Article: Deer Vehicle accidents the past 8 years.. Shocking

[huntn2]

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.

The explanation is easy...all they use for herd estimation is the harvest data per what Mike Rex shared.

If herd population remained flat as has been reported while annual vehicle miles traveled increased significantly, statistically, deer-vehicle accidents would increase simply due to more miles being traveled. To see a 23% decline when considering the increase in drivers and vehicle miles blows me away.

Did the deer learn to avoid roads?

Did drivers learn to pay attention while distractions have increased?

Have people decided to not report the accident or file a claim to get their vehicle repaired?

I hope someone can help justify this one for me because I haven't been able to come up with a sound reason as to how this is possible. It tells me either the deer-vehicle claims are too low or the deer population estimate is too high...

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

 

[jagermeister]

The explanation is easy...all they use for herd estimation is the harvest data per what Mike Rex shared.

If herd population remained flat as has been reported while annual vehicle miles traveled increased significantly, statistically, deer-vehicle accidents would increase simply due to more miles being traveled. To see a 23% decline when considering the increase in drivers and vehicle miles blows me away.

Did the deer learn to avoid roads?

Did drivers learn to pay attention while distractions have increased?

Have people decided to not report the accident or file a claim to get their vehicle repaired?

I hope someone can help justify this one for me because I haven't been able to come up with a sound reason as to how this is possible. It tells me either the deer-vehicle claims are too low or the deer population estimate is too high...

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

That seems to be the only plausible explanation to me. Either that, or it's a result of ODOT putting up extra deer crossing signs.

I'm serious, though... This information has my blood pressure up quite a bit. It wouldn't be so bad if the decrease was like 5%, or even 10%... but Jesus Christ 23-fuggin-percent?!?!? How could that possibly be ignored? Look at Coshocton County for crying out loud!... A 93% decrease in deer-vehicle collisions... in a county that is absolutely a deer mecca. There should be deer collisions around ever corner in that county!

 

[mrex]

For the past 9 years since I took over the secretaries position with the BBBC, the number of entries into the state record book have mirrored the total harvest, 1 year removed...except for this year. I have no idea why but the number of entries this year from the 10/11 season are up 15% over 09/10.

If 2010 deer vehicle accidents mirrored hunting opportunity, the rural counties of Harrison, (49), Coshocton, (41), Carroll, (44), Meigs, (39) and Morgan, (33) would all be about 1/3 as good as that garden spot Fayette, (169). And speaking of Fayette County, if we use deer vehicle accidents as the measure of herd size, it appears that the numbers got better from 2008 to 2010. I'm realy starting to question my friend Brock's credibility...:smiley_chinrub:

 

[jagermeister]

For the past 9 years since I took over the secretaries position with the BBBC, the number of entries into the state record book have mirrored the total harvest, 1 year removed...except for this year. I have no idea why but the number of entries this year from the 10/11 season are up 15% over 09/10.

If 2010 deer vehicle accidents mirrored hunting opportunity, the rural counties of Harrison, (49), Coshocton, (41), Carroll, (44), Meigs, (39) and Morgan, (33) would all be about 1/3 as good as that garden spot Fayette, (169). And speaking of Fayette County, if we use deer vehicle accidents as the measure of herd size, it appears that the numbers got better from 2008 to 2010. I'm realy starting to question my friend Brock's credibility...:smiley_chinrub:

This has me wondering if the reported numbers really represent the actual numbers. I mean, how in the world could there only be 33 deer-vehicle collisions in a year in Morgan County? Perhaps tougher economic times has resulted in more people just driving around with a banged up ride.

 

[Jackalope]

It can be "ignored" because it's the goal. I am willing to bet these numbers are watched closely and probably play more of a part in bag limits than harvest data does.

 

[finelyshedded]

It can be "ignored" because it's the goal. I am willing to bet these numbers are watched closely and probably play more of a part in bag limits than harvest data does.

I agree 100%!

 

[huntn2]

This has me wondering if the reported numbers really represent the actual numbers. I mean, how in the world could there only be 33 deer-vehicle collisions in a year in Morgan County? Perhaps tougher economic times has resulted in more people just driving around with a banged up ride.

The Ohio Insurance Institue lists it sources as the Ohio Department of Public Safety, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Divison of Wildlife and the Ohio State Highway Patrol.

The press release articles start off with "...according to figures released by the Ohio Insurance Institute (OII), Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife and Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP)."

