|
Post by jackc99 on Dec 20, 2009 18:24:02 GMT -5
ccdeer - the case for properly maintaining the forests is so well documented I don't need to reitierate it here. We hire the game biologists to maintain the health of our deer herd just like we hire the foresters to maintain the health of the state's forests. There was no clear cut in Indiana in the past 4 years greater than 10 acres. That is fact. Most of the areas harvested were less than 10 acres and were select cut not clear cut. There's another thread on here somewhere where another grouse hunter wrote that the small cuts done in Harrison-Crawford were the best thing the state has ever done. For your enjoyment here's the link to the Strategic Forestry Plan: www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/files/fo-Forestry-Strategic-Plan-2008-2013.Final.pdfFrankly watching the grouse harvest plummet from 25,000 in 1981 to less than 600 last season convinced me when the grouse biologist demonstarted the aging of our forests and the lack of management because of the tree huggers in Bloomington. The data are out there. The Ruffed Grouse Society, the DNR and most sportsmen have been clammoring for good forest management for 20 years. We've finally been able to move forward under the current administration. These two articles might open your eyes: www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/OtherSilentSpring.pdfwww.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/PlacingWildlifeAtRisk.pdfJack
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Dec 20, 2009 18:30:13 GMT -5
Also one of my good friends is a lobbyist for Indiana Farm Bureau. There has never been any push by the insurance industry to interfere in the biological and scientific methods used by the DNR to change deer season or bag limits. Watch the entire link of the hearing I provided and he will tell you that. If there are too many deer-vehicle accidents the insurance companies simply raise rates. It's much simpler to do than lobbying the legislature to decrease the deer herd. They just pass the cost on. www.state.in.us/legislative/interim/committee/nrscvideo.htmlAgain I think the deer-vehicle discussion starts around 3 hours and 50 minute mark. Jack
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 20, 2009 18:37:02 GMT -5
Also one of my good friends is a lobbyist for Indiana Farm Bureau. There has never been any push by the insurance industry to interfere in the biological and scientific methods used by the DNR to change deer season or bag limits. Watch the entire link of the hearing I provided and he will tell you that. If there are too many deer-vehicle accidents the insurance companies simply raise rates. It's much simpler to do than lobbying the legislature to decrease the deer herd. They just pass the cost on. www.state.in.us/legislative/interim/committee/nrscvideo.htmlAgain I think the deer-vehicle discussion starts around 3 hours and 50 minute mark. Jack True...That is the insurance part of the Indiana Farm Bureau. The farmer part of the Indiana Farm Bureau would like to see more deer killed, right?
|
|
|
Post by ccdeer1960 on Dec 20, 2009 21:12:28 GMT -5
Geico North Harford H.S
10/29/2008
10:35:00 AM
We are the Insurance Company named Geico. We are important because when people get
into accidents they don’t go and see the deer no they come to us because we are their
safety net when they are in an accident. When there is an overpopulation of deer there
are more accidents which means we have more cases for us to review and more money for
us to give out. Accidents involving deer has doubled over a time period of 1988 to 1996
and when you think about that number should be even higher. During this period of time it
has cost us $10 million due to property damage. One of our solutions is to build a fence all
around the highways to keep deer from straying onto the highway causing problems for
drivers and insurance companies. Another solution would be to introduce wolves back into
the forest because deer destroy the forest but by reintroducing the wolves then we will
help regrow the shrub layer. Also we should make deer season longer so hunters can
decrease the deer population. These ideas would cost a lot of money but in the long run I
believe that it will save money by not causing as many accidents which would lower property
damage. This will allow our customers to feel safer on the road and more comfortable
behind the wheel.Cites:
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Dec 20, 2009 21:17:02 GMT -5
Not sure where this comes from but no insurance company is behind the expansion of deer hunting in Indiana. It is purely a political tool being used by Representative Friend to punish the DNR for stopping his friends who own high fence operations in Indiana. That is the only reason we are even having this discussion.
