Deer Strike

[John T[_2_]]

It happened to me August 29, 2006.

I went out for night currency with a short hop to Winchester, VA (KOKV). I
flew there VFR since the only clouds in the forecast would be up in the
Class A realm. Besides, I don't fly VFR in the DC ADIZ very often and I
could use the practice there, too.

The only interesting thing at KOKV were the birds. It's not often I see
birds (not bats) flying around well after dark, but there were a few
sandpipers flitting around Winchester.

The flight home to Leesburg, VA (KJYO) from my night currency landings at
Winchester was uneventful. The landing, on the other hand, had a bit of a
surprise in store.

Rounding out on final, I had the numbers nailed and came in over the
threshold right at 65 MPH indicated (yes, MPH, not knots). Just after the
nose gear touched, I saw a shadow cross the center line from right to left
and into the beam of the landing light: Deer! A split second later came a
thump and a slight pull to the right which was easily corrected.

The engine remained running fine with no unusual vibrations or noises so I
pulled off the runway at the first turn-off, cleaned up the aircraft and
scanned around for damage. As my scan came to the starboard horizontal
stabilizer, I saw in the faint light bent metal and busted fiberglass. It
was painfully obvious the thump I'd felt was not something being run over by
my landing gear as I'd desperately hoped, but rather a second deer.

I parked the plane in its usual spot and assessed the damage. Sure enough,
the starboard stabilizer had its leading corner busted and bent back with
the rear corner twisted back over the trim tab. It was also twisted back
enough that the corner connecting to the empennage was pulled out almost 2
inches. There was wrinkling on the starboard side of the empennage and
vertical stabilizer and the beacon was knocked loose from the fiberglass
cap. Well, "knocked loose" may be a bit of a misnomer as there was a bit of
fiberglass still attached to the beacon which was left hanging by the power
cords. The damage to the port side was worse as the force of the impact
evidently twisted the entire tail section to the port side. Also, the impact
appears to have severed at least one of the control connections as the
control lock was in the yoke, but I was able to move the elevator almost
from stop to stop.

I walked back to the scene of the impact to pull the carcass off the
runway - after all, there's no sense leaving it there for the next poor soul
to land - but there was nothing on the runway. Not even a blood trail. The
only apparent evidence of the culprit was the appearance of two pairs of
green eyes reflecting my flashlight beam at the edge of the woodline west of
the field and they ran off when I approached. After the damage done to the
plane, I was hoping to have something to at least kick.

All things considered, I was lucky. This may end up being minor compared to
the damage that could have been caused had the first deer struck the prop.

Pics and vids posted on my site for interested parties.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Morgans[_4_]]

"John T" > wrote

> All things considered, I was lucky. This may end up being minor compared
to
> the damage that could have been caused had the first deer struck the prop.

Bummer. I'll bet that it gets very expensive, before it is all over and
done.

I think that deer stand along a road/runway, and say, "OK, let's see who can
make it over there last, and get closest to the car/plane, without getting
hit!"

Thing is, they are lousy judges of how close they can get. ;-(
--
Jim in NC

[BTIZ]

Make sure to check the aircraft parts for deer fur or fuz.. evidence for the
insurance company.

I've "dodged" more than a couple of shadows over the years.. always been on
the luckier side of the out come. Never any damage to the plane.. only hit
one... and that one thump was not good for the deer.

Touch and Go in the Bone.. just at lift off a deer in the headlights.. never
felt the thump but we had the SOF check the runway before we came back..
sure enough.. deer with broken back.. now which part of the B-1 did he
hit?.. precautionary landing after they dragged the deer clear.. could only
find some fur on the main gear trucks.

Another night we hit a snowy owl on final.. spooked the co-pilot as he
flashed past the wind screen, a tough and go turned into a full stop.. post
flight check.. no windshield damage.. grease streak down the right side..
arched up and over the wing.. so he cleared the engines.. did leave some DNA
evidence behind on some of the aircraft seams.. missed the tail.

At Loring AFB ME, they used to have to check the runway at night for Moose,
before the after dark departures and arrivals. The "Moose is Loose" air
shows were always a good time.