It would certainly be interesting if across the entire state folks simply decided to stop reporting their deer-vehicle accidents and getting their vehicles repaired. Is it possible? Yes. Am I sold on this being the underlying reasoning behind a 23% reduction? No.

 

[Milo]

Mike, it could be we have more hunters on less and less huntable land and with less deer the bigger deer are moving more. I am betting there are more and more eyes in the woods every year also.

 

[Jackalope]

The Ohio Insurance Institue lists it sources as the Ohio Department of Public Safety, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Divison of Wildlife and the Ohio State Highway Patrol.

The press release articles start off with "...according to figures released by the Ohio Insurance Institute (OII), Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife and Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP)."

It would certainly be interesting if across the entire state folks simply decided to stop reporting their deer-vehicle accidents and getting their vehicles repaired. Is it possible? Yes. Am I sold on this being the underlying reasoning behind a 23% reduction? No.

So the ODNR and the DOW play a role in these numbers yet they don;t take them into consideration when talking harvest bag limits... Only "Harvest numbers"... hmmm...

Also Mrex.. How many times must we say the buck population seems to be unchanged? I wouldn't doubt one bit that you are seeing the entries hold steady or even increase.. We are 100% a 1 buck state... Now lets move our Buck tag limit to mirror antlerless tag limits and see what tune gets sung then... Just saying.

 

[huntn2]

For the past 9 years since I took over the secretaries position with the BBBC, the number of entries into the state record book have mirrored the total harvest, 1 year removed...except for this year. I have no idea why but the number of entries this year from the 10/11 season are up 15% over 09/10.

If 2010 deer vehicle accidents mirrored hunting opportunity, the rural counties of Harrison, (49), Coshocton, (41), Carroll, (44), Meigs, (39) and Morgan, (33) would all be about 1/3 as good as that garden spot Fayette, (169). And speaking of Fayette County, if we use deer vehicle accidents as the measure of herd size, it appears that the numbers got better from 2008 to 2010. I'm realy starting to question my friend Brock's credibility...:smiley_chinrub:

Mike, I don't think deer-vehicle accidents should single handedly be used to set bag limits and to estimate the deer population. There isn't a single element that should be used. There are multiple variables, as you are well aware, that should be leveraged to evaluate and set bag limits and predict the herd size. The prupose and value of this analysis and thread is it illustrates the deer herd may in fact be less than the current estimates that are published.

 

[mrex]

Mike, it could be we have more hunters on less and less huntable land and with less deer the bigger deer are moving more. I am betting there are more and more eyes in the woods every year also.

I think you're right Eric.

 

[mrex]

So the ODNR and the DOW play a role in these numbers yet they don;t take them into consideration when talking harvest bag limits... Only "Harvest numbers"... hmmm...

Also Mrex.. How many times must we say the buck population seems to be unchanged? I wouldn't doubt one bit that you are seeing the entries hold steady or even increase.. We are 100% a 1 buck state... Now lets move our Buck tag limit to mirror antlerless tag limits and see what tune gets sung then... Just saying.

Joe - what I meant was that the number of bbbc entries mirrors the total harvest 1 year removed...both up and down...except for last year where the kill went down and the # of entries went up.

 

[Jackalope]

Joe - what I meant was that the number of bbbc entries mirrors the total harvest 1 year removed...both up and down...except for last year where the kill went down and the # of entries went up.

Ah. I got you. My bad.

 

[brock ratcliff]

For the past 9 years since I took over the secretaries position with the BBBC, the number of entries into the state record book have mirrored the total harvest, 1 year removed...except for this year. I have no idea why but the number of entries this year from the 10/11 season are up 15% over 09/10.

If 2010 deer vehicle accidents mirrored hunting opportunity, the rural counties of Harrison, (49), Coshocton, (41), Carroll, (44), Meigs, (39) and Morgan, (33) would all be about 1/3 as good as that garden spot Fayette, (169). And speaking of Fayette County, if we use deer vehicle accidents as the measure of herd size, it appears that the numbers got better from 2008 to 2010. I'm realy starting to question my friend Brock's credibility...:smiley_chinrub:

Perhaps it really is just me. I've not learned to adapt. Obviously, I need to hang a stand along I-71, as that is apparently where every deer in the county now reside.

