|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 17:29:09 GMT -5
Post by johnc911 on Feb 9, 2009 17:29:09 GMT -5
How many year period? did i miss that? Hancock county did not have 2600 crashes in one year
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 19:58:46 GMT -5
Post by jackc99 on Feb 9, 2009 19:58:46 GMT -5
2007 data only as I recall
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 20:31:04 GMT -5
Post by johnc911 on Feb 9, 2009 20:31:04 GMT -5
Does not seem right. That would average nearly 8 a day lol. No way thats right.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 20:48:10 GMT -5
Post by huxbux on Feb 9, 2009 20:48:10 GMT -5
I agree that something doesn't seem right with those numbers. That would make almost one out of every three auto accidents in Steuben county a collision with a deer? That's pretty hard to believe.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 21:31:58 GMT -5
Post by johnc911 on Feb 9, 2009 21:31:58 GMT -5
I would say its over a few year period. There is no way there is that many car deer collisions in our county. I have my police scanner by my side 24/7
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 23:10:20 GMT -5
Post by greyghosthntr on Feb 9, 2009 23:10:20 GMT -5
I was asked to post on this site to help clear up some information that I posted on the Hoosier Hunting site. The information that I posted is from the Indiana State Police and it is collisions by deer involvement, 1/1/2007 - 9/30/2008. The first number is the total accidents in that county, the second number is the total accidents that involved deer and the last number is the percentage involving deer. The way the bill was written is that it will affect the top 30 counties of deer/vehicle collisions. In other words the chart that I posted on Hoosier Hunting is in order of the highest number of deer/vehicle collisions to the lowest. Kosciusko county had 997 deer collisions in that time frame, Stueben had 860, Allen had 830, etc. As you can see there is a pretty big difference from Kosciusko County at #1 to Miami County at # 30. The bill is not based on the percentage of deer related accidents, only the total number of deer-vehicle collisions in each individual county. I hope that this clears up any questions that any of you may have had. I apologize, I rarely visit this site but I am a regular on Hoosier Hunting.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 10, 2009 8:46:09 GMT -5
Post by greyghosthntr on Feb 10, 2009 8:46:09 GMT -5
I forgot to mention that the official report for the year of 2008 should be out in a few weeks and I will post this information on this site when I get it. That is unless someone else beats me to it.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 10, 2009 9:06:32 GMT -5
Post by jackc99 on Feb 10, 2009 9:06:32 GMT -5
Thanks, GGH.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 10, 2009 9:36:24 GMT -5
Post by greyghosthntr on Feb 10, 2009 9:36:24 GMT -5
You are welcome jackc99!
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 10, 2009 10:27:56 GMT -5
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 10, 2009 10:27:56 GMT -5
greyghosthntr,
Thank you sir, for clearing up where the numbers came from and for what time period..
All,
First off let me state I am flat against any politician setting any game bag limits. That is what we hire our wildlife biologists for.
Second, the deer biologist already factors in the number of auto/deer collisions in the counties to establish the number of bonus antlerless permits. If there is another multiplier introduced, as wanted by the politician, then I am sure that the biologist will take that into account when crunching his numbers. IOW - the politician says “double the bonus tag numbers” and the deer biologist can say," OK, the first number will be halved."
I do not like to see our game management become a ping-pong ball.
Third, even if this bill is passed the politician is using the wrong criteria. The total number of deer related traffic accidents is a function of three things:
1) The number of deer in a county
2) The number of motorists in a county or driving through a county (think interstate)
3) More importantly the number of miles driven per year in a county.
The total number of auto accidents in a county gives us somewhat of a clue as to how many motorists and miles driven.
The total number of deer killed can mean a large quantity of deer OR it could mean a smaller herd with a lot of motorists driving lots of miles thus increasing the chance of interaction with a deer.
Since the total number of accidents is more representative of the number of motorists/miles driven the percentage of deer/auto accidents is way more credible of a number to be used to determine IF an increase in bonus permits is warranted.
