Let’s Charge Deer Hunters For Deer/Vehicle Collisions
April 10, 2008
The latest recipient of the Black Bear Blog’s horse excrement award goes to Rep. John Quinn and Rep. David Pearce both of Minnesota. Quinn is the sponsor and Pearce the co-sponsor of HB2498, a bill that would pay anyone involved in an accident with a deer, the first $250 in damages. And, that money would come from the Department of Conservation. For those who might not quite understand what the Department of Conservation is, in your state it may be called the Department of Natural Resources or Department of Fish and Game, etc. Whatever it’s called, it appears these two guys want sportsmen to pay for deer accidents.
In 2004, there were 8,648 reported accidents with vehicles involving deer in Missouri. Simple math tells us that this would cost sportsmen $2,162,000 annually.
Fiscal year 2007, collected revenue(pdf) to the Department of Conservation was $171,676,521. $31 million of that came from license buyers. To pay for this added expense would call for either cuts, increases or a combination of both. Will this once again fall on the backs of Missouri’s outdoor sportsmen? Either way wildlife conservation will suffer and in fact this move could actually end up exacerbating the problem.
Let’s suppose for a minute if we can. If there were 8,648 REPORTED deer/vehicle accidents in 2004, how many are there today? And the bigger question would be how many would now get reported (wink, wink) knowing they could claim $250 for saying they got hit by a deer. Read what the text of the bill says.
252.042. The department of conservation shall pay the owner of any motor vehicle the first two hundred fifty dollars for repair of damages to any motor vehicle that collides with a deer that is not otherwise covered by insurance. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any damage caused to a motor vehicle that involved avoiding a deer where there is no contact with a deer. The owner shall prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that such damage was caused by a collision with a deer and that at the time of the collision the motor vehicle was legally operated.
So, the owner of the vehicle has to show “clear and convincing evidence”. Interesting! Will they have to bring the remains to the Department of Conservation? Or how about bring them to Mr. Quinn’s house and let him decide. Maybe we could have victims cut off four feet? We could require them to carry a hack saw around with them. Oh, but wait, what if they hit the deer causing damage and the deer runs away, living to get hit again? There better be hair on the grill. If you don’t have any deer hair to make it look convincing, I’ll be you can get your hands on some quite easily.
Another interesting note is that no compensation will be paid to anyone who wrecks their car trying to avoid hitting the deer. So if you see one, make sure you take careful aim. $250 “bucks” (sorry, I couldn’t help myself this time) would be quick and easy beer money wouldn’t it. Say you hit a deer and you got blood, guts and hair on the grill. Then get some body shop guy say it’s going to cost, oh, let’s round it off to about $250, collect the money, say sayonara to the body shop guy (or maybe slip him an easy $50), and head on over to the beer store.
The point to all this is the ridiculousness of the whole thing. How can this at all be regulated? Oh, geez! I hadn’t thought that would could place restrictions and requirements on the deer. But what’s even bigger is the domino effect of abuse and lawsuits that will follow.
By the Department of Conservation being forced to pay for damages incurred by deer, is saying that is the Department’s fault that there are deer and in particular the sponsor of this bill probably is one of those guys who thinks that hunters cause everything - too many deer, not enough deer, sick deer, healthy deer, Lyme disease, global warming, George Bush’s stuttering problem and that Al Gore gained 600 pounds riding around on icebergs looking for endangered polar bears.
If sportsmen are to blame, at least to some degree, for deer accidents, who else can the lawyers blame and the courts agree with? Let’s start with the landowner where the accident happened. I’m sure evidence can be found that might have caused a deer to cross the road where it did, when it did. Maybe it’s a fence or a tree blew over in a recent global warming enhanced thunderstorm that the landowner had yet to clean up.
Maybe the Department of Transportation didn’t have their “deer crossing” sign in the right place. We have all heard about the idiots who complain that the deer don’t cross in the crossing zones. That has to be the fault of the DOT by not putting the sign in the right place.
The manufacturer of the vehicle has to now assume a certain amount of responsibility too. Couldn’t something have been done in the design of the vehicle to make it more “deer proof”?
Let’s not forget the family Griswolds’ who moved to the suburbs to “get away from it all” and decided it’s really fun to feed the deer. They have to be blamed. Maybe each neighborhood should be required to pay into a fund specifically for deer related accidents. After all, that deer probably wouldn’t have gotten hit if the Griswolds hadn’t of built their house there.
What’s nuts about this is that a percentage, how much I don’t know, of these accidents happen in areas where hunters aren’t allowed to hunt to reduce the numbers. If the number of deer wasn’t so high, there wouldn’t be some many accidents. If I’m going to be blamed for deer/vehicle accidents and have to pay for them, then I want to have some say in how many deer there are in the woods to run over.
Is this all just ridiculous? Of course it is. Is there no sense and sensibility left in this country? Give me a break!
Maybe it’s all good for the Motherland, comrades!
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
[...] Let s Charge Deer Hunters For Deer/VehicleCollisions [...]
[...] Tom Remington sure knows how to captivate the audience. A recent post was published on Letâ [...]
[...] Tom Remington wrote an interesting post today on Let’s Charge Deer Hunters For Deer/Vehicle CollisionsHere’s a quick excerptI’m sure evidence can be found that might have caused a deer to cross the road where it did, when it did. Maybe it’sa fence or a tree blew over in a recent global warming enhanced thunderstorm that the landowner had yet to clean up. … [...]
