OT - Wife hit a deer while driving her car.

[Hector]

Saturday about dusk, DW was driving her Honda CR-V and a deer appeared from nowhere. She hit it at about 35 mph without touching the brakes. The doe was killed instantly, and in the process it did $6300 damage to the car. The car was taken by truck to the repair shop where it will take 2 - 3 weeks to repair. The good news is that DW wasn't injured.

 

This was the third deer collision we have had in the past 13 years. The other two were me driving. One was in a demo car from a Subaru dealer ($2800 damage), the other was in a rental Toyota Prius ($400 damage). That type of damage is covered under the vehicles comprehensive coverage. In both my cases I carried zero deductible comprehesive so those didn't cost me anything. DW will have to pay the $250 deductible for the latest deer incident.

 

November is the worst month for car-deer collisions, and the worst time of day is at dusk. So statistically DW's incident was at the prime time for deer collisions. About three years ago a niece of ours was in a crash where a car coming from the opposite direction hit a deer and then swerved across the center line and hit the niece's car head-on. She was able to walk away from that one but needed chiropractor care for six months (she was stupidly not wearing a seat belt!).

 

So anyway, deer on roadways are a real hazard this time of year. It is best to minimize travel on rural roads where deer are likely to be, especially in the late-afternoon and early-evening hours. It's bad news to hit a deer.

[Maralynn]

Thanks for the reminder, Hector. I'm glad your wife wasn't hurt in the accident.

 

This past year my boss hit a deer, or rather the deer hit her. It ran right into the side of her Navigator, and left a 4" dent in the door. And it happened at 10 am! Just about a year ago, her husband hit a deer on his way to work and did $12,000 to his new car. Ouch.

[Meg's mum]

I've learned that it is wise to drop any vestige of a cavalier 'wind in your hair' attitude on any road near woods/forest/edge farmland with limited visibility, but not just in deer season.

 

In evidence I offer, One dead quarter horse on a country road in the Spring and a totaled Benz, two dead deer on thruways in the Fall and two totaled Toyotas, and an injured bull elk in the dead of Winter on an urban driveway with a dented truck in our family .

 

I am so glad that your wife is alright. Still there is always that residual nausea at having been a part of the untimely death of something so vigorously alive.

[smileyzookie]

Being from Missouri, in the country, I've hit a few deer, luckily it was just taps and nothign major. Im SO glad your wife is ok. Deer are really dangerous. When I was a 911 dispatcher, one of our state patrol officers was rushing to another car accident and hit a deer. The deer went through the windshield. The officer was super tall, near 7 feet so the front seat had been adjusted clear back, and even further back because it was a special seat put in for him. If not, he would have died instantly. Deer are nothign to mess with.

 

Im so glad your wife is ok, that in itself is a blessing.

[nancy]

Sorry, the deer are not dangerous. They are not attacking cars suicidally.

 

The problem is that we have removed all possible preditors so that hunters have an excuse to shoot what they don't eat. Honest, I know a bunch who keep trying to give me venison.

 

And we continued to expand our communities into the last bits of woods. I sure get a kick out of developers who bulldoze a forest, put in 5+ houses per acre, and call the place Deer Forest or Woodland Arbor.

 

The poor deer have no place to go.

[Lunar]

Yes indeed, poor deer. But cripes, I'm so glad your wife is okay, man... that's a lot of damage. Thank goodness it wasn't something bigger. (Not that there would be anything bigger around here.)

[sandra s.]

Yikes, that must be a shock!

 

I'm glad she's okay physically, but I hope the rest of her is okay too...the only time I ever killed a large animal - a wild hog - I was anything but okay afterwards.

In fact the thought of it still makes me cry even though it was years ago. Not because I hit it - it ran across the road so suddenly that I couldn't have avoided it in any way, but because it wasn't dead immediately. We ended up getting a hunter to shoot it.

There were hunters in the forest going after the hogs, which is why it blindly ran across the road...

After the collision, I got out of the car to see what had happened to the hog, and while I was standing there looking down on the hog in the ditch, it came out of its initial shock and saw me. It's muscles snapped taut but it couldn't get up. It and its family had been chased across the woods for hours by humans, and now it realised that one of them - a human - was standing almost close enough to touch...and it couldn't get away. I knew its fear like it was my own but I couldn't think of any way to make myself less threatening so I walked away and left it to the hunters. So it died with three big men staring down at it...

 

So I agree with Nancy...poor, poor deer! I'm not blaming the drivers in these accidents, I know no one does it on purpose, and most people do feel bad about it, but I wish more people would think of the deer before thinking of the car. Cars can be repaired .

[Barb Scott]

So I agree with Nancy...poor, poor deer! I'm not blaming the drivers in these accidents, I know no one does it on purpose, and most people do feel bad about it, but I wish more people would think of the deer before thinking of the car.

