• Deer Vehicle accidents the past 8 years.. Shocking

    OH Deer-Vehicle Accidents Statistics
    Source: Ohio Insurance Institute
    County 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Percent Change 2002 - 2008 Increase / Decrease
    Adams 188 164 161 233 259 251 287 332 323 -42% Decrease
    Allen 454 403 402 441 431 377 376 405 404 12% Increase
    Ashland 321 336 316 364 443 442 473 488 432 -26% Decrease
    Ashtabula 220 267 277 285 405 376 464 583 554 -60% Decrease
    Athens 188 240 190 181 188 230 280 388 413 -54% Decrease
    Auglaize 231 262 235 275 252 238 259 266 238 -3% Decrease
    Belmont 152 158 157 188 113 126 149 185 160 -5% Decrease
    Brown 239 255 219 254 313 301 351 359 382 -37% Decrease
    Butler 398 419 447 456 504 507 483 498 484 -18% Decrease
    Carroll 44 47 65 52 88 90 214 279 245 -82% Decrease
    Champaign 145 134 145 150 149 120 98 56 79 84% Increase
    Clark 209 198 150 207 191 185 191 218 265 -21% Decrease
    Clermont 472 521 473 451 470 442 537 541 561 -16% Decrease
    Clinton 232 269 241 272 273 283 290 290 295 -21% Decrease
    Columbiana 319 341 273 312 405 334 372 447 381 -16% Decrease
    Coshocton 41 96 70 258 271 282 455 577 612 -93% Decrease
    Crawford 247 277 230 282 293 290 268 286 238 4% Increase
    Cuyahoga 414 419 459 400 473 478 485 525 476 -13% Decrease
    Darke 284 277 251 266 280 261 267 272 224 27% Increase
    Defiance 404 440 434 428 399 298 378 354 335 21% Increase
    Delaware 443 484 473 540 515 568 560 577 547 -19% Decrease
    Erie 294 317 287 326 329 302 268 318 219 34% Increase
    Fairfield 194 309 295 309 330 387 485 505 493 -61% Decrease
    Fayette 169 152 121 179 156 138 195 223 195 -13% Decrease
    Franklin 405 475 499 494 505 533 515 511 489 -17% Decrease
    Fulton 231 305 308 265 304 219 234 190 181 28% Increase
    Gallia 87 156 112 137 193 232 206 261 361 -76% Decrease
    Geauga 269 307 324 370 406 405 374 443 425 -37% Decrease
    Greene 327 336 306 292 386 366 391 445 493 -34% Decrease
    Guernsey 282 265 267 316 340 336 410 435 475 -41% Decrease
    Hamilton 627 614 592 705 717 759 714 791 731 -14% Decrease
    Hancock 405 428 396 397 463 456 460 500 373 9% Increase
    Hardin 250 124 193 256 230 223 262 275 199 26% Increase
    Harrison 49 51 64 69 77 146 191 219 220 -78% Decrease
    Henry 198 233 212 224 211 185 201 186 170 16% Increase
    Highland 196 232 323 396 414 311 376 394 399 -51% Decrease
    Hocking 72 97 77 68 63 94 112 127 146 -51% Decrease
    Holmes 117 176 273 284 349 374 416 383 392 -70% Decrease
    Huron 293 289 245 276 337 292 302 359 320 -8% Decrease
    Jackson 193 215 213 297 212 253 305 318 376 -49% Decrease
    Jefferson 111 127 117 147 193 237 238 253 270 -59% Decrease
    Knox 361 441 515 619 602 590 576 612 632 -43% Decrease
    Lake 222 278 258 226 273 283 308 341 345 -36% Decrease
    Lawrence 73 113 95 137 108 111 101 135 202 -64% Decrease
    Licking 239 249 286 306 343 345 364 324 338 -29% Decrease
