow-up statements/questions that could contribute to significantly fewer deer-vehicle accidents. Some of the questions I began to ponder are as follows:
From my personal observations, analysis and logs over the past few seasons, my belief is there are fewer deer. Obviously my 3rd question was more of a joke. I believe society is more distracted then ever behind the wheel and technology is a contributing factor. So I felt I should research the 1st and 2nd elements for a correlation to fewer deer-vehicle accidents. I pulled data from the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. The results are as follows:
While licensed drivers and vehicle miles have increased in Ohio, and in the case of the miles, increased significantly, the deer vehicle accidents have decreased sharply. Therefore, I fall back to my original gut instinct; there may just be less deer in Ohio enabling fewer deer-vehicle accidents.
The last action I have taken at this time is to factor deer-vehicle accidents into my herd population estimate calculation. Though not every deer involved in a vehicle accident dies, I have made the assumption that those reported do. I felt comfortable with this assumption since not all accidents are reported to begin with. I also assumed a 50:50 buck to doe ratio for accidents. Adding deer deaths due to vehicle accidents to the harvest data, fawn mortality due to predation, and fawn per doe ratio decreases the herd by another 193k from 2008 – 2011.
Perhaps deer-vehicle accidents have no correlation to the herd population. I will leave that up to each of you to decide for yourself. I am simply trying to take available data to illustrate what may be the reality of the OH deer population. More importantly, I am trying to take available information to create a more accurate method of estimating the deer population. Maybe those who are observing less deer aren’t crazy, lazy, or bored by the ease of harvesting whitetail deer. There may actually just be less deer. That is after all the goal of the ODNR’s management plan. So the question becomes, have levels been dropped too far?
I plan to build on my analysis as time permits and I also have hopes of summarizing it and presenting it to Mike Tonkovich and team at the ODNR. I am sure they will be able to help me understand where my assumptions/variables may be flawed as well as provide other factors that should be considered.
Ryan
As Joe mentioned I compiled data for Ohio deer-vehicle accidents. The threads we have had throughout the 2011-2012 deer season discussing hunter perceptions of the Ohio deer population have led me to run analysis to better understand and illustrate what the herd population may be.
I already shared an analysis that illustrates the herd size may be less than the ODNR’s estimates. In that analysis I used harvest data, fawn per doe ratio, and buck to doe ratio data published by the ODNR. In addition to this information, I leveraged a fawn mortality study by the Pennsylvania Game Commission to incorporate another contributing factor that impacts the deer population besides hunter success. When I posted the results of this analysis I stated there are still many other variables that I hadn’t accounted for.
After spending another weekend in the woods without seeing a deer I decided to dig into one of those additional variables. As Joe posted, I pulled deer-vehicle accident statistics from the Ohio Insurance Institute. I reviewed deer-vehicle accidents by county and year from 2002 – 2010. The statewide result is deer-vehicle accidents are down 23% in 2010 compared to 2002. This alone was staggering but I began to ask myself several follow-up statements/questions that could contribute to significantly fewer deer-vehicle accidents. Some of the questions I began to ponder are as follows:
- Perhaps there are fewer licensed drivers in Ohio in 2010 than there were in 2002
- Perhaps with higher gas prices and tough economic times, drivers are traveling less miles annually
- Perhaps the introduction of smart phones with e-mail, texting, web and social media capabilities have made drivers more attentive to the road, other vehicles and potential hazards…
- Perhaps there are simply fewer deer to become a statistic when it comes to vehicle accidents
From my personal observations, analysis and logs over the past few seasons, my belief is there are fewer deer. Obviously my 3rd question was more of a joke. I believe society is more distracted then ever behind the wheel and technology is a contributing factor. So I felt I should research the 1st and 2nd elements for a correlation to fewer deer-vehicle accidents. I pulled data from the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. The results are as follows:
- There are 3.31% more licensed drivers in Ohio in 2010 compared to 2002
- There are 136% or 63,693,000,000 more annual vehicle miles traveled in 2009 compared to 2002 in Ohio (I didn’t see the 2010 figure yet so I used 2009)
While licensed drivers and vehicle miles have increased in Ohio, and in the case of the miles, increased significantly, the deer vehicle accidents have decreased sharply. Therefore, I fall back to my original gut instinct; there may just be less deer in Ohio enabling fewer deer-vehicle accidents.
