I absolutely agree that the bonus doe tags should never have been allowed on public ground. Terrible.
I absolutely agree that the bonus doe tags should never have been allowed on public ground. Terrible.
Altiman94
Member
How about a non-partial source besides an insurance company itself?
Feel free to look one up. Just posting what I found. I doubt if its any big conspiracy though.
I spoke to a body shop the other day and they said they loved the high deer populations of the past. Especially when we have mild winters and other collisions are low. They thought the car/deer collision numbers were way down but the costs per accident were up considerably. That's just one shop's experience. Take it for what its worth, but I would expect that to be a common theme.
hoosierhunter
Active Member
From July 2012 to July 2013, actual deer car collision dropped 3.5%. The number would considerably higher (around 8%)if you take into account urban sprawl and more drivers on the road. The average now is about 1.2 million collisions per year.
The newest data is $3400 average per claim. Around a major city I'd estimate that average to jump over 7,000. You also have to note that this only includes property damage. Bodily injury is not part of the number as this typically goes to your health insurance.
Crop damage in Iowa is a sham from 75% of the farmers because they don't farm in an area with even average deer numbers. The farmers who have the gripe would be in counties sucks as Davis, Clark, wayne, Monroe, Decatur, etc. Those deer numbers were way above average in the past and that's why EHD hit them so hard. Mother Nature corrects things her way.
hoosierhunter
Active Member
They were that high because you were in your hayday during that period.
I know some farmers that lose tens of thousands of dollars in crop damage every year from deer. I would LOVE to watch you tell any one of them that its a sham. Some of them are pretty big boys too. You might want to pack a lunch.
Some farmers would love to see our deer population go back to where it was in the 50's. Some deer hunters were still not happy when we were at all time highs. The point is, there has to be a happy medium somewhere and not everyone is ever going to be happy.
Your car/deer stats seem to support the insurance companies position. The more recent stats occurred during lower deer populations.
hoosierhunter
Active Member
The insurance companies position is that there are too many deer and that will continue until there are no deer. It's purely a business decision for them. Just like they would outlaw alcohol, cell phones, teenage drivers and elderly drivers to name a few things.
hoosierhunter
Active Member
Deer damage is a cost of doing business much like many other variables. My point is that crop damage is NOT a big deal for a majority of farmers in Iowa because there deer numbers are way below average.
Your farmers with 10 deer/sq mile are complaining the same as the guys with 100+ deer in their area.
How about every time I look in the mirror I could tell a farmer the deer are not doing the damage that's claimed?!?!? Since I farm & farm in premium deer country, I think I have at least a leg to stand on there.
You wanna get into a REAL conversation from EXPERIENCE and years of it, I welcome it..... It's mainly BS the crap about deer damage. It's finding an easy target on what appears to be "deer damage" when it's really not. Let me explain...... You plant crops against timber or near trees, the trees will take away the moisture and sunlight from your 1st 12-20 rows of corn. They "APPEAR" destroyed. Some are eaten, most are not. Then, you see tipped over stalks and "massive eating". If a guy took the time to take his raging emotions out of it- he'd find the coons by the bunches raiding row after row of the corn. Then a flock of 20-40 turkeys doing a number on the corn. It's not the deer. I'd venture to guess 75% is done by coons, squirrels, turkey, etc. - everything but deer. I'd also say the trees & sunlight are a bigger issue than the deer as well. That's also what you get farming in forest country. Why a "smart farmer" would consider something like a CRP buffer around the timber, get paid for it and not have to compete with trees.
these farmers should offer highly accessible ground to hunters, trappers, turkey hunters and CRP options for their ground. Couple that with some real world education and understanding and the reality is a different world than deer destroying their lives & livelihood. I'll have that discussion any day of the week and I speak from EXPERIENCE. These deer are far from hurting my livelihood and I farm in areas with more deer than probably 99% of the farmers out there considering only 5% of the state is forested and that's what I prefer to own, a mix of the best deer habitat in the state.
hoosierhunter
Active Member
You beat me to it!
loneranger
Well-Known Member
That's it,,it's the trees. Cut the trees down! Just kidding.