Shouldn’t they really be charging this expense to the animal lovers who don’t want the deer hunted or killed?
The truth is there should be a surcharge on auto insurance companies to subsidise deer hunters. If it weren’t for all the deer killed during hunting season can you imagine how many more accidents there would be?
Ah, Tom, you kinda dance around it but Jack Ryan comes closer — doojasupose that people that post their land to hunting might be at additional risk of a civil suit (criminal arrest?) if the land beside the road is posted to prevent hunting and a deer from that protected land ventures into the highway?
I kinda remember an incident in Pennsylvania several years ago where a top law enforcement official in that state hit one of the many roadside deer with his automobile. His lawsuit was against the PA Game Commission[er] alleging that the state allowed too many deer to populate the land and created a public nuisance. The wheel that started spinning with that that legal maneuver is still out of control.
If a landowner posts their land for whatever purpose would they also be assuming the role of managing the wildlife population for public safety? Would they have to pay Fish and Game (or some other responsible agency) to do it for them at considerable cost of developing seasons and bag limits for small privately owned parcels?
All good points and it reminds of the neighborhood in Texas that determined they were not going to allow hunting or the fish and game to come in and “mess” with their deer.
I’m not exactly sure of the outcome but at the time a similar thing was going on in determining who would then be responsible and liable for all the other collateral damages, etc. from this neighborhood essential taking ownership of the deer herd.
I was sure that when I presented this piece it would get the creative juices flowing of many who could think of others and other ways liability could be passed around.
Keep em coming!
This is amazing. I can’t believe this bill has even came to fruition. What idiotic way of thinking to even try and get something like this passed.
There is no way that it could be regulated and I hope this thing gets squashed fast. Sure hogwash!
[...] Let s Charge Deer Hunters For Deer/VehicleCollisions [...]
[...] Blog??s horse excrement award goes to Rep. John Quinn and Rep. David Pearce both of Minnesota. Quinnhttp://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/04/10/lets-charge-deer-hunters-for-deervehicle-collisions/Sportsmen should have to pay for deer-vehicle collisions Deseret Morning NewsI was somewhat [...]
[...] Blog??s horse excrement award goes to Rep. John Quinn and Rep. David Pearce both of Minnesota. Quinnhttp://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/04/10/lets-charge-deer-hunters-for-deervehicle-collisions/Morel mushroom mania Columbia MissourianCOLUMBIA ?? The climate is finally right for hunters of the [...]
[...] Blog??s horse excrement award goes to Rep. John Quinn and Rep. David Pearce both of Minnesota. Quinnhttp://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/04/10/lets-charge-deer-hunters-for-deervehicle-collisions/Lesesne serves as president of S.C. Litter Control Association Florence Morning NewsRyan Lesesne is [...]
[...] would come from the Department of Conservation. For those who might not quite understand source: Lets Charge Deer Hunters For Deer/Vehicle Collisions, Black Bear Blog - Black Bear Blog is for hunters, fishermen, and outdoor [...]
I beleive its the states resposibility to pay for any damage caused by their game which the deer hunter has to pay to hunt. if a cattle ranchers cattle got out and a car hit one of his cattle he is responsible for damages because its his cattle, if the state doesnt want the responsibility don,t charge for licenses to hunt them. or get insurance to cover that cost.
Just to add confusion to the argument. It’s not all states where the rancher is responsible in such cases. In Idaho, you better not hit a cow driving down the road because you’ll have to pay the rancher for his losses.
I just thought I’d throw that in there to add “flavor” to the discussion.
The open range law is not just in Idaho but 12 other western states. Cattle have the right of way.
“Every year, about a thousand motorists hit livestock on roads in Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Utah, and several die, according to research by The Oregonian newspaper in 1997.”
It’s more than just the states listed and they are not really “open range”. I’ll just stick to what I know for sure and that is Indiana law. Indiana law on fencing is county by county and it is fence in or fence out law that makes the determination by the population level in the county.
In either county, any operator of a motor vehicle is required to operate that vehicle in a manner to allow them to remain in control of the vehicle regardless if they are hitting a cow, a deer, another vehicle or a child. The operator always is responsible to the degree that they were operating the vehicle in a reckless manner beyond their ability to remain in control of the vehicle. It is to be expected in a rural farming area there may be farm animals occasionally. This is why rural county roads where not other wise posted are a standard 35 MPH speed limit. Beyond that and you are not operating your vehicle in a lawfull safe manner. A farmer who’s livestock enter’s the roadway through a damaged fence is not liable for damage until he is aware his livestock is out and he ignores it. If he is attempting to regain control of his livestock and an out of control vehicle strikes one then the operator is responsible for damage to the livestock.
In fence in counties in Indiana, a land owner who owns both sides of a county road may notify the county of his intent and install a cattle crossing sign at each edge of his property and allow cattle to graze both sides of the road with out restriction up to his property line. Vehicle operators are required to operate with in their ability to be in control of their vehicle as the conditions permit.
Hunters are not allowed to hunt from a road. Therefore those deer hit on the road are not the property of hunters but actually are for the benefit of deer watchers, animal lovers, and PETA members who advocate for the rights of animals to be free for self determination with out interference from humans. There fore any expense involving deer and roads should be handled by those organisations.
If the deer on the road belong to hunters then there should be a tax applied to the vehicle operator damaging our property by operating their vehicle in an unlawful manner beyond their ability to control it or operate in a safe manner and the game departments compensated for their loss.