    Logan 373 361 310 318 443 493 612 449 561 -34% Decrease
    Lorain 494 547 488 500 505 485 540 517 419 18% Increase
    Lucas 344 387 392 354 414 291 310 266 239 44% Increase
    Madison 96 102 91 92 136 114 121 147 149 -36% Decrease
    Mahoning 389 448 458 532 500 440 476 516 443 -12% Decrease
    Marion 210 302 258 242 280 277 297 308 296 -29% Decrease
    Medina 393 371 370 352 414 401 400 426 389 1% Increase
    Meigs 39 54 45 75 129 171 220 207 204 -81% Decrease
    Mercer 144 162 177 196 170 168 182 177 179 -20% Decrease
    Miami 329 338 314 358 323 343 342 390 327 1% Increase
    Monroe 15 14 29 23 31 27 26 36 32 -53% Decrease
    Montgomery 263 239 283 295 376 364 325 395 415 -37% Decrease
    Morgan 33 67 117 95 132 127 204 191 186 -82% Decrease
    Morrow 225 263 306 313 342 340 308 319 318 -29% Decrease
    Muskingum 338 367 468 519 560 559 718 703 637 -47% Decrease
    Noble 68 107 97 149 220 180 186 213 228 -70% Decrease
    Ottawa 177 195 163 227 203 182 154 151 167 6% Increase
    Paulding 226 229 190 188 180 139 177 181 159 42% Increase
    Perry 57 93 116 102 121 151 218 243 279 -80% Decrease
    Pickaway 211 236 306 266 292 285 283 336 302 -30% Decrease
    Pike 126 169 130 149 131 110 162 119 146 -14% Decrease
    Portage 448 465 419 432 407 440 461 500 494 -9% Decrease
    Preble 179 169 184 153 176 172 158 214 214 -16% Decrease
    Putnam 134 172 157 143 161 147 183 130 121 11% Increase
    Richland 650 721 592 571 686 683 670 753 699 -7% Decrease
    Ross 320 379 353 457 489 444 518 555 518 -38% Decrease
    Sandusky 330 344 306 326 354 304 299 320 256 29% Increase
    Scioto 209 240 236 273 311 201 238 206 252 -17% Decrease
    Seneca 333 322 302 305 368 335 399 381 308 8% Increase
    Shelby 262 322 320 340 357 315 393 373 339 -23% Decrease
    Stark 634 655 536 495 455 473 455 591 519 22% Increase
    Summit 555 575 601 547 629 624 618 642 674 -18% Decrease
    Trumbull 429 428 467 443 429 394 506 482 477 -10% Decrease
    Tuscarawas 459 445 439 447 506 508 529 591 502 -9% Decrease
    Union 238 237 248 307 333 293 333 364 332 -28% Decrease
    Van Wert 122 147 167 152 188 173 158 194 118 3% Increase
    Vinton 54 97 67 71 79 94 155 233 229 -76% Decrease
    Warren 433 416 448 420 426 407 478 482 425 2% Increase
    Washington 183 185 158 200 273 286 275 336 312 -41% Decrease
    Wayne 364 343 265 269 247 340 440 506 434 -16% Decrease
    Williams 531 491 523 517 485 432 472 453 378 40% Increase
    Wood 368 403 373 412 427 336 357 337 294 25% Increase
    Wyandot 220 243 275 289 296 262 277 322 244 -10% Decrease
    STATEWIDE 23,314 25,146 94)">24,590 26,304 28,240 27,366 29,874 31,729 30,306 -23%  
    http://www.ohioinsurance.org/factbook/2006/chapter2/chapter2_l_2010.asp
    Increase / Decrease Analysis
    Swing Number of Counties Percent of Total
    Increase 24 27%
    Decrease 64 73%
    Totals 88  
    Comments 201 Comments
    1. Derek j's Avatar
      Derek j -
      Dear Joe,

