Danger on the Autumn Roads
   And Why Hunters are Not to Blame

This report was researched and written by MSA Director at Large, Chris Bennett. December, 2002.

This page contains the full text of this report in HTML format. If you would like this report in Adobe pdf format, please click here.

Motorists on today’s roadways face a rapidly escalating danger that puts the welfare of both their property and person in great risk – the risk of colliding with the ever-expanding whitetail deer population. According to the National Safety Council, an estimated 100 human fatalities and $700 million in property damage occur every year in the Untied States as a result of deer-vehicle collisions (RMEJ, 12 May). As the fall season approaches, the probability of suffering a vehicle collision with a deer is greatly increased. According to many animal rights organizations, it is the hunters of America who are solely to blame for this dramatic rise in deer-vehicle collisions during the autumn months. It is the belief of these animal rights groups that deer-vehicle accidents are the result of hunters chasing frightened deer into the busy streets. However, when the statistical accident data is fully analyzed, it is easy to conclude that hunters do not deserve the blame for the rise in deer-vehicle collision in the fall. Guilt can not rest on the shoulders of the hunters simply because the highest rates of deer collisions occur at times when hunters are not in the woods, and because the yearly peaks of deer collisions do not correlate with the yearly peaks of the hunting season. Not only are hunters not to blame, the evidence actually proves that areas which allow hunting have fewer incidents than areas where hunting is forbidden. Finally, hunters are completely exonerated when blame is placed on the true culprit behind these dangerous incidents – the deer’s biological mating cycle. 

It is a popular belief among many animal rights organizations that having hunters in the woods causes more deer-vehicle collisions in the streets. For example, the Fund for Animals reports on its website, “vehicle/deer collisions are most common during hunting season, as hunters chase frightened deer across roads into the paths of motorists.” (Fund, “Avoiding…”). The Fund adds in a Public Service Announcement, “as deer run for their lives this hunting season, don’t let them endanger yours.” (Fund, “Public Service…”). However, the actual statistical evidence shows that these animal rightists accusations are inaccurate. 

            Hunters could not possibly be to blame for the autumn rise in deer-vehicle collisions, simply because hunters are not in the woods during the times when the majority of collisions occur. According to a 2000 report from Erie Insurance, “about 80 percent of all deer-related crashes occur on two-lane roads between dusk and dawn” (Erie). Similar numbers are seen in a Federal Highway Administration report which states, “animal crashes were found to occur more frequently at night. The percentage that occurred at night ranged from 68 to 85 percent.” (FHA). These statistics prove that the majority of deer-vehicle incidents occur at night -- a time when deer hunters are in their beds, not in their tree stands. 

            Hunters are also vindicated by the structure of the hunting season, which once again proves there are not enough hunters in the woods to warrant them full blame. Statistics originating from the state of Pennsylvania can best be used to prove this point. According to the 2000 Erie Insurance Report, the month of November has the highest rate of deer-vehicle collisions in Pennsylvania, numbering 3,200 in 1999 (Erie). During this same month of November in 1999, the Pennsylvania hunting season was structured in the following manner (Upper Dauphin):

             November 1st – November 13th

These two weeks were dedicated to archery hunters. It is highly unlikely that the archery hunters contribute much to the rise in collisions because bowhunters are few and far between in the large state of Pennsylvania -- only 300,000 out of the 1.1 million hunters (27%) participate in the archery season (ESPN). In addition, simple logic will tell you that the deer are less likely to be scared by hunters who are wearing camouflage and shooting silent weapons.

             November 14th – November 28th

                        There was no deer hunting of any kind during these two weeks. 

            November 29th & November 30th

Now we come to the group that the animal rights organizations love to blame – the rifle hunters. It does make more logical sense that the 800,000 rifle hunters, all wearing blaze orange and all shooting loud weapons would likely scare the most deer into the streets. 

