In message , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:52:32 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>So why shouldn't the shooters and walkers pick up the bill for such
>>>accidents?
>>>
>>Because it would be impossible to prove that they caused the accident.
>>
>
>So there should be some means of preventing the occurrence of such
>disturbance or the land owners should be responsible.  They're happy
>enough to treat deer as their own for shooting but if the deer cause
>an accident then they don't want to know. Perhaps, it should be the
>landowners responsibility to erect deer fencing at roadsides next to
>where shooting or access for dogwalking occurs.

Oh dear Angus wants to stop the deer being wild animals and confine 
them.

Not very nice for a wild animal.

>
>Should I write a letter saying that a senior adviser of SNH thinks
>that some accidents are caused by deer running onto roads where
>shooting and dog walking occurs?

Angus is twisting things again.  Malcolm hasn't said that.  He has 
carried on from your suggestion rather than get into your typical 
avoidance tactic along the lines of "Are you saying they don't?"

>
>
>>It is common sense that deer can be scared and so
>>might, but only might, run across a road.
>
>Of course it is. I've been saying that for years and the Erie
>Insurance Group in America did a study on this as well.

Notice the stress on might.  You appear to suggest that most deer 
accidents are due to disturbance.

You aren't surely daft enough to try to compare American road conditions 
and deer to those in the UK are you?

>
>>However, that's a very long
>>way indeed from saying that this is involved in all deer accidents.
>
>It may or may not be.  Erie found that deer collisions rose five times
>at the beginning of the shooting season and remained substantially
>high until the season ended.

Oh you are daft enough to try to compare the USA where guns are in 
plenty and masses of gun toting individuals head for the woods to shoot 
during the season with the UK.

Is there anywhere in the UK where people in woods feel the they need to 
wear fluorescent clothing to avoid being shot?

I gather that many "hunters" in the USA wear such clothing to avoid 
being shot by others.  The two situations just aren't comparable.

>
>>It
>>is likely to be a tiny minority
>>
>
>Five times the norm is hardly a "tiny minority.

OH dear you insist on underlining how desperate you are to compare two 
un-alike situations.

Either that or you are so ignorant of the wildlife situation in the two 
countries to believe it is a sensible comparison.

A third possibility is that you are deliberately misleading in the hope 
of deceiving casual readers.

Don't waste your time they aren't that thick.

>
>>
>>What if you were driving, not fast, along a road with fields either side
>>and the deer leaped over the hedge beside you and crashed into your
>>vehicle? This happened to a friend of mine. There were no shooters or
>>walkers in the vicinity, the deer just took it into its head to cross
>>the road at that point. As there was another deer in the field beside
>>the road, it is probable that sex or territorial aggression had
>>something to do with it. Of course, had my friend been driving faster he
>>would have been past that point before the deer leaped the hedge!

Notice casual readers the question has been avoided.


-- 
Malcolm Kane