 

[mrex]

Mike, I don't think deer-vehicle accidents should single handedly be used to set bag limits and to estimate the deer population. There isn't a single element that should be used. There are multiple variables, as you are well aware, that should be leveraged to evaluate and set bag limits and predict the herd size. The prupose and value of this analysis and thread is it illustrates the deer herd may in fact be less than the current estimates that are published.

Ryan, deer-vehicle accidents do figure into the harvest target. As a matter of fact, farmers and motorists dictate the goal set by the state. If the DOW let us set the harvest target...there would never be a ceiling...just more more more! Imagine this conversation I only saw 143 today...remember the days when you would see 200 every sit? Farmers and motorists are directly adversely affected by a bulging deer population. You can say that hunters are adversely affected by a shrinking population but it doesn't come out of our wallets.

I know this will fall on deaf ears with this crowd but here's the facts guys. Deer hunting is not listed in the bill of rights...it's a privilege. Deer hunting opportunities are better today than they were 20 years ago. Maybe not as good as 3 years ago in some areas but statewide, we have plenty of deer. These are the "good old days" for the majority of hunters in Ohio. The rate of increase of the herd seen in the past 20 years is not sustainable. IMO, if the coyotes wouldn't have showed up, we hunters couldn't control them in a lot of areas of the state. If the population continues to grow as it had been, nature will eventually step in and she can be cruel. I believe coyotes, which never inhabited Ohio until recently, are a warning sign of what's to come.

There's no doubt that deer numbers are depleted in many areas when compared to just a few years ago. I also know it's easy for me to say this as my county still has plenty of deer and I'm not directly affected by the decline.

 

[brock ratcliff]

Something just isn't right with the reporting on road kills. There is no way Fayette should even be close to Athens, Jackson, etc. RT 35 is littered with deer bodies from Chillicothe to the river, not the case from Chillicothe to Dayton, (through Fayette Co).

I haven't a clue the reason, but it would seem a greater percentage are reported to authorities in Fayette than in the God-less hill country home county of Mrex and Mtonk. I wonder if it is a factor that the majority of the population in Athen County is un-insured and there is no point in reporting a deer collision? :smiley_coolpeace:

 

[brock ratcliff]

I will be heading to Athens to hunt with Mrex and Coonskinner next season.

 

[mrex]

Something just isn't right with the reporting on road kills. There is no way Fayette should even be close to Athens, Jackson, etc. RT 35 is littered with deer bodies from Chillicothe to the river, not the case from Chillicothe to Dayton, (through Fayette Co).

I haven't a clue the reason, but it would seem a greater percentage are reported to authorities in Fayette than in the God-less hill country home county of Mrex and Mtonk. I wonder if it is a factor that the majority of the population in Athen County is un-insured and there is no point in reporting a deer collision? :smiley_coolpeace:

"God-less?" You mean "tooth less!"

 

[mrex]

How did Coshocton Co go from 612 DVA's to 41 in 8 years?

 

[RedCloud]

Ryan, deer-vehicle accidents do figure into the harvest target. As a matter of fact, farmers and motorists dictate the goal set by the state. If the DOW let us set the harvest target...there would never be a ceiling...just more more more! Imagine this conversation I only saw 143 today...remember the days when you would see 200 every sit? Farmers and motorists are directly adversely affected by a bulging deer population. You can say that hunters are adversely affected by a shrinking population but it doesn't come out of our wallets.

I know this will fall on deaf ears with this crowd but here's the facts guys. Deer hunting is not listed in the bill of rights...it's a privilege. Deer hunting opportunities are better today than they were 20 years ago. Maybe not as good as 3 years ago in some areas but statewide, we have plenty of deer. These are the "good old days" for the majority of hunters in Ohio. The rate of increase of the herd seen in the past 20 years is not sustainable. IMO, if the coyotes wouldn't have showed up, we hunters couldn't control them in a lot of areas of the state. If the population continues to grow as it had been, nature will eventually step in and she can be cruel. I believe coyotes, which never inhabited Ohio until recently, are a warning sign of what's to come.

There's no doubt that deer numbers are depleted in many areas when compared to just a few years ago. I also know it's easy for me to say this as my county still has plenty of deer and I'm not directly affected by the decline.

Last time I checked driving was also a privilage.

I'm not saying insurance companies and farmers shouldn't have a vote but where is ours as hunters ? We as hunters bring the state millions of dollars every year but our voice is all to often ignored and we are laughed at. It's time for our side to be heard.