But the actual statistics prove rifle hunters can not be the primary cause for the November collision rise, because, in 1999, there were only 2 days of rifle hunting during the month of November in Pennsylvania (November 29th and 30th). The Erie Report states there were 147 collisions on November 29th, and we can extrapolate these numbers to guess that another 140 or so occurred on November 30th (Erie). So rifle hunters could have accounted for around 300 collisions for the month of November. But rifle hunters could not account for the other 2,900 collisions (91%) that occurred earlier in the month, before they entered the woods. Even if the rifle season statistics were removed, the remaining 2,900 collision would still give November the highest rate of collisions of the year. 

The above structure of the Pennsylvania hunting season proves that there were not enough rifle hunters active to warrant them full blame for the dramatic November increase in deer-vehicle collisions as shown in the Erie Insurance Report.

Further vindication is achieved by evidence proving that the yearly peak of deer collisions do not correlate with the yearly peak of the hunting season. Once again, 1999 statistics from the state of Pennsylvania can be used to prove this point. It can be assumed that the yearly peak of the hunting season can be identified by determining the month when hunters took the most deer. In 1999, the December harvest in Pennsylvania numbered around 210,000, followed distantly by November with around 45,000 (ESPN). Thus, December must be considered the peak of the hunting season. These facts make logical sense seeing that December is the month comprised of the rifle and muzzleloader seasons – the seasons with the most hunter participation and the most effective weapons. With that said, if hunters were the cause of deer-vehicle collisions, then December would have to be the month with the greatest number of deer-vehicle collisions. But this is not the case. The Erie Insurance Report shows that November has the highest number of deer-vehicle collisions, at 3,200, while December totaled only 2,100 (Erie). Despite the fact that December had almost 5 times more hunter activity as November, the number of collisions was actually 1/3 less. During this Pennsylvania season, hunter activity went up, but collisions went down, thus demonstrating the non-existence of a hunter-collision correlation. A graphic illustration of this non-correlation can be seen in Figure 1. The fact these two lines are perpendicular (not parallel), is statistical proof that no significant correlation exists between hunters and deer-vehicle collisions.

 Not only are hunters not the cause of the autumn rise in deer-vehicle collisions, the evidence actually proves the exact opposite – areas that allow hunting have fewer incidents than areas where hunting is forbidden. Evidence that this argument is true can be seen in Montgomery County, Maryland, which faced with an overabundant deer population and escalating deer-vehicle collisions, began to perform organized managed hunts on multiple public lands in the county in 1996 (Montgomery). Figure 2 depicts the collisions recorded near the managed hunt areas. These statistics show that the number of yearly deer collisions near managed hunt areas in Montgomery County went down 74% over the last six years. This rate of collisions can be compared to Figure 3 which displays the deer-vehicle collision rates near the Montgomery County area of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, where animal rights groups such as the Humane Society are practicing “non-lethal deer management” primarily through the use of immuno-contraceptive shots. The number of yearly deer collisions near non-lethal management areas in Montgomery County actually went up 105% over the last six years. Montgomery County, MD, is a prime example that not only do hunters not cause a dramatic increase in deer-vehicle collisions, they actually help to reduce the number on incidents by controlling the whitetail deer population.

 

 The true reason behind the autumn rise in deer-vehicle collisions have nothing to do with hunters being in the woods, but rather with the deer’s biological mating cycle (also called “the rut”). Numbers shown by the Federal Highway Administration demonstrate that deer-vehicle collisions do not spike suddenly on the opening day of hunting season, but rather the rise in deer-vehicle collisions falls in a smooth parabolic curve covering all of the fall months, as can be seen in Figure 4 (FHA). The collision rise starts in September, continues in October, peaks in November, and then begins to descend in December and into January. The Pennsylvania Gaming Commission describes the whitetail deer mating season as having an identical parabolic pattern (Figure 5) (PA Game). The rut “begins in September when bucks, still often in small groups, start playfully sparring with one another shortly after the velvet has been shed from their antlers…In Pennsylvania the peak of the rut usually coincides with the week before Thanksgiving….The rut continues into late December, sometimes early January” (PA Game). It is no coincidence that the rut curve perfectly matches the collisions curve, because there is a direct cause-effect relationship. 

