Imagine if the Texas Legislature mandated Texas Parks and Wildlife Department write a $250 check to every person whose motor vehicle collides with a deer on a Texas public road.
We’d be talking about a lot of money. And because that money would almost certainly come from the fund holding revenue from sale of hunting and fishing license fees, the inevitable result would be crippling to TPWD’s ability to do fisheries and wildlife management and research. Those programs are almost exclusively funded from license revenue — no general tax revenue goes to Texas’ wildlife and fisheries programs.
Neither state nor local governments compile figures on how many deer/vehicle collisions occur in Texas. But the insurance industry estimates, based on claims, about 40,000 such accidents in Texas each year.
Between uninsured drivers and insured drivers without comprehensive coverage or opting to not report the accident, the actual number of deer/vehicle collisions in Texas is much higher. Some estimates are that Texas annually sees 100,000 deer/vehicle collisions.
Have to Blame Someone
So let’s be real conservative and say 50,000 deer collisions a year. At $250 per collision, TPWD would be out $12.5 million a year. That’s almost as much as the annual salaries and operating budget for TPWD’s inland fisheries division.
Why should TPWD have to pay money to people who hit a deer? Well, they’re the state’s deer. The state is responsible for them. And TPWD is the state agency charged with managing the deer herd. If one of the state’s deer walks onto a highway, causes an accident and damages a private vehicle, the state should be liable, and, logically, the money should come out of TPWD’s budget.
This is madness, of course. Making the state pay for damages caused by colliding with a deer is like demanding the National Weather Service pay for damage to a car from a freak hailstorm.
Deer are wild animals, and short of exterminating them, the state has no way of preventing a deer or any other wild animal from wandering onto a roadway.
Well, maybe if the state bracketed every road in the state with deer-proof fences. But with cost of building a deer-proof fence running $15,000 or more a mile (that’s $30,000 or more to fence both sides of one mile stretch of highway), no government this side of Qatar can afford, much less justify the expense, to deer-proof even a few miles of road in the most deer-rich areas.
OK, you’re saying, this whole exercise is absurd. What’s the point? Texas has no such law and never will.
Say it Ain’t So
Turns out, some people believe it’s far from absurd. Apparently, a move is afoot to get state legislatures to pass laws making states (and state wildlife and fisheries agencies in particular) financially liable for damages in deer/vehicle collisions.
A couple of weeks ago, a bill was filed in the Missouri General Assembly that, if passed, would force that state’s Department of Conservation (Missouri’s equivalent of TPWD’s wildlife and fisheries divisions) to pay the owner of a vehicle involved in a collision with a deer the first $250 of the cost of repairing the vehicle.
Missouri annually sees at least 9,000 deer/vehicle collisions. So the state’s wildlife agency would be on the hook for about $2.25 million a year, with that money almost certainly coming straight from hunting and fishing license fees.
At first glance, the Missouri proposal might easily be brushed aside as just one of those outrageous pieces of legislation that gets filed because a legislator or an influential constituent has a personal grudge or agenda. Bills like that are filed to make a point, and even their sponsors don’t expect them to pass.
None Yet to Pass
But dig a little deeper, and you find the Missouri bill is not an aberration. A cursory search on the Web turned up four other states — South Dakota, Virginia, Iowa and Indiana — where similar legislation has been filed over the past few years.
The South Dakota bill, which contains language very much like the Missouri proposal, was filed earlier this year, and its fate has yet to be decided. The other bills died a deserved death.
The Indiana bill concerning state liability for deer/vehicle collisions was the most sobering of the lot. That bill, filed in 2002,. would have made the state of Indiana “strictly liable for actual damage to a vehicle and medical expenses caused by the collision of a deer and a vehicle on the highway.”
Conservative estimates put Indiana’s annual deer/vehicle collision at about 11,000. Insurance industry figures say the number is more like 36,000. The average cost of repairs to a vehicle involved in a deer collision, according to the insurance industry, runs about $2,900.
At the low-end estimate of 11,000 deer/vehicle collisions, Indiana would have faced having to pay an estimated $32 million a year just in vehicle repair claims. Indiana officials didn’t even try estimating likely medical costs. The bill didn’t pass.
The moves to try making states pay for damage resulting from drivers plowing into a deer are, if you apply a bit of twisted logic, somewhat understandable in light of today’s someone-has-to-pay mindset.
Accidents are Big Problem
Deer/vehicle collisions are a very real problem. Estimates are that about 1.5 million such collisions happen on U.S. roads each year, resulting in approximately 150 human fatalities. Texas almost annually leads the nation in those fatalities, averaging 15-20 a year.
White-tailed deer populations continue booming. Texas has about 4 million deer, or approximately one deer for every six Texans. And it’s a good bet a very high percentage of the more than 17 million motor vehicles registered in Texas have had close calls with deer and other wildlife.
But blaming the state for those collisions, making the hunting and fishing licence-buying public shoulder the cost while gutting funding for managing natural resources for all residents, is as impractical as it is unfair.
Could Texas ever see an attempt to stick the state with the financial liability of deer/vehicle collisions? Can’t count anything out when the Texas Legislature’s involved.
But considering this is a state where privately owned trucks hauling gravel over public roads are not held liable for the tens of thousands of vehicle windshields they destroy, you’d think Texas legislators wouldn’t even consider trying to stick the state’s hunters and anglers with costs of repairing every car that hits a deer.
