Catscratch
5 year old buck +
Would it be considered a supplement to deer? I'd think you have a good argument that copper sulfate is a pesticide instead of a supplement. Treating aquatic algae isn't artificially supplementing the deer herd.
Why inst there a focus on EHD?
- Thread starter gjs4
- Start date
Would it be considered a supplement to deer? I'd think you have a good argument that copper sulfate is a pesticide instead of a supplement. Treating aquatic algae isn't artificially supplementing the deer herd.
Hoytvectrix
5 year old buck +
North Missouri hasn't had rain in two weeks and there is almost zero chance for the next 10 days. This is starting to look a lot like last year and we had found quite a few deer that seemingly died from EHD.
Buckhunter10
5 year old buck +
EHD + Harvest Pressure = Recovery Trouble
I’ve been running numbers on Ohio deer densities, using 20–25 deer per square mile and a 36-square-mile township as the baseline. Here’s what happens when disease and harvest overlap:
How much to cut the harvest?
Use this rule of thumb: harvest must be below net recruitment.
It is fair to expect a bump in recruitment for one to two years after a die-off, due to improved per-capita resources. But if harvest remains above net recruitment, the herd will still struggle to rebound.
Please poke holes where needed. I have spent way too much time on this and hope it helps someone’s thinking.
I’ve been running numbers on Ohio deer densities, using 20–25 deer per square mile and a 36-square-mile township as the baseline. Here’s what happens when disease and harvest overlap:
- 30% EHD kill + 27% harvest (statewide average): Herd does not recover. Net recruitment (~15–20% in many areas) cannot keep pace with a 27% annual harvest.
- 40% EHD kill + 27% harvest: Same outcome. Continued decline.
- 50% EHD kill + 27% harvest: Decline is sharper. Even at a strong 25% net recruitment, you are still at –2% per year.
How much to cut the harvest?
Use this rule of thumb: harvest must be below net recruitment.
- If we assume an average ~15% net recruitment, total harvest needs to be ≤12% to allow growth at a reasonable pace.
- From ~27% down to ~12% is about a 55% reduction in total harvest. That is where the “cut by ~55%” figure comes from.
It is fair to expect a bump in recruitment for one to two years after a die-off, due to improved per-capita resources. But if harvest remains above net recruitment, the herd will still struggle to rebound.
Please poke holes where needed. I have spent way too much time on this and hope it helps someone’s thinking.
Anyone dispensing copper sulfate into water from an aluminum boat - for any reason - better be careful not to spill any in the bottom of the boat. It'll eat holes in aluminum in a hurry.
Hoytvectrix
5 year old buck +
Around this time last year I dug into some of the published research on EHD and blue tongue. It doesn't seem like there are really any chemical means for reducing the midges. The only two viable options so far are vaccines for cattle and doing everything you can to reduce the environment the midges need.
I would think that the fewer water sources you have, The more likely you would be to proactively reduce EHD incidence. There is a bacillus theringiensis subspecies that could be applied and promoted in an area. I found a few that were commercially available and were marketed as mosquito pellets. They are a bio control so it would be legal to be tried just about anywhere. I would think that because there are something like 4,000 species of midges, you would need to have something with very broad spectrum efficacy. A biological control that reduces insect larvae would not have complete control but may help enough to make an impact.
I would think that the fewer water sources you have, The more likely you would be to proactively reduce EHD incidence. There is a bacillus theringiensis subspecies that could be applied and promoted in an area. I found a few that were commercially available and were marketed as mosquito pellets. They are a bio control so it would be legal to be tried just about anywhere. I would think that because there are something like 4,000 species of midges, you would need to have something with very broad spectrum efficacy. A biological control that reduces insect larvae would not have complete control but may help enough to make an impact.