Jack
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 20, 2009 21:32:37 GMT -5
Geico North Harford H.S 10/29/2008 10:35:00 AM We are the Insurance Company named Geico. We are important because when people get into accidents they don’t go and see the deer no they come to us because we are their safety net when they are in an accident. When there is an overpopulation of deer there are more accidents which means we have more cases for us to review and more money for us to give out. Accidents involving deer has doubled over a time period of 1988 to 1996 and when you think about that number should be even higher. During this period of time it has cost us $10 million due to property damage. One of our solutions is to build a fence all around the highways to keep deer from straying onto the highway causing problems for drivers and insurance companies. Another solution would be to introduce wolves back into the forest because deer destroy the forest but by reintroducing the wolves then we will help regrow the shrub layer. Also we should make deer season longer so hunters can decrease the deer population. These ideas would cost a lot of money but in the long run I believe that it will save money by not causing as many accidents which would lower property damage. This will allow our customers to feel safer on the road and more comfortable behind the wheel.Cites: You have any documentation to verify this letter? Seems very fishy to me. It doesn't even have a signature or name of the author, or any of GEICO's contact information. I'd say you have been fooled, or are trying to fool us! I don't believe it for a second!
|
|
|
Post by ccdeer1960 on Dec 20, 2009 22:38:02 GMT -5
Something I read on a forum about manageing the deer herd.I saved it copy and pasted it.True or not? I didnt write it so could be anybody posing to be somebody their not. I do know that Indiana rebuilt the fences on State Property along I64 this year to help detour deer from crossing the interstate.Had to spend stimulus money on something. Or maybe their gonna put some cows in the forest,Who knows.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 20, 2009 22:49:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Dec 21, 2009 9:18:51 GMT -5
I do know that Indiana rebuilt the fences on State Property along I64 this year to help detour deer from crossing the interstate.Had to spend stimulus money on something. They may have rebuilt those fences but unless they're 8-10 feet tall they won't stop the deer from crossing. Jack
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Dec 21, 2009 9:23:08 GMT -5
One other comment: Check the Illinois solution to the problem. They have formed a Deer Population Task Force overloaded with senators and representatives from their legislature and just 2 members from the DNR. While some of their solutions are intriguing I don't think we want their overall management plan here. dnr.state.il.us/ORC/Deer%20Task%20Force/Deer_Task_Force.htmlJack
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Dec 21, 2009 9:29:59 GMT -5
LOL.. I read that too. First - consider the source of that statement. He and his running buddy are well known for using some sort of scare tactics to advance their agendas. Is that part of Rep. Friend's thinking? Who knows, surely not the poster. I find it somewhat funny in that these two say that they want the IDNR to manage the deer herd, but are now telling others to contact their local legislators if they don't like the bonus permit numbers in their county. ? Which is it? I truly believe that we are looking at longer seasons regardless of what Rep. Friend or the poster wants. Racktracker - the reason for the high fence references is that Friend's district includes the Bellar high fence op, among others, and Bellar and other deer farms have been major contributors to Friend's campaign funding. Unless Jack knows of a recent change, last I knew, the statement about the high fence "hunts" is correct, they can only occur during the time periods set for regular Indiana deer seasons, so extending the seasons could definitely be among Friend's motivations for pushing this legislation, as it would definitely benefit his high fence contributors. Given that Friend has been pushing pro-high fence legislation every year for the past 10 or more years, do you really think this bill isn't motivated by similar interests? At the House committee hearing on his bill last year, there was no evidence actually submitted by any insurance company in support of this concept - only Friend's assertion of deer/vehicle stats being a reason. Deals on this thing are being cut behind closed doors, and the politicos will do what they want regardless of input from IDNR or any hunting groups, which is why having the legislature get into the business of setting hunting seasons is such a bad idea in the first place... Once politics comes into play, all bets are off and prudent deer management is no longer the issue...
