Deer / Car Collisions

[WABS]

I've got another question for the forum. What can be done to cut down on the number of deer/car collisions? I'd say most of the collisions in MN where I grew up happened in areas where the highway cut between a primary bedding area and a primary feeding area. My thinking is that once there has been a certain number of collisions within a period of time (just to throw out a number say 6+ collisions / 3 month time). Then the DNR comes out evaluates the situation and determines whether or not there needs to be a deer management plan done by the holders of the land along that stretch of highway. Property owner (could be the government if land is a park or WMA). As a home owner I'm liable for any unsafe situation on my property. Why don't we hold these property/land owners likewise responsible? Just a thought...

[wtnhunt]

Dont know really. Have started seeing more deer along sides of the roads here recently, can tell they are moving more. Most are in areas where the deers habitat is being taken away by housing developements going up and the woods are thinning out.

In fields where deer collisions are usually bad, seems the past few years farmers have not been planting quite as close to the road, which seems to be helping some.

One place I see a lot of deer collisions think the state or city, whoever actually maintains the property needs to put up a higher fence, there have been three deer killed there in the past 2 weeks.

[gabuckbuster03]

dont really know

[dogdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't we hold these property/land owners likewise responsible?

[/ QUOTE ]

b/c the private land owner doesn't own the deer. If he owned the deer then he wouldn't have to follow the state laws in reguards to harvesting these deer. Can't blame the land owner for something he has no control over. Now as far as gov't land--that's not going to happen b/c there are law makers out ther to protect the state/DNR from accidents involving deer. The DNR/lawmakers can increase harvest limits all they want but if the hunters don't harvest more does--instead of small bucks--then you're not going to see much change in the herd numbers.

todd

[WABS]

But I say he does have a certain amount of control. If a property is deemed over populated and a hazard to the public why wouldn't we hold the property owner responsible for taking some kind of action. May be something as simple as to allow hunting instead of posting the land. Just be required to demonstrate a good faith effort to control the population. Maybe they allow a certain number of hunters to take does only...just as an example.

[WABS]

I'm going to give you a specific example. There is an area where I grew up that has a heavily wooded State Park on one side of a major 2 lane road (NO Hunting), and farmland (almost always corn) on the other side of the road. From the period of August through March I'd estimate that there is better than one deer a day hit in that 2 mile stretch of road. The state has spent BIG dollars on various methods for keeping deer from being hit -- widening the ditches, keeping the grass short, they even put these anti deer reflectors every 20 feet or so. Nothing has seemed to work. The only real solution is to decrease the deer numbers in that area. Who's responsibility is that?

[Lynn_in_IN]

in indiana, not many people know it, but they say you can file a tort claim in the amount of the deductible you pay to have a vehicle fixed after a deer collision... after all, aren't the deer property of the STATE?

[wtnhunt]

Can relate to the corn and the private property issue, and while I dont think landowners should be responsible for the deer, I do however think they should manage their property in a way that does gives a little more than just a few feet of visibility.

Only deer I have ever hit jumped from a corn field into the road. The corn was feet away from the road, way too close in my opinoin. I had no time to react. Pretty sure there were quite a few deer hit on that road that year.

Not sure if there were more accidents there or if someone complained, or what, but that field in the past years has since not been planted quite as close to the highway.

[LETMGROW]

Maybe drivers should wake up and slow down a bit.
I can't be on my property 24-7 to look out for brain-dead drivers who continue to speed past my home. As far as me being responsible, How can anyone even consider this? The neighbors are as much at fault as I am. They refuse to tie up their deer !!!
There is a well known deer crossing 1/2 mile above my home where each year there at least 4 or 5 deer collisions with cars. Worth noting is most of the cars were driven by people from this area!
Especially this time of year the drivers should be aware of the potential. No one can stop all the accidents, but a little common sense would go a long ways. Slow down!!
By the way, deer travel miles. They don't really know much about road travel.Simply moving fields back isn't the answer.

[3whunt]

letmgrow has one heck of an argument... people should slow down this time of year...

[wtnhunt]

[ QUOTE ]
letmgrow has one heck of an argument... people should slow down this time of year...

[/ QUOTE ]

Think when I hit the deer I was referring to in the corn field was in July or August if I remember right, and there was NO way to avoid it no matter how fast I would have been going.

Fact is some deer in the same area have jumped into the sides of vehicles. There should be a certain limit as to how close farmers can plant to public roadways. 2-3 feet from the road is just too close.

[WABS]

The area I'm talking about is a WELL KNOWN problem and yet Locals continue to hit deer there. LOTS of deer! Let me clarify something and that is I'm not asking the land owner to be responsible for the deer -- I'm asking them to be responsible for their actions. If you create an environment that holds a large number of deer, I believe it is your responsibility for managing their numbers. I believe if you hunt your property or allow others to do so, that would be considered a management tool. If I'm not mistaken don't property owners out west have to have some kind of game management plan?

[LETMGROW]

There may be a solution. How about a ban on all privately owned vehicles from May 15 to Dec.31. We would all ride busses to and from wherever we wanted to go. Along with this we would require someone to walk in front of the bus with a foghorn to ward off charging deer. Each rider would be required to take his turn for a half mile or so.
Ridiculous? Yes. But so is the notion I as a landowner and someone who has worked long and hard to improve deer habitat be responsible for damage to a car in a car/deer collision.
I do manage my land well, however how could I ever prove that in a court of law if need be?
As far as farmers being required to plant crops further back, I don't see this as a possibility either. First of all a farmer is usually trying to get every last of tillable property he has to be productive. Just think. If a farmer was to be mandated a 50 ft. set back he would lose over 1 acre of productive land per 1000 ft. of frontage.Would you require him to mow it also so you could see a deer coming out to the roadside?
Let's face it. Car deer collisions are going to happen. It amazes me an animal so smart would ever let it self get hit with a car, but it does and will happen. We as the supposedly smarter ones must make an effort to look out for ourselves. Not blaming somebody else.

[wtnhunt]

Got to say 50 feet is very unrealistic and I would never expect anyone to give up that kind of amount of land. I was thinking more along the lines of 5 or 6 feet, which would not be asking too much, and actually the county maintains the side of the roadways where I am talking about.

[LETMGROW]

Come on, 2 to 3 ft. as opposed to 4to 5 ft.or even 6 ft. What is the difference. If a deer comes blasting out of a field 1 or 2 feet isn't going to make a real difference is it? Our regs. up here are the county maintains a right of way of 66 ft. from the center of the highway. Land purchases are surveyed this way.