BT

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> It happened to me August 29, 2006.
>
> I went out for night currency with a short hop to Winchester, VA (KOKV). I
> flew there VFR since the only clouds in the forecast would be up in the
> Class A realm. Besides, I don't fly VFR in the DC ADIZ very often and I
> could use the practice there, too.
>
> The only interesting thing at KOKV were the birds. It's not often I see
> birds (not bats) flying around well after dark, but there were a few
> sandpipers flitting around Winchester.
>
> The flight home to Leesburg, VA (KJYO) from my night currency landings at
> Winchester was uneventful. The landing, on the other hand, had a bit of a
> surprise in store.
>
> Rounding out on final, I had the numbers nailed and came in over the
> threshold right at 65 MPH indicated (yes, MPH, not knots). Just after the
> nose gear touched, I saw a shadow cross the center line from right to left
> and into the beam of the landing light: Deer! A split second later came a
> thump and a slight pull to the right which was easily corrected.
>
> The engine remained running fine with no unusual vibrations or noises so I
> pulled off the runway at the first turn-off, cleaned up the aircraft and
> scanned around for damage. As my scan came to the starboard horizontal
> stabilizer, I saw in the faint light bent metal and busted fiberglass. It
> was painfully obvious the thump I'd felt was not something being run over
> by my landing gear as I'd desperately hoped, but rather a second deer.
>
> I parked the plane in its usual spot and assessed the damage. Sure enough,
> the starboard stabilizer had its leading corner busted and bent back with
> the rear corner twisted back over the trim tab. It was also twisted back
> enough that the corner connecting to the empennage was pulled out almost 2
> inches. There was wrinkling on the starboard side of the empennage and
> vertical stabilizer and the beacon was knocked loose from the fiberglass
> cap. Well, "knocked loose" may be a bit of a misnomer as there was a bit
> of fiberglass still attached to the beacon which was left hanging by the
> power cords. The damage to the port side was worse as the force of the
> impact evidently twisted the entire tail section to the port side. Also,
> the impact appears to have severed at least one of the control connections
> as the control lock was in the yoke, but I was able to move the elevator
> almost from stop to stop.
>
> I walked back to the scene of the impact to pull the carcass off the
> runway - after all, there's no sense leaving it there for the next poor
> soul to land - but there was nothing on the runway. Not even a blood
> trail. The only apparent evidence of the culprit was the appearance of two
> pairs of green eyes reflecting my flashlight beam at the edge of the
> woodline west of the field and they ran off when I approached. After the
> damage done to the plane, I was hoping to have something to at least kick.
>
> All things considered, I was lucky. This may end up being minor compared
> to the damage that could have been caused had the first deer struck the
> prop.
>
> Pics and vids posted on my site for interested parties.
>
> --
> John T
> http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
> Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
> ____________________
>

[John Gaquin]

"Morgans" > wrote in message news:OrOKg.3456
>
> Thing is, they are lousy judges of how close they can get. ;-(


There's nothing in their brains that can reconcile another creature moving
at 45-60 mph.

[Peter Duniho]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
> There's nothing in their brains that can reconcile another creature moving
> at 45-60 mph.

You say that based on what facts?

It may well be outside that particular deer's experience, or the deer may
well just be a poor judge of closing rate (especially in the dark with the
primary object viewed being an artificial light source). But I see no
reason to think that deer are inherently unable to comprehend and correctly
respond to another object moving 45-60 mph. What makes you think that they
are?

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

The state of Kansas reports about 10,000 deer/vehicle
collision a year, most are cars and trucks. My son lives in
a very rural area and has had several vehicles damaged by
deer, only one carcass recovered.

Be sure to inspect the entire tail cone for remote damage
caused by the lever effect of the strike.

Good idea for all night landings at quiet airports, a noisy
low pass to move the deer away from the runway. Not a
perfect solution, but it should help.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
| It happened to me August 29, 2006.
|
| I went out for night currency with a short hop to
Winchester, VA (KOKV). I
| flew there VFR since the only clouds in the forecast would
be up in the
| Class A realm. Besides, I don't fly VFR in the DC ADIZ
very often and I
| could use the practice there, too.
|
| The only interesting thing at KOKV were the birds. It's
not often I see
| birds (not bats) flying around well after dark, but there
were a few
| sandpipers flitting around Winchester.
|
| The flight home to Leesburg, VA (KJYO) from my night
currency landings at
| Winchester was uneventful. The landing, on the other
hand, had a bit of a
| surprise in store.
|
| Rounding out on final, I had the numbers nailed and came
in over the
| threshold right at 65 MPH indicated (yes, MPH, not knots).
Just after the
| nose gear touched, I saw a shadow cross the center line
from right to left