I can agree that deer get blamed for a lot of damage that other animals do. I also have farm ground and have a lot of first hand experience with crop damage. But, I also see upwards of 50 deer at a time grazing every night in soybeans. Are you telling me that 50 deer a night for the entire growing season is not robbing a substantial amount of yield? Is that not money that would otherwise go in the farmer's pocket? Do you really believe that just because part of the state has some trees, the farmers should just roll over and accept that they are farming in the "wrong" area? I also have experience with Federal Crop Insurance and have seen deer damage. I know what it looks like and I know that other animals do considerable damage. But, to say that deer do not negatively impact farmers in Iowa and to blame them for where they are farming is to ignore the problem. Again, I LOVE deer and want as many of them around as is practical. The problem is, what some think is practical is a plague on others.
hoosierhunter
Active Member
50 deer in the same field is over population. Heck, 50 deer in a section is too many for that matter. 75% of Iowa doesn't have 50 deer per section. That will create deer damage no question, but that's not an excuse for someone in the central part of the state where 90% of ground is tillable.
Fletch, thanks for the response. Still waiting for the names of the NR hunters you allow on your land and a clarification of exactly what you do for the insurance industry for the past 24 years. Only asking because a couple of threads ago you mentioned being in the ag industry for 24 years, I'm sure they're related. I'm not sure selling insurance as a broker qualifies you to speak as an expert on ag issues but hey.
You know you have no problem hunting in several states yourself like MS, AK, NE etc. but you will bust the balls of NRs on this site? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
You know you have no problem hunting in several states yourself like MS, AK, NE etc. but you will bust the balls of NRs on this site? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Last edited:
75 deer in a corn field, problematic but still not as problematic as folks think. And that's an EXTREME!!!! Deer are grazers, they will spend 20 mins there and then eat some alfalfa, weeds and then get 50% of their diet from forest browse. Most the deer haters are dozing out every last tree they can find too. Then, we all get to suffer from the top soil loss in our waterways.
I have a 150 acre corn field for example.... I'd say, on average (In high density areas) there's a few corners that get pounded, the fact is, not done by deer on the majority of the damage. Like i said before, coons, turkeys and far worse is the trees. I'm going to guess that I lose 5-8 acres a year from: trees, turkeys, deer, racoons, etc. Maybe 3-5% of the yield.
The SOLUTION if I thought that was going to break me (and it's not and not going to break any farmers I know) would simply & logically be: 1) get a good group of trappers in there. 2) Get the machine that cuts the roots of trees coming into the field area, takes care of those sucker roots without killing tree 3) Open up more aggressive hunting to deer and especially turkeys. A farmer could actually seek folks out who would gladly solve the problem specifically to them. Instead, the problem is, they use influence and get loud enough to give FB the marching orders to eradicate the deer across the state.
I have a 150 acre corn field for example.... I'd say, on average (In high density areas) there's a few corners that get pounded, the fact is, not done by deer on the majority of the damage. Like i said before, coons, turkeys and far worse is the trees. I'm going to guess that I lose 5-8 acres a year from: trees, turkeys, deer, racoons, etc. Maybe 3-5% of the yield.
The SOLUTION if I thought that was going to break me (and it's not and not going to break any farmers I know) would simply & logically be: 1) get a good group of trappers in there. 2) Get the machine that cuts the roots of trees coming into the field area, takes care of those sucker roots without killing tree 3) Open up more aggressive hunting to deer and especially turkeys. A farmer could actually seek folks out who would gladly solve the problem specifically to them. Instead, the problem is, they use influence and get loud enough to give FB the marching orders to eradicate the deer across the state.
hoosierhunter
Active Member
Shoot if a farmer collected the last two years, it's scary to think how much money they made the previous 5 or so to that!!