 

How can you even think of blaming the drivers? I'm from West MI where deer are ever increasing in population, even in the city areas where you wouldn't expect to see them. They pop out on the highways and there's no way to avoid hitting them. Our highway department is posting signs that say DON'T SWERVE FOR DEER... in order to decrease damage to vehicles and humans. If it weren't for hunters (and I'm not one), there would be even more of the deer dying as roadkill, not to mention starvation in winter months.

Barb Scott

[Malvie]

Originally posted by nancy:

Sorry, the deer are not dangerous. They are not attacking cars suicidally.

 

The problem is that we have removed all possible preditors so that hunters have an excuse to shoot what they don't eat. Honest, I know a bunch who keep trying to give me venison.

 

And we continued to expand our communities into the last bits of woods. I sure get a kick out of developers who bulldoze a forest, put in 5+ houses per acre, and call the place Deer Forest or Woodland Arbor.

 

The poor deer have no place to go.

I'm not a hunter, but here, the deer are overpopulated. They've been protected (good) and have bred and bred and bred (bad). Arkansas really isn't growing much, and there's not much "encroachment" on their habitat---there are just too many deer for the available food supply. Some of them are the size of large dogs. They are foraging further and further for food, and are doing so on the highways now, at dusk.

 

It's a real problem.

[Bill Fosher]

Whitetailed deer are generally smaller in the South than the north. The larger animals are better suited to the colder climates -- less surface are per body mass, so they retain their body heat better and can survive on less food per pound of body weight than smaller deer.

 

Down south, smaller deer have an advantage because they can get by on less food in absolute terms, so they don't usually need to forage as far, leaving them less exposed to predation (and to crossing highways). They are also better able to survive in situations where food is scarce down south because they don't have to deal with the extreme cold that we get up here.

 

The real trophy bucks come out of the White Mountains of New Hampshire and northward into northern Maine, Quebec, and New Brunswick. Deer weighing 200 pounds field dressed are not out of the question. In my part o the state, a 150-lb buck has a good chance of getting the hunter's picture up on the General Store wall.

 

New Hampshire's hunter population is declining, and I believe that's the case in all the Northeastern states. There are places in Massachusetts where deer are really a problem because of lack of predation and hunting.

[sandra s.]

Originally posted by Barb Scott:

How can you even think of blaming the drivers?

I was unsure as to whether part of my post sounded like I did blame Hectors wife, and wanted to make it clear that I do not. Accidents happen to all of us. But it is still an accident, and not an attack by an evil car-killing deer .

 

And yes, I will try to swerve for deer and toads and anybody else, and I would much sooner damage a vehicle than to kill a deer.

I guess it depends on how highly we value a non-human life.

Some people here have bumper stickers saying "I brake for animals". Maybe I should get one of those....

[Kyrasmom]

I agree that there are too many dear in many areas, and at dusk I'm always very careful because I know they're out foraging in my area. I don't want a deer on my conscience nor do I want to damage my car...what I don't understand is that people who KNOW that the deer are out, continue to drive at the same speeds without really caring. Deer get hit all the time, as do other critters, and cars rarely even pull over or slow down. Deer overpopulation is a problem but so are drivers who think that being behind the wheel gives them the right of way all the time.

 

I won't swerve and put myself and others in danger should one jump out but I do drive slow enough that all I really need to do is tap the brakes.

Maria.

[Hector]

Since the accident last Saturday in which DW?s car hit a deer we have both modified our driving pattern. During the late afternoon and evening hours we take a route home that stays off the rural two-lane roads (of the type where the accident occurred) and we drive a route that involves an Interstate highway and a major four-lane road. The latter route is far less likely to have deer on the roadway, although that can still happen. The deer-safe route is about 25 miles to our daughter?s house, whereas the deer-risky route is only 12 miles. The extra driving is worth it if we don?t hit any deer.

 

The two-lane deer-risky roads in our area have a speed limit of 40 mph. But EVERYBODY drives them at 50 mph all the time, and there is absolutely no law enforcement of the speed limit. But even at the legal speed of 40 mph it would be very difficult to avoid a deer that suddenly enters the highway ahead of one?s car. A safe speed would be more like 25 mph. But the ?road rage? factor of other drivers would be extreme if they were slowed to 25 mph when they are accustomed to driving at 50 mph. That would simply not be an acceptable speed to drive on the local two-lane roads.

 

Of course there are no natural predators (cougars) here to keep the deer population in check. And the number of hunters is obviously not controlling the deer numbers. So the problem of cars hitting deer in this area seems to defy any simple solution. The best idea that we can come up with is to stay off the two-lane roads during high-risk time periods. As I already mentioned that usually means a doubling of the miles driven. That?s what we are currently doing for the next month. But that is not a solution open to everyone.

 

I don?t see any way to really solve the deer-car accident problem.