      All these numbers can be explained quite easily. This is the direct result of the lack of acorn crop, weather, and drivers no longer aiming for the deer since it is no longer a "challenge" to hit one anymore. The deer are also not having near as much fun playing chicken, therefore they are staying off the roads.

      Love,

      Tonk
    1. Jackalope's Avatar
      Jackalope -
      Oh come on man.... Everyone knows that drivers are simply holding out for bigger bucks and as a result not hitting as many deer.

      Or they failed to adapt to a deers changing food source and drove by the wrong places..

      Or maybe it's the aging driver population not hitting as many deer because it's too easy.

      Maybe weather caused 64 Counties to stay home 73% more instead of driving.
    1. JD Boyd's Avatar
      JD Boyd -
      With the unemployment rate higher now than in the past fewer people are on the roads...
    1. saddlepants's Avatar
      saddlepants -
      Oh no, Im sure it because we are all becoming safer drivers due to vanishing deductibles! Oh and BTW...Its my money and I want it NOW
    1. Jackalope's Avatar
      Jackalope -
      Quote Originally Posted by JD Boyd View Post
      With the unemployment rate higher now than in the past fewer people are on the roads...
      Ohio unemployment rate now compared to 2002 is only like a 5% difference. Can we explain the other 68% decrease in 64 counties? Lol
    1. CJD3's Avatar
      CJD3 -
      Holy Shit! I've got a 60% decrease
      son-of-a-bitch.
    1. Jackalope's Avatar
      Jackalope -
      Btw. This data was compiled by none other than our own huntn2 Ryan Nayden.
    1. Gern186's Avatar
      Gern186 -
      Quote Originally Posted by JD Boyd View Post
      With the unemployment rate higher now than in the past fewer people are on the roads...
      golf clap
    1. huntn2's Avatar
      huntn2 -
      Thanks for posting the data tables Joe!

      As Joe mentioned I compiled data for Ohio deer-vehicle accidents. The threads we have had throughout the 2011-2012 deer season discussing hunter perceptions of the Ohio deer population have led me to run analysis to better understand and illustrate what the herd population may be.

      I already shared an analysis that illustrates the herd size may be less than the ODNR’s estimates. In that analysis I used harvest data, fawn per doe ratio, and buck to doe ratio data published by the ODNR. In addition to this information, I leveraged a fawn mortality study by the Pennsylvania Game Commission to incorporate another contributing factor that impacts the deer population besides hunter success. When I posted the results of this analysis I stated there are still many other variables that I hadn’t accounted for.

      After spending another weekend in the woods without seeing a deer I decided to dig into one of those additional variables. As Joe posted, I pulled deer-vehicle accident statistics from the Ohio Insurance Institute. I reviewed deer-vehicle accidents by county and year from 2002 – 2010. The statewide result is deer-vehicle accidents are down 23% in 2010 compared to 2002. This alone was staggering but I began to ask myself several follow-up statements/questions that could contribute to significantly fewer deer-vehicle accidents. Some of the questions I began to ponder are as follows:

      • Perhaps there are fewer licensed drivers in Ohio in 2010 than there were in 2002
      • Perhaps with higher gas prices and tough economic times, drivers are traveling less miles annually
      • Perhaps the introduction of smart phones with e-mail, texting, web and social media capabilities have made drivers more attentive to the road, other vehicles and potential hazards…
      • Perhaps there are simply fewer deer to become a statistic when it comes to vehicle accidents


      From my personal observations, analysis and logs over the past few seasons, my belief is there are fewer deer. Obviously my 3rd question was more of a joke. I believe society is more distracted then ever behind the wheel and technology is a contributing factor. So I felt I should research the 1st and 2nd elements for a correlation to fewer deer-vehicle accidents. I pulled data from the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. The results are as follows:

      • There are 3.31% more licensed drivers in Ohio in 2010 compared to 2002
      • There are 136% or 63,693,000,000 more annual vehicle miles traveled in 2009 compared to 2002 in Ohio (I didn’t see the 2010 figure yet so I used 2009)


      While licensed drivers and vehicle miles have increased in Ohio, and in the case of the miles, increased significantly, the deer vehicle accidents have decreased sharply. Therefore, I fall back to my original gut instinct; there may just be less deer in Ohio enabling fewer deer-vehicle accidents.

      The last action I have taken at this time is to factor deer-vehicle accidents into my herd population estimate calculation. Though not every deer involved in a vehicle accident dies, I have made the assumption that those reported do. I felt comfortable with this assumption since not all accidents are reported to begin with. I also assumed a 50:50 buck to doe ratio for accidents. Adding deer deaths due to vehicle accidents to the harvest data, fawn mortality due to predation, and fawn per doe ratio decreases the herd by another 193k from 2008 – 2011.

      Perhaps deer-vehicle accidents have no correlation to the herd population. I will leave that up to each of you to decide for yourself. I am simply trying to take available data to illustrate what may be the reality of the OH deer population. More importantly, I am trying to take available information to create a more accurate method of estimating the deer population. Maybe those who are observing less deer aren’t crazy, lazy, or bored by the ease of harvesting whitetail deer. There may actually just be less deer. That is after all the goal of the ODNR’s management plan. So the question becomes, have levels been dropped too far?

      I plan to build on my analysis as time permits and I also have hopes of summarizing it and presenting it to Mike Tonkovich and team at the ODNR. I am sure they will be able to help me understand where my assumptions/variables may be flawed as well as provide other factors that should be considered.

