..Trolling for a REAL thread-starter....

[fairfax1]

This is a bounce-pass to some intrepid soul out there in the M-S world who wants to tackle the real facts & figures of property insurance and our deer herd.

Quite frankly, as much as I want to put to rest the mega-bitchy complaint of: "the insurance industry tells the DNR how many deer we need". I'm just not up to the task right now of digging up stats on it.

Any Mike Wallace wanna-be's out there? Can you be a online investigative journalist?

I think...in other words, "in my humble opinion" ......this whole complaint by every other deer hunter out there that he didn't get his buck because the insurance companies don't want any deer is...well, a big bunch of buffalo-chips.

Will someone out there crank up google or their favorite flavor of search engine and prove me wrong....or prove me right?

Where's Nick Adams when we need him?

[Munsterlndr]

I don't think you are ever going to get a definitive answer on this question because the whole thing is a mixture of fact and fiction.

Do the insurance companies want less deer in Michigan. Sure they do. Deer/vehicle accidents costs them millions of dollars a year, they would be foolish not to want to save some of these claims.

Do insurance companies lobby politicians. You better believe it. The insurance lobby spends a lot of money on politicians in Michigan.

Is the DNR in their pocket. Personally I doubt it. I do believe, though, that the DNR is aware if politicians are unhappy with deer policy and that they certainly listen to other outside groups, whether it is the farm bureau, insurance companies, foresters or whomever. I see nothing wrong with this.

As far as the conspiracy theories of insurance companies releasing wolves, etc, make me laugh. Of course a lot of people believe in bigfoot.

For those of you who are paranoid, however, here is a little factoid. Michigan ranks number two in deer/vehicle collisions behind what State?

Pennsylvania. Nationally there were 1.1 billion dollars in deer related auto claims between 2004 & 2005, and Pennsylvania was at the top of the list.

Coincidently Pennsylvania has recently undergone a radical shift in deer management policy and have enacted herd reduction policies of up to 50% reductions of the deer herd in some areas.

Coincidence or not? You make the call. :lol:

[Tom Morang]

I have never seen an automobile insurance rep testify before the NRC. That doesn't mean (as Munster stated) that they don't lobby our legislature. I'll go with the urban legend and buffalo chips.

[Swamp Ghost]

I have never seen an automobile insurance rep testify before the NRC. That doesn't mean (as Munster stated) that they don't lobby our legislature. I'll go with the urban legend and buffalo chips.

Urban Legend and buffalo chips for the WIN.

It's about habitat carrying capacity as well as social carrying capacity.

If you have been reading the paper recently I have noticed a lot of articles concerning urban deer, nuisance deer, etc.

Hunters are not the main concern when it comes to the MI deer herd.

[NorthJeff]

Regardless of the wolves, AR's, baiting, low deer numbers, high deer numbers, habitat, mandatory check-in, etc., you still have to consider how MI game management is set-up. First, you have the DNR. We have big game specialists, cheif wildlife biologits, wild life biologist that most of the time were at the top of their classes, have great minds, and were "awarded" some pretty hard to get positions in thier fields.

Then, you have the NRC governing body. The NRC is made up primarily business men or women that may or may not hunt regularily, most likely have little to no biological background, and were a political appointment by the Governer at the time. They could have been appointed because of a friendship, a favor, who knows, but the bottom line, they aren't neccessarily biologists or foresters by any stretch of the imagination. Also, the NRC is in more of a position to be influenced politically by any number of sources.

So, you have the highly qualified and capable DNR folks that are the "experts" in their fields...or should be, they make their recommendations to the NRC, which primarily are made up of more of a political nature with a multitude of possible influences, including possibly the insurance industry, and the NRC then takes a vote on various matters and decides for us what, how, and when regulations take place.

The entire process if HIGHLY political and it's hard to imagine what goes on behind closed doors. If I were to try and influence a decision, it wouldn't be through the DNR, it would be through the NRC.