An example is Switzerland county. They only had 81 deer/auto accidents in this time period. That is out of 264 total accidents. The percentage of deer/auto accidents is the second highest in the state. We also know that Switzerland County is sparsly populated and not a whole lot of major highways going through it. IOW – If you have an auto accident in Switzerland county the chances are about 1 in 3 it will be with a deer. That is called a “frequency rate.”
We all can read the harvest reports and we know that Switzerland county is right there in the top two or three in deer kill EVERY year. But, on this list Switzerland county would be number 86 on the list of counties that would get their quota doubled.
Mr. Friend’s bill doesn’t make sense in more ways that one.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 10, 2009 12:27:54 GMT -5
Post by johnc911 on Feb 10, 2009 12:27:54 GMT -5
Thanks GG
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 10, 2009 13:32:13 GMT -5
Post by indianahick on Feb 10, 2009 13:32:13 GMT -5
If Vigo county is 10th it wont matter very much what kind of limit they pass. There are huge wooded areas around, US 40, SR 46, SR 42, SR 159 that are private and non huntable and will stay that way. The only place it will hurt is where you can get hunter access and not all of them have recovered from the last round of EHD.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 10, 2009 16:41:18 GMT -5
Post by bschwein on Feb 10, 2009 16:41:18 GMT -5
And another thing. Increasing bag limits does not mean hunters will necessarily shoot more total deer. I didn't shoot all the deer I could have last season. If they reduced the price of tags along with the increased limits that may have a bigger influence on total deer shot. Ding, Ding, Ding, we have at least one winner. When I first read this, I said the exact same thing. I don't have a L.L, therefore I don't kill my limits. In fact, If i had a L.L, I could, and would kill alot more deer. You can quadruple the deer bag limits, but that doesn't mean people will kill that many. In fact I think I'll start a poll on here and see what the majority on here say.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 10, 2009 17:09:24 GMT -5
Post by schall53 on Feb 10, 2009 17:09:24 GMT -5
Well stated Woody
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 12, 2009 12:56:55 GMT -5
Post by racktracker on Feb 12, 2009 12:56:55 GMT -5
greyghosthntr, Thank you sir, for clearing up where the numbers came from and for what time period.. All, First off let me state I am flat against any politician setting any game bag limits. That is what we hire our wildlife biologists for. Second, the deer biologist already factors in the number of auto/deer collisions in the counties to establish the number of bonus antlerless permits. If there is another multiplier introduced, as wanted by the politician, then I am sure that the biologist will take that into account when crunching his numbers. IOW - the politician says “double the bonus tag numbers” and the deer biologist can say," OK, the first number will be halved." I do not like to see our game management become a ping-pong ball. Third, even if this bill is passed the politician is using the wrong criteria. The total number of deer related traffic accidents is a function of three things: 1) The number of deer in a county 2) The number of motorists in a county or driving through a county (think interstate) 3) More importantly the number of miles driven per year in a county. The total number of auto accidents in a county gives us somewhat of a clue as to how many motorists and miles driven. The total number of deer killed can mean a large quantity of deer OR it could mean a smaller herd with a lot of motorists driving lots of miles thus increasing the chance of interaction with a deer. Since the total number of accidents is more representative of the number of motorists/miles driven the percentage of deer/auto accidents is way more credible of a number to be used to determine IF an increase in bonus permits is warranted. An example is Switzerland county. They only had 81 deer/auto accidents in this time period. That is out of 264 total accidents. The percentage of deer/auto accidents is the second highest in the state. We also know that Switzerland County is sparsly populated and not a whole lot of major highways going through it. IOW – If you have an auto accident in Switzerland county the chances are about 1 in 3 it will be with a deer. That is called a “frequency rate.” We all can read the harvest reports and we know that Switzerland county is right there in the top two or three in deer kill EVERY year. But, on this list Switzerland county would be number 86 on the list of counties that would get their quota doubled. Mr. Friend’s bill doesn’t make sense in more ways that one. I agree 100%. Politicans should not set game bag limits in any way. If (God forbid) it does pass then the numbers should be by percentage of traffic accidents, not number of deer killed. That is the only true way to determining the over population of a county by traffic accidents involving deer. The Switzerland county numbers that you referenced proves that.
|
|