        November marks the height of the deer mating season, and with that, Novembers also marks the height of deer activity. During this time, as Gene Mueller from The Washington Times states, "deer do inexplicable things and caution by the usually wary animals is cast to the wind" (RMEJ, 1997). So, it is little wonder that, according to Erie Insurance, November is also the height of the deer-vehicle accidents in Pennsylvania. The November peak of collisions has nothing to do with having hunters in the woods and everything to do with this concurrently being the peak of the rut. The 2000 Erie Insurance report backs this argument up by stating that 40% of the November collisions occurred just during the 10-day period from November 4th to November 13th (the peak of the rut) (Erie 2000). And the latest 2002 report from Erie Insurance further clarifies this collision-rut correlation by stating “In all states, the first two weeks of November have more deer claims than any other two-week period during the year, and this time period coincides with the peak of the mating season.” (Erie 2002)

            The statistical evidence proves that the autumn roads can be very treacherous to driver (and also the deer for that matter). But the evidence also proves there is no significant correlation between hunters in the woods and these autumn collisions in the streets. In fact, hunting has proven itself to be one of the most effective methods of reducing the deer population and, thus, simultaneously helping to reduce the number of deer-vehicle collisions. The true culprit of autumn deer-vehicle collisions rests on the shoulders of the deer themselves and their biological urge to reproduce. It’s a shame that the natural sex drive of the deer can have such devastating effects on the human drive home from work.

 

Works Cited

 Erie Insurance Group. “Car-Deer Collisions Carry High Price Tag” 24 Oct 2000. Accessed 27 Oct

            2002. http://www.erieinsurance.com/AboutErie/NewsReleases/News97.htm

    

Erie Insurance Group. “Watch Out for Deer on Roadways” 28 Oct 2002. Accessed 13 Dec

            2002.  www.erie-insurance.com/AboutErie/NewsReleases/News138.htm

 

ESPN Outdoors. “ESPN Outdoors 2002-2003 Whitetail Forecast” Accessed 27 Oct 2002.

            http://espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/s/h_deer_forecast02_PA.html

  

FHA (Federal Highway Administration). “HSIS Summary Report” March 1995. Accessed 27 Oct

            2002. http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/hsis/94-156.htm

 

Fund for Animals. “Avoiding Vehicle/Deer Collisions” 22 Oct 2002. Accessed 27 Oct 2002.

http://www.fund.org/library/documentViewer.asp?ID=538&table=documents

 

Fund for Animals “Public Service Announcement: Deer Crossing FA-R1-01” Audio. Accessed 27

Oct 2002. http://fund.org/uploads/deer-psa.mp3

                       

Montgomery County Deer Management Work Group. “Montgomery County Deer Management

Program: Annual Report and Recommendations FY 2003” Appendix 2: Page 6. Jun 2002. Accessed 27 Oct 2002. http://www.mc-mncppc.org/environment/deer/deer_report.pdf

 

PA Game Commission. “Hunter’s Notebook White-tailed Deer: The Rut” Accessed 27 Oct 2002.

http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/PGC/deer/huntNote.htm

 

RMEJ (Road Management and Engineering Journal). “Deer-Vehicle Collisions are Numerous and

Costly. Do Countermeasures Work?” 12 May 1997. Accessed 27 Oct 2002.

http://www.usroads.com/journals/rmj/9705/rm970503.htm

 

RMEJ (Road Management and Engineering Journal). “Study Shows Problem of Vehicle-Wildlife

Collisions Increasing” 20 July 1997. Accessed 27 Oct 2002. http://www.usroads.com/journals/rmj/9707/rm970701.htm

 

Upper Dauphin Area, PA. “1999-2000 Hunting Seasons & Bag Limits” Accessed 27 Oct 2002.

            http://www.upperdauphin.com/attractions/hunting.html

 

Report Summary | Report pdf

Return Home