[Ferg]

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:aUC8-lKghBoJ:www.michigan.gov/documents/Issue16_74184_7.pdf+michigan+insurance+co+deer+goa ls&hl=en


Not sure what to make of them - but;

Want's the NRC's orignal charter to 'represent' a cross section of 'the people'?

ferg....
Not a cross section of political pac groups -:(

[jimmyboy]

Having held the impression that auto insurance companies were probably unduly exereting pressure on the DNR,I am tempering that thought now.I entertain the idea now that they handle comprehensive loss from car/deer accidents by increasing their policy rate for that coverage commencerate with loss,just as with the other policy coverages.Perhaps if an insurance agent is on these boards,they might care to address this point.Surely they have a dog in this fight,but possibly just a poodle,rather than a rotweiler.

[jimmyboy]

Think I just found my answer from Edspin's post#6 on Fergs Would you pay?thread.

[rzdrmh]

I don't think you are ever going to get a definitive answer on this question because the whole thing is a mixture of fact and fiction.

Do the insurance companies want less deer in Michigan. Sure they do. Deer/vehicle accidents costs them millions of dollars a year, they would be foolish not to want to save some of these claims.

Do insurance companies lobby politicians. You better believe it. The insurance lobby spends a lot of money on politicians in Michigan.

Is the DNR in their pocket. Personally I doubt it. I do believe, though, that the DNR is aware if politicians are unhappy with deer policy and that they certainly listen to other outside groups, whether it is the farm bureau, insurance companies, foresters or whomever. I see nothing wrong with this.

As far as the conspiracy theories of insurance companies releasing wolves, etc, make me laugh. Of course a lot of people believe in bigfoot.

For those of you who are paranoid, however, here is a little factoid. Michigan ranks number two in deer/vehicle collisions behind what State?

Pennsylvania. Nationally there were 1.1 billion dollars in deer related auto claims between 2004 & 2005, and Pennsylvania was at the top of the list.

Coincidently Pennsylvania has recently undergone a radical shift in deer management policy and have enacted herd reduction policies of up to 50% reductions of the deer herd in some areas.

Coincidence or not? You make the call. :lol:

pennsylvania also has a large timber industry. regeneration was almost non-existent. also, the audubon society found it necessary to weigh in, because of habitat loss for other species. they don't make a practice of getting involved in issues like these, so when they address it, it might be worth taking note.

i honestly believe that dr. alt was doing what he thought was best for the habitat, the herd, and ultimately, the hunters in pennsylvania. i doubt that he was swayed by insurance/timber/other industries. though, it does make sense that reasonable management benefits many. ultimately he paid the price, he stepped down after loud complaints from hunters who didn't get their daily dose of "x" number of sightings a day.

and to think.. i don't see ANY deer on the majority of my outings. but they are there.

[2Lunger]

NorthJeff,

I work for a state department and if the DNR is anything like mine, the political influence on department decisions is amazing. Lobbying industries give the governor campaign contributions. He/she has to make them happy during his/her term in office. The department heads are political appointees, therefore it is a tricle down effect. The experts at the front lines are handcuffed by these decisions. It was one of the hardest things to get used to when I started working here. Unfortunitely, it is the way that government works. I didn't really put much thought into the "insurance industry" claims that have been made on this forum. I believe that the DNR has the best interests in mind, but there may be some influence from industies such as the insurance industry or farmers, but we (hunters) are part of that equation also.

[NorthJeff]

I believe you. I know for a fact that decisions are made with career implications in mind as well...let alone outside political and non-political pressures. There maybe high ranking DNR biologists that may know something is the best for all involved, and could influence change, but they keep their mouths quiet because it may hamper their careers. Don't think it doesn't happen.

These guys have so many different kinds of pressure on them....doesn't help the process.

[Belbriette]

As long as special, corporatist interests, are involved (including hunter's), all totally outside of the crucial ones upon which depend an "Optimal and Durable Wildlife Conservation", the only available solution for ALL concerned, is to place this goal above all others considerations :

I feel the only way to reach, or to strive, for the best of the herd, is :
- first, to educate all hunters AND the whole population about the biology, the ethology and the ecology of all forms of wildlife,
- secondly, if not enough, to strive to impose politicians to act in order to do so, by laws.

;) ;)