Would you pay???

[Ferg]

For an additional insurance 'rider' on your auto policy if the insurance companies would back off their battle cry of a reduced deer heard?

And when I say 'back off' I mean OUT - if your company sells a 'deer rider' then they stay out of the deer issue completly. Lets assume for the sake of this discussion, that ALL Auto Insurance companies sell the riders, so the issue of them being involved in deer decisions goes away altogether.

How much would you be willing to pay to, say, get the deer heard back to 2million animials (*lets NOT discuss habitat just yet*) -

This is just a hypothetical question that came to my mind while doing some research about the ins company's claims about losses and DAI's.

ferg....

[Sib]

No, I wouldn't pay more, I figure I'm already paying based on risk, so I wouldn't want to be double paying based on risk. I also wouldn't want the situation in general, because it puts hunters into a selfserving catagory with the majority of people in this state paying higher fees just so hunters can have inflated chances on deer.

It's a bad idea, imo, to base policy based on a vocal minority, especially when you ask the majority to subsidize the inflated hunting opportunities. If a law like this were ever passed we'd have a far more difficult fight, than what the insurance people are lobbying for at the moment.

[Luv2hunteup]

The point is moot. No matter how much we pay the insurance companies are going to snivel and whine that they had to pay a claim.

[Swamper]

No. And no.

Car/deer accidents are more than just about money and seeing more deer. Human lives, medical injuries, lost time at work, etc.

Secondly, I suspect very few hunters want two million deer again, due to habitat damage, disease, etc.

For those reasons....no and no.

Swamper

[boehr]

NO! Many good point made above.

[Ed Spin04]

A friend of mine is an executive in a major auto insurance company and he tells me this. They really do not get into the lobbbying of a lower deer herd for political reasons and they charge customers living near high car deer accident areas a premium.

I hit my first deer three years ago, with $3000 damage. The insurance agent asked me a few leading questions, when I reported the accident. Questions like, "Do you have a cabin or place near where the accident took place, Do you hunt there and how often", etc. I was on alert for these questions, thanks to my friend and did as well as the deer do evading me.

[Backwoods-Savage]

I've driven over 1,000,000 in Michigan and have hit a grand total of one deer. And that deer got up and ran off. I was coming over a rise in the road and suddenly the road was full of deer. I hit the brakes hard and was almost stopped before I hit one. Doubt if any damage was done, but I certainly took time to follow up on that deer to attempt to make certain.

Ferg's question certainly is loaded. Two big points are the 2 million deer and not discussing habitat. I seriously doubt anyone wants 2 million deer in Michigan and the big reasons are habitat and accidents.

Even though I've been "lucky" with the miles I've driven (lots after dark too), I have witnessed others who have not been so "lucky." The damage that can happen and the injuries are awful.

Ed's point about the premium is right. Therefore, why even discuss a rider? We are already paying and will continue. btw, even if the car/deer accidents decrease, I'll make a bet with anyone that the premiums will not reflect it. That, my friends, is a one way street.

[fairfax1]

Well, this is interesting....a little different perspective on the 'normal' deer-hunter discourse on the insurance industry.

As you cans see in a thread I sparked up the other day...I'm eager for someone (other than me) to dig up relevant numbers on 'deer'-costs to insurance. (...it's the one of 'Trolling for a thread-starter')

I lean towards Ed Spin's version relayed by his executive friend. But, go anywhere that deer hunters gather and you will hear within minutes some form of a gripe that our deer herd is 'controlled' by the insurance lobby.

I think it is a cliche' and has little basis in fact. It sounds plausible and fits well with the 'conspiracy'-spin that many folks use as a shortcut to real analysis.

I wonder if other states have this insurance boogey-man killing all their deer too?

[Ferg]

Well, this is interesting....a little different perspective on the 'normal' deer-hunter discourse on the insurance industry.

As you cans see in a thread I sparked up the other day...I'm eager for someone (other than me) to dig up relevant numbers on 'deer'-costs to insurance. (...it's the one of 'Trolling for a thread-starter')



I was looking for info for that thread FF1 - and got side tracked, as with all things internet :lol:,

I guess, my orignal thought was - what happens if we take the Ins companies out of the equation complety - what's left?

Same as we have now right ?

ferg....
I think so -

[fairfax1]

I like your post, mainly because I'm looking for a way to go head-on at that 'insurance industry' silliness. If your approach can uncover some truths that will puncture this myth ...well, attaboygogetem!

And, honest injun....I've never worked for an insurer...got no ties to the industry......so I'm not trying to protect anything. Just trying to take away one of the reasons some guys...even some I like and admire.... don't really think about the big-picture of deer in Michigan.

Is that self-righteous enough? After reading that last paragraph of mine I feel I should segue into "I've been to the mountain top and I've seen the glory.......".

[Ferg]

I could/would put some weight behind what the InsCo's say IF they would say things like -

'If we could reduce 'deer auto incident' by *some* precent - then we WOULD reduce your auto premiums by *some* precent.

But I don't hear that - it's not about 'us' it's about corp profits - by preventing claims - period.

So remove them from the equation - and what's left?

The biological science of balancing the heard size with the available habitat, what other reason could their be?

So, what I have done, essentually, is removed my orginal premis from play -

Paying more is stupid, or would be in this case, just to up the deer numbers for hunters, because, there is habitat issues, and a 'larger' picture when you introduce habitat to the equation.

I read someplace and correct me if I'm misstaken here - but I'm pretty sure I read that the whitetail is the quickest way to absolutly destroy the habitat for all other wildlife? Is that not so? (population left unchecked that is)

ferg....

[jimmyboy]

Don't we have a MI insurance commission that becomes involved in rate issues? And an insurance ombudsman to keep things in line?