Where I am (west of you some) we were hit hard in fall of 22 when we bought and have been trying to grow the herd back since. We also have OH's worst outfitter just north of us- leases 250ish ac, Hosted 80-100 low standards folks (due to be 1200 a week) who shot everything they saw with an affinity of taking 12-20 1&2yo bucks, and a a dozenish does a year off their corn mounds. Hes been displaced; Thank goodness. Point is the net equation was numbers declining. OH is ridiculous to allow a person with a small yard to have a corn feeder and crossbow and hunt (without purchasing a license...and likely sharing take data) as if that was hunting. While a rant and different direction...the state seems out of touch and that willl be exponentially worse with Tonk retiring. Bad to worse to broken/too late.
Buckhunter10
5 year old buck +
So that is a very difficult discussion point, for various reasons.
1. Other than EHD, Ohioans dont kill enough to keep the population from growing - at a state level. The state is, of course, worried that if it eliminates baiting, it will further drive down hunter success.
2. A counterpoint to this is my situation. I can shoot 3 deer on my farm (400 acres total managed). I normally try to save one tag for my buck, meaning I can shoot 2 does. The ODNR's response to this is "just invite more people". That is tough to do, as time is a limiting factor, and even in high DPSM areas, it's not a guaranteed kill. However, I have had good nights with a bow or gun in my hand where I could have killed 5-6, but I didnt have tags, so I just slowly watched as many walked off.
EHD is causing folks to talk, which is a good thing. I have asked for years for the ODNR to consider management zones based on townships or areas. With the drone tech today, we could get data on dpsm in these areas and set buck/doe tags accordingly. That way, if the guy with 2 acres shoots 10 does, it is an area that can support it. Likewise, if an area is below par for growth trajectory - that indiviual might only get 1 tag. I have neighbors who are GREAT folks, but they might shoot 1 doe a year on 500-600 acres. That is fine; they love seeing a lot of deer. My farm and my children's future timber should not suffer because I am unable to legally harvest more than a few does from the farm due to regulatory restrictions.
There is a significant amount of variability throughout the state, and it is clear that we need smaller managed areas than counties, with set bag limits based on densities. Sell tags per unit, and if one guy wants to hammer them, he can, and those who dont - dont. This would also stop an outfitter from getting unlimited tags on a smaller piece based on the hunter solely.
When an area is hit by EHD, we utilize drone or airplane technology. with thermals and count the deer. We can calculate. number, avg. recruitment, and avg. recovery time of that population - therefore, we can set bag limits.
That is my take, I personally don't think these equations are ones that are rivaling Einstein or Hesinberg. They are pretty straightforward, with a few variables that can be adjusted from year to year based on data.
Turkey Creek
5 year old buck +
To answer the original question, in my opinion, the insurance companies have a lot more lobbying power than you know. The number of car vs deer collisions will only be tolerated to a certain extent. Insurance companies would be happy if there were no deer.
Hoytvectrix
5 year old buck +
Has there ever been any whistle blowers to come from the insurance industry confirming this? One of the largest auto manufacturers in the country is from the heart of deer country. I can't imagine there aren't people that work for State Farm that don't also deer hunt.
I see this posted all the time on deer hunting related message boards but have never seen anything cited. When I do a web search for this topic on Google scholar or just in general, I only find other people on deer hunting message forums talking about the same thing for as long as the forums have existed. Of course they have a very obvious interest in reducing deer related auto accidents. But are there legitimate sources to verify that they are steering conservation policy or harvest numbers? Obviously they have people on payroll that study and lobby these things. But could deer related accidents just be a rounding error for the industry? I don't really know and I would never in my lifetime be the first one to defend them. But everytime I look into this I feel like we should have more to go off of.
I see this posted all the time on deer hunting related message boards but have never seen anything cited. When I do a web search for this topic on Google scholar or just in general, I only find other people on deer hunting message forums talking about the same thing for as long as the forums have existed. Of course they have a very obvious interest in reducing deer related auto accidents. But are there legitimate sources to verify that they are steering conservation policy or harvest numbers? Obviously they have people on payroll that study and lobby these things. But could deer related accidents just be a rounding error for the industry? I don't really know and I would never in my lifetime be the first one to defend them. But everytime I look into this I feel like we should have more to go off of.