[Guest pax]

Have you tried those deer whistle things that attach to the outside of your car? The theory is the movement of the car over the whistle creates a sound animals can hear and then avoid.

 

I hit a deer once when I was a kid and it was awful.

 

Either the whistles work or I've been lucky.

 

 

 

Sorry about the accident. : (

[jrid]

Do coyotes eat deer?

[Tammy525]

I have no choice but to travel on deer populated rural roads, there are deer on the roadside almost every trip I take. I am sure the houses along those roads hate this, but I honk my horn every time I spot any deer. They run from the car. I don't know if they can learn anything like a dog would, but I want them to learn my car is scary and loud. I am ALWAYS on the lookout for deer.

 

My complaint is all the folks out here who have realistic looking deer STATUES in their yard. When you are constantly on the lookout for deer, these can be very distracting.

 

Sandra, my only problem with swerving for animals is that might put people in danger. Swerving with just you in the car and no other cars, playing children, etc., then YES, swerve for the animal. But always be aware of your environment. There isn't a mother in the world who could understand you swerving to avoid a squirrel and hurting her child instead.

[sandra s.]

Sure, I assumed being aware of one's environment didn't need mentioning when you're driving a car! There's any number of situation where you can't avoid hitting an animal, the most simple being that it jumps into the road right in front of you. That's why I said I know the drivers aren't to blame.

 

I just really disagree with the attitude that the deer are a "problem" and we are the victims when we mow them down on the roads. I could write a tome about why I disagree with that, because it touches a massive pet peeve of mine, but I want to do other things this weekend too, so I'll just say I disagree .

[Barb Scott]

This weekend there were two fatal accidents within 50 miles of me caused by drivers swerving to avoid deer! A local state campground is holding at least 3 two day hunts (does only) because the deer are eating the local plants, causing problems with other wildlife,who need the plants to exist!

In West MI, deer are a real problem! Not drivers!

Barb S

[sandra s.]

because the deer are eating the local plants, causing problems with other wildlife,who need the plants to exist!

It's not nature who's afraid of the changes, it's us. The more I study natural history, the less I understand our attempts to freeze the world in the current status quo, especially by killing. You know, "let's kill all the black sqirrels because they are pushing into the red squirrels' habitat". Who says a red squirrel's life is worth more? Us, obviously. The masters of the universe? Not in my world.

A lot of very good and kind people feel the other way, though. I have to agree to disagree with them.

[juliepoudrier]

Originally posted by sandra s.:

It's not nature who's afraid of the changes, it's us. The more I study natural history, the less I understand our attempts to freeze the world in the current status quo, especially by killing. You know, "let's kill all the black sqirrels because they are pushing into the red squirrels' habitat". Who says a red squirrel's life is worth more? Us, obviously. The masters of the universe? Not in my world.

A lot of very good and kind people feel the other way, though. I have to agree to disagree with them.

Sandra,

Although your argument is logical in a world where natural selection takes place freely (i.e., a world without humans), the "elephant in the room" is humans and human alteration of the environment. So to take your example, perhaps the black squirrel wouldn't have invaded the red squirrel's territory if humans hadn't altered habitats in the first place, forcing the black squirrel out of its own territory or forcing the two species to compete for the same resources. My point is that it's quite difficult to separate out the causes and effects of human intervention in wildlife habitats. Continuing with your example, it's entirely possible that barring any human existence/external manipulation of the environment black squirrels would have ultimately caused the extinction of red squirrels, but because humans likely had a hand in the changes that brought about the black squirrels' overtaking of red squirrel territory, many humans then think they should/must fix the mess they caused (directly or indirectly) in the first place. It's one of those "if a tree falls in the forest" questions. If no humans ever existed, would the black squirrel outcompete and cause the extinction of the red squirrel? We can't answer that.

 

Those species that are able to adapt to a close coexistence with humans (deer, coyotes, raccoons, possums, starlings, house sparrows, for example, here in the US) will increase in numbers as we steadily encroach on habitats and force other competitor species out.

 

Deer are doing what deer do naturally at this time of year--looking for mates and food. It's not their fault that they have managed to coexist closely with humans or that humans have chopped up their habitats and criss-crossed what's left with roads and traffic, making deer-car encounters inevitable.

 

As the natural predators of deer haven't been able to adapt (or have been hunted to extinction) to a human-filled world (and humans have planted lots of tasty ornamental vegatation that deer can eat), deer populations have exploded. They do need to be culled, as many local habitats can't support the numbers of deer (or other "pest" wildlife) that currently exist. But it's really not the deer's fault that this situation exists.

 

It's a real shame that people or animals lose their lives as a result of collisions on the highways, but ultimately, IMO the blame really must be placed at the feet of humans, who regularly try to manipulate the environment and the animal populations therein, often without any forethought about the future implications of their actions of today.