Still, it’s obvious someone out there wants to.
____________________
By Shannon Tompkins
Reprinted from the Houston Chronicle
Why is it ridiculous to want the state to pay for a problem they’re causing?
All state wildlife agencies/DNRs “manufacture” ungulates (hunters’ preferred game species) by the millions through clear-cutting and prescribed forest burns to improve deer habitat (at the expense of every other living thing), predator extirpation (to eliminate competition), and even through the use of proprietary software that allows them to manipulate birth rates. (Ever wonder why you used to see a deer with one or two fawns, and now you regularly see them with three, four, even five? This is why.)
Think about it: if you sell widgets for a living, do you want more widgets to sell or less?
Wendy, while true that white-tailed deer are an important game species that receive a lot of attention from both hunters and non-hunters, I’m not sure a state agency has the ability to create overabundant deer numbers. In fact, many states own very little of the land found within their boundaries.
Although deer populations pose a real problem with regard to auto accidents, we would be remiss if we ignored the fact that road traffic has increased at the same time (in some areas dramatically because of the growth of the human population) both of which contribute an increased number of accidents.
As I mentioned in my first comment, state agencies absolutely DO create overabundant deer populations, and I explained exactly how. So if a state is creating a problem, I believe it, and their customers, should pay for the damages that are caused as a result of that problem. We didn’t cause it, and we’re tired of paying for it.
Wendy, you have a right to your opinion but you lost a lot of credibility when you cited whitetail does as having 4-5 fawns per year. That can’t happen.
Furthermore, the wildlife in most states belongs to the people of the state. That’s you and everyone else that lives there. If the state ends up paying for damage caused by your wildlife then you will end up paying for it again (through your tax dollars). It’s a vicious cycle with no good answer. No one wants property damage from a wild animal, hunter or not.
Personally, I feel that the dept of fish and wildlife should be responsible for damages that occur to vehicles for several reasons
1. They collect payment in the chance of harvesting the animal
2. The fine you for improperly harvesting a animal
3. Creating the horn hunting culture last I checked males don’t have live birth and from my experiences a doe have better tasting higher quality meat
This is no different than farming, change the word deer to cow and dfw to farmer
Taking a animal for food great, don’t pay the theives for something that is already yours or make the farmer liable for his livestock
Matthew, thanks for sharing your opinion with us. I understand where you are coming from. I get it, but I’m not a big proponent of any state or federal payouts because the reality that money comes from you and me. I don’t want to pay for others stuff. If I hit a deer because of negligence or just bad luck, then I will just take of myself. Thanks again, though!
Come on, get real!!! Hunters and fisherman pay big money for licenses and permits and fines for a fish being 1/2 inch too short!!! Yes the state could help out covering the cost when a car has been struck by a deer! We are required to be responsible for our farm animals , the state should own up and be responsible. I know I know, I’m entitled to my opinion…. Blah blah blah!!! I already pay taxes for other things I am not responsible that happens , what’s different with a deer hitting me? Just let the rich get richer and the poor pay it all by themselves for a dear getting out of a government controlled breeding facility!!!
Janey, thanks for sharing your comments. Not sure that hunting and fishing licenses in Texas cost “big money” but it’s all relative.
Why does the State set limits on the number of deer that hunters can take in areas that are massively overpopulated with whitetail like the Texas hill country? Why are hunters allowed to feed the wildlife to contribute to this overpopulation? The goal of state wildlife agencies should be maintain a healthy sustainable stable population of these animals.
State wildlife management has instead encouraged the numbers become so high as to be a nuisance, damaging habitat, affecting agricultural crops, causing auto accidents, and yes, deaths.
Do I believe the state should pay $ for deer and wildlife caused auto collisions and deaths? Absolutely not. The State does, however, need to adjust its licensing practices and harvesting laws to reflect the current urgent need decrease the overabundant deer population.
Paul, I think you ask some very good questions and make some very valid points. I do know that Texas has plenty of white-tailed deer, but my understanding is that hunters within the state simply do not shoot enough deer. Or better said, they are not using all of their deer tags. There is also a bias towards bucks, which does not limit a deer population.
Another factor facing urban and suburban areas is that these properties are regulated by city ordinances, which negate some state hunting regulations/bag limits, by prohibiting the discharge of hunting equipment. Can’t put ’em in the freezer if you can’t hunt ’em.
First of all, you only cited hunting and fishing license fees for income to the parks and wildlife dept.
Those fees alone would well cover the costs. So what if biologist income may be affected. Some of those studies are downright wasteful and unneeded.
Let’s look at fines levied on hunters and fishermen, that’s where the real cash flow is. Take a doe illegally and her life expectancy is estimated and then all her ” future ” offspring are estimated. You pay for her and all future offspring. How can Texas claim this? Because they legally lay claim to the animal.
YES SIR, $250 could easily be allocated to help motorists. BTW, at 615 AM yesterday morning I hit a deer on my way to bow hunt. Waiting to see if my car will be totaled or not.
I had to opt for a high deductible to afford notes and insurance. Before you add your two cents to that, let me set it straight. Perhaps if I didn’t purchase bows, firearms, arrows, bullets, license and permits I could have easily budgeted for a lower deductible that would be easier to pay, but then I wouldn’t be contributing to and supporting parks and wildlife would I?
You should amend your article to include revenue from fines levied. You make it sound as if the state only is paid via license fees.