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Dec 21, 2009 10:05:55 GMT -5
LOL.. I read that too. First - consider the source of that statement. He and his running buddy are well known for using some sort of scare tactics to advance their agendas. Is that part of Rep. Friend's thinking? Who knows, surely not the poster. I find it somewhat funny in that these two say that they want the IDNR to manage the deer herd, but are now telling others to contact their local legislators if they don't like the bonus permit numbers in their county. ? Which is it? I truly believe that we are looking at longer seasons regardless of what Rep. Friend or the poster wants. Racktracker - the reason for the high fence references is that Friend's district includes the Bellar high fence op, among others, and Bellar and other deer farms have been major contributors to Friend's campaign funding. Unless Jack knows of a recent change, last I knew, the statement about the high fence "hunts" is correct, they can only occur during the time periods set for regular Indiana deer seasons, so extending the seasons could definitely be among Friend's motivations for pushing this legislation, as it would definitely benefit his high fence contributors. Given that Friend has been pushing pro-high fence legislation every year for the past 10 or more years, do you really think this bill isn't motivated by similar interests? At the House committee hearing on his bill last year, there was no evidence actually submitted by any insurance company in support of this concept - only Friend's assertion of deer/vehicle stats being a reason. Deals on this thing are being cut behind closed doors, and the politicos will do what they want regardless of input from IDNR or any hunting groups, which is why having the legislature get into the business of setting hunting seasons is such a bad idea in the first place... Once politics comes into play, all bets are off and prudent deer management is no longer the issue... JKD, No doubt that Rep. Friend has done what you have said in the past but the posters try to put that as the only reason Rep. Friend is doing what he is doing. No, the insurance companies have never said squat (they don't care as rates will be raised to compensate) and Rep. Friend did not mention that at all anywhere in his bill that I am aware of. His stated concern was for his constituents safety. Is that cover for his friendship to the deer farmers? Who knows, but certainly not the posters or you. There is much more to deer/vehicle accidents than insurance or the raising of rates. The inconvenience of losing one's vehicle for the repair time AND more importantly human injuries and deaths from these accidents. Do I think Rep. Friend is on the right track and should the legislature be involved in setting deer seasons and bag limits. I give that a resounding NO! However, I see from a couple of posters that they think it is OK to go the legislative route IF it benefits their agenda. Paraphrasing – “Tired of the DNR’s too liberal of an issuance of bonus permits in your county? Go talk to you legislators”. Please explain to me why it is not OK for Rep. Friend to introduce a bill to cut down on the herd and in the meantime it is OK for hunters to contact their legislators to get "the bonus tag pressure limited in the future". We can not have it both ways. I say get the legislature out of deer management completely even if we think it will benefit us.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 21, 2009 10:16:55 GMT -5
One other comment: Check the Illinois solution to the problem. They have formed a Deer Population Task Force overloaded with senators and representatives from their legislature and just 2 members from the DNR. While some of their solutions are intriguing I don't think we want their overall management plan here. dnr.state.il.us/ORC/Deer%20Task%20Force/Deer_Task_Force.htmlJack Illinois's deer bubble is about to pop.
|
|
|
Post by raporter on Dec 21, 2009 11:30:24 GMT -5
Actually, no. I'm calling ALL tree huggers wackos. It's not just restricted to Blommington although they seem to be the most organized. Jack I agree on that one Jack. Just picking on Bloomington because they are so organized and vocal. Well and maybe just a little wackier than most. My feeling on Bloomington go way back to the time I fell from my tree stand and had to go to the hospital in Bloomington. While laying there feeling like I was dieing the wacky nurse said "Now you know how those deer feel".
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 21, 2009 12:07:32 GMT -5
Ya, because a lot of people drop deer out of their treestands! What a dolt!
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Dec 21, 2009 12:32:11 GMT -5
Rack - you and I are in agreement on the limited role of the legislature.... my comments were only about possible motivations for Friend... I wasn't and am not supporting the comments made by another about lobbying for lowered bonus tags, nor trying to explain any perceived double standard there....
I am saying, have said, will continue to say... the legislature needs to STAY OUT of all this completely, and leave IDNR to do it's job... AND that any proposals for change in bag limits, regs, etc., should go through the proper channels at IDNR and the NRC...
|
|
|
Post by featherduster on Jan 11, 2010 19:27:31 GMT -5
Why would the Insurance industry worry and or spend $ to influence the state law makers to reduce the deer population. They increase our premiums to cover their losses then when we get up set and we complain to our state reps.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 11, 2010 19:31:33 GMT -5
Why would the Insurance industry worry and or spend $ to influence the state law makers to reduce the deer population. They increase our premiums to cover their losses then when we get up set and we complain to our state reps. Yep.. they just pass it on to all clients..The insurance companies do not absorb the costs of deer an vehicle crashes.
|
|