 

Now I'll step off my soapbox.

 

J.

[sandra s.]

Julie, I agree with everything you wrote, and I do understand that those trying to "fix the mess" are doing so out of a sense of guilt or responsibility.

 

But I feel uncomfortable about their solutions sometimes. Once the change is done, it's done. Afterwards, does it really matter whether the "intruding" species came over an ice age land bridge, on the wind, or on a human ship?

Considering this is just a tiny moment in between bigger changes, how far should we really go to try to keep things "as they are"?

And isn't human interference a natural factor as well, considering that we are (IMO) just another species of mammals, only an extremely dangerous one?

There's so much uncertainity. I would never go around with a gun trying to fix this mess (without even knowing if it really needs fixing) by killing lots and lots of animals.

 

This is getting sort of OT, sorry. Basically, as far as the deer issue is concerned, I agree with Julie all the way. *applauds in front of the soapbox*

[Hector]

RE: Deer whistles on cars. I spoke to the manager of the collision center where our car is being repaired and asked him about deer whistles. He said "We repair a lot of vehicles that hit deer AND had deer whistles on them." He told me about an incident where he almost hit a deer and he had whistles mounted on his vehicle. So his message was that deer whistles are no guarantee that you won't hit a deer.

 

RE: Controlling the deer population. Deer will reproduce and multiply their numbers until some factor comes into play that stabilizes the size of the deer population. Before humans took over the landscape, nature's control for deer was the cougar. But humans were/are unwilling to coexist with a population of cougars. The cougar is a carnivore and a hunter and they will take whatever prey is available. People would get really upset if cougars were killing their sheep and livestock, or their dogs and cats, or (heaven forbid) their children. So cougars have been hunted to extinction in areas where humans live. In areas like northern Maryland there is plenty for deer to eat so their numbers will not be controlled by the food supply. The only means left to keep the deer population in check is hunting or traffic kills. Given a choice between those two, I prefer hunting.

 

Unfortunately, there are not enough deer hunters in this area to do an adequate job of keeping the deer population down. There are so many people living around here that hunters are severely restricted as to where they can hunt.

 

RE: the bigger problem of humans invading the deer's natural habitat. I consider myself to be an "environmentalist". My own opinion is that the planet Earth's environment is suffering from an over-abundance of humans. The current population is about 6.4 billion, with the forecast being that the human population will reach 20 billion within this century.

 

The solution to this is "human population control" but who is advocating that? Religions are against any such control.

 

Sad to say, there are no answers.

[Guest pax]

I was the one who suggested deer whistles as a possibility.

 

I was hoping it might be a nice quick fix, sorry if I gave you a bum steer.

 

I hope you find a solution that keeps y'all safe.

 

Here's one rule of thumb I use..but like the deer whistles, ymmv...there's never just ONE of them. When one crosses the road in front of you, wait till the rest of them go, too.

 

Cheers!

[Pipedream Farm]

Actually humans are creating more deer habitat. They live on the edges of forests and we're creating more habitat for them in the form of "greenways".

 

White-tailed deer typically have a home range of 2-3 square miles, depending on the quality of the habitat (DeGraaf & Rudis, 1983). Preferred habitat consists of forest edges, swamp borders, and areas interspersed with fields and woodland openings.

 

Source: http://www.bnl.gov/esd/wildlife/deer.htm

The increase in the number of deer in the United States is so great that many people, especially wildlife professionals, are trying to figure out what to do about them. In 1997, the Wildlife Society, a professional association of wildlife biologists, devoted a special 600-page issue of its Bulletin to "deer overabundance." Today's deer population in the United States may be as high as 25 million, says Richard Nelson, writing in Sports Afield.

 

James Dunn, a geologist who has studied wildlife in New York State, believes suburban habitat fosters deer more than forests do. Dunn cites statistics on the harvest of buck deer reported by the New York State government. Since 1970 the deer population has multiplied 7.1 times in suburban areas (an increase of 610 percent), but only 3.4 times (an increase of 240 percent) in the state overall.

 

Dunn explains the forests have been allowed to regrow without logging or burning, so they lack the "edge" that allows sunlight in and encourages vegetation suitable for deer. In his view, that explains why counties with big cities (and therefore with suburbs) have seen a greater increase in deer populations than have the isolated, forested rural counties.

 

Supporting that point, Andrew Revkin quotes a wildlife biologist at the National Zoo in Washington, DC. "Deer are an edge species," he says, "and the world is one big edge now."

 

Source: Suburban Development Benefits Wildlife

Mark

[Hector]

Mark --

 

Very interesting information. That makes perfect sense, namely that deer don't like to stay in the middle of dense forests, but rather they do a lot better on the edge of forests. The "edge" describes the county in which we live, so now I better understand the deer population problem here.

 

Hector