      Ryan
    1. tuffshot's Avatar
      tuffshot -
      Wow.
      Now that is a real reality check.
      I am sure the farmers and insurance companies are happy.
    1. uglykat26's Avatar
      uglykat26 -
      check out the top 5 counties for deer harvest numbers every year , the 6 deer limit is really working down here , working for the insurance company anyhow
    1. bthompson1004's Avatar
      bthompson1004 -
      Really? Lucas county has an increase of 44%...I really find that hard to believe...Not saying that it isn't true, but just hard to believe that it's the highest increase in the state...I guess I really need to get out more and utilize my 6 deer urban zone limit and my Zone B 4 deer limit!!
    1. Jackalope's Avatar
      Jackalope -
      Quote Originally Posted by bthompson1004 View Post
      Really? Lucas county has an increase of 44%...I really find that hard to believe...Not saying that it isn't true, but just hard to believe that it's the highest increase in the state...I guess I really need to get out more and utilize my 6 deer urban zone limit and my Zone B 4 deer limit!!

      It's a simple explanation man. Urban area where the DNR scorched earth harvest limits are not working due to access to property in toledo and surrpunding areas... Hunting pressure is extremely light due to inability to gain permission, this results in the deer population increasing and DVA numbers going up.....

      However this is of no concern to insurance companies. DVAs in urban areas tend to be at much lower speeds and result in far less vehicle damage and personal injury. It is areas like vinton county that a rural and you have a highway like SR 50 where people can go 60+ mph.. It is areas like those where high speed accidents happen that could result not only in massive vehicle damage but also loss of control and personal injury.. That is where stuff gets expensive for insurance companies, personal injury. I'm just speculating but I bet they would trade 20 DVAs in vinton county at 65 mph for 200 in Toledo at 35 mph..
    1. hickslawns's Avatar
      hickslawns -
      Thanks for taking the time to compile all that data Ryan! That is some unbelievable info! I am hoping the ODNR takes a good look at your work and takes it into consideration. Something tells me they probably won't.
    1. Jackalope's Avatar
      Jackalope -
      Quote Originally Posted by hickslawns View Post
      Thanks for taking the time to compile all that data Ryan! That is some unbelievable info! I am hoping the ODNR takes a good look at your work and takes it into consideration. Something tells me they probably won't.

      Here is something I find interesting man... Look at Allen County where you hunt. It saw a 12% increase... Now we can see why you keep saying you are not seeing a decrease in the amount of deer.. They haven't decreased for whatever reason... But just imagine if you we're a poor SOB in one of the other 64 counties that have the average 70% decrease...

      The same with JD who says he hasn't really seen a decrease. he has an 84% increase.

      The numbers also look like the population started to decrease around 2004 and have been on a dive ever sense. What happened / changed in the 2003-2004 season? anyone know?
    1. Jackalope's Avatar
      Jackalope -
      .

      A visual for you... Shaded counties are the only ones that have seen an increase in DVAs between 2002 and 2010...

      I'm sure the DNR zone bag limits have Nothing to do with it... Keep in mind there is Cleveland, Toledo, Lima and Dayton in those counties.

    1. jagermeister's Avatar
      jagermeister -
      Wow... just wow. Well done, Ryan. IMO, deer-vehicle collisions would have to be the most reliable indication of population size. Hunting pressure changes and weather changes... But people are always going to be driving down the roads. More deer equates to a higher probability of hitting said deer with your car.

      I'm really questioning now how the DOW could say our deer population has remained at 700,000 or above for the past 3 or 4 years when the deer-vehicle collisions has OBVIOUSLY decreased. Especially since the estimated deer population supposedly represents the "huntable" population.
    1. Jackalope's Avatar
      Jackalope -
      Quote Originally Posted by JBrown View Post
      Wow... just wow. Well done, Ryan. IMO, deer-vehicle collisions would have to be the most reliable indication of population size. Hunting pressure changes and weather changes... But people are always going to be driving down the roads. More deer equates to a higher probability of hitting said deer with your car.

      I'm really questioning now how the DOW could say our deer population has remained at 700,000 or above for the past 3 or 4 years when the deer-vehicle collisions has OBVIOUSLY decreased. Especially since the estimated deer population supposedly represents the "huntable" population.
      Because motorists are idiots who have forgotten how to hit deer... duhhhhh.. lol
    1. jagermeister's Avatar
      jagermeister -
      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.
    1. huntn2's Avatar
      huntn2 -
      Quote Originally Posted by JBrown View Post
      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...