The last action I have taken at this time is to factor deer-vehicle accidents into my herd population estimate calculation. Though not every deer involved in a vehicle accident dies, I have made the assumption that those reported do. I felt comfortable with this assumption since not all accidents are reported to begin with. I also assumed a 50:50 buck to doe ratio for accidents. Adding deer deaths due to vehicle accidents to the harvest data, fawn mortality due to predation, and fawn per doe ratio decreases the herd by another 193k from 2008 – 2011.
Perhaps deer-vehicle accidents have no correlation to the herd population. I will leave that up to each of you to decide for yourself. I am simply trying to take available data to illustrate what may be the reality of the OH deer population. More importantly, I am trying to take available information to create a more accurate method of estimating the deer population. Maybe those who are observing less deer aren’t crazy, lazy, or bored by the ease of harvesting whitetail deer. There may actually just be less deer. That is after all the goal of the ODNR’s management plan. So the question becomes, have levels been dropped too far?
I plan to build on my analysis as time permits and I also have hopes of summarizing it and presenting it to Mike Tonkovich and team at the ODNR. I am sure they will be able to help me understand where my assumptions/variables may be flawed as well as provide other factors that should be considered.
Ryan
Last edited:
check out the top 5 counties for deer harvest numbers every year , the 6 deer limit is really working down here , working for the insurance company anyhow
bthompson1004
Member
Really? Lucas county has an increase of 44%...I really find that hard to believe...Not saying that it isn't true, but just hard to believe that it's the highest increase in the state...I guess I really need to get out more and utilize my 6 deer urban zone limit and my Zone B 4 deer limit!!
- 39,121
- 274
It's a simple explanation man. Urban area where the DNR scorched earth harvest limits are not working due to access to property in toledo and surrpunding areas... Hunting pressure is extremely light due to inability to gain permission, this results in the deer population increasing and DVA numbers going up.....
However this is of no concern to insurance companies. DVAs in urban areas tend to be at much lower speeds and result in far less vehicle damage and personal injury. It is areas like vinton county that a rural and you have a highway like SR 50 where people can go 60+ mph.. It is areas like those where high speed accidents happen that could result not only in massive vehicle damage but also loss of control and personal injury.. That is where stuff gets expensive for insurance companies, personal injury. I'm just speculating but I bet they would trade 20 DVAs in vinton county at 65 mph for 200 in Toledo at 35 mph..
Thanks for taking the time to compile all that data Ryan! That is some unbelievable info! I am hoping the ODNR takes a good look at your work and takes it into consideration. Something tells me they probably won't.
- 39,121
- 274
Here is something I find interesting man... Look at Allen County where you hunt. It saw a 12% increase... Now we can see why you keep saying you are not seeing a decrease in the amount of deer.. They haven't decreased for whatever reason... But just imagine if you we're a poor SOB in one of the other 64 counties that have the average 70% decrease...
The same with JD who says he hasn't really seen a decrease. he has an 84% increase.
The numbers also look like the population started to decrease around 2004 and have been on a dive ever sense. What happened / changed in the 2003-2004 season? anyone know?
Last edited:
- 39,121
- 274
.
A visual for you... Shaded counties are the only ones that have seen an increase in DVAs between 2002 and 2010...
I'm sure the DNR zone bag limits have Nothing to do with it... Keep in mind there is Cleveland, Toledo, Lima and Dayton in those counties.
A visual for you... Shaded counties are the only ones that have seen an increase in DVAs between 2002 and 2010...
I'm sure the DNR zone bag limits have Nothing to do with it... Keep in mind there is Cleveland, Toledo, Lima and Dayton in those counties.
Last edited:
Wow... just wow. Well done, Ryan. IMO, deer-vehicle collisions would have to be the most reliable indication of population size. Hunting pressure changes and weather changes... But people are always going to be driving down the roads. More deer equates to a higher probability of hitting said deer with your car.
I'm really questioning now how the DOW could say our deer population has remained at 700,000 or above for the past 3 or 4 years when the deer-vehicle collisions has OBVIOUSLY decreased. Especially since the estimated deer population supposedly represents the "huntable" population.
I'm really questioning now how the DOW could say our deer population has remained at 700,000 or above for the past 3 or 4 years when the deer-vehicle collisions has OBVIOUSLY decreased. Especially since the estimated deer population supposedly represents the "huntable" population.
- 39,121
- 274
I'll be the first to admit that I've backed Tonkovich from day one... But I'd really like to hear him try to explain this one. I don't see any plausible reasoning other than a decrease in deer.