Buckhunter10
5 year old buck +
This is interesting because I, too, have explored this topic and never found it to be factual. Actually, I found that auto insurance companies roughly pay out $200 billion a year. Deer collisions/payouts (although frequent) come to be .5-3% of the total payout per annum for these companies.
I am not saying they wont lobby a bit for deer fencing, or increased bag limits (if/when they might have a chance to do so), however, I just dont see a large corporate company allocating resources (in the capacity hunters often describe) that make up .5%-3% of their payouts. They could make that up and then some on larger segments of their business, as you say, by simply rounding an error.
I believe this ends up as a bit of a red herring. It makes logical sense that an insurance company would lobby for such drastic herd reductions, but from all the research I have done (which is admittedly limited), it seems they are far more focused on other areas, such as awareness campaigns, "it is the rut, drive safe and aware".
Lastly, I have been hearing this for at least a decade, yet most states (unless EHD is involved) are below doe harvest quotas, and populations are projected to continue to increase. NDA did a large post/article on this last year, I believe.
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
Next your gonna tell me that cwd isn’t a government psyop to wipe out deer hunting?
BenA
5 year old buck +
Yeah, I never bought into the deer/auto insurance conspiracy. I guess it's because I see what the insurance companies do in instances where they are paying out more. They do targeted rate increases for specific areas or tack on rider policies. Hurricane insurance comes to mind. I can see them pushing for deer collision policies or exceptions or raising rates in areas with high deer collision rates. They have all that data. They're going to make their money. They don't need to kill deer to do that.
Turkey Creek
5 year old buck +
I will stick with the comment that insurance companies do lobby against anything that they feel is going to hurt their bottom line. Are they spending millions of dollars on it, no. Are they behind the scenes voicing their opposition to it, yes. They most certainly have lobbyists. Research on CWD is going to be done at the state level, where do state fish and game agencies get their funding from, tax dollar allocations and permit sales which are controlled by state government. If money wasnt controlled outside of the fish and game agencies then all the good ones would break away from state government and become independent agencies that are solely self funded and set policy that benefits their constituents and wildlife. I have no doubt that .5-3% of insurance company payouts are for deer / vehicle collisions. But State Farm paid out $56.4 billion in auto claims last year alone. But even if only 3% of those claims were deer/ vehicle collisions we are still talking about ALOT of money. Take into account they are not the only insurance company, then we are talking about ALOT of money. In wildlife biology we have 2 capacities, habitat and social. Social is the level that is tolerated by the human population. No matter how cute and cuddly at some point wildlife populations reach a point at which their population numbers are not socially acceptable. It doesn't matter what the species is. At some point the damage they create is not acceptable. Obviously that is not the case for a large number of species quite the opposite as that is why we are all on here! LOL Trying to increase numbers of wildlife is often the problem.
They don't have to promote things that kill deer, but they can certainly oppose things that increase deer numbers, as in CWD research to stop deer losses from the disease.
They don't have to promote things that kill deer, but they can certainly oppose things that increase deer numbers, as in CWD research to stop deer losses from the disease.
Last edited:
BenA
5 year old buck +
Most states' game and fish agencies are almost entirely funded by hunters and fishermen.
hillrunner
5 year old buck +
I don't think auto insurance companies care about deer. I'm told they use a formula to figure rates and they don't really care what they pay out. They just raise the rates and we are a captive customer.
Farm bureau on the other hand is very active in lobbying against deer in Iowa. That's done in the name of reducing crop damage.
Farm bureau on the other hand is very active in lobbying against deer in Iowa. That's done in the name of reducing crop damage.
Hoytvectrix
5 year old buck +
"Why don't you have some of this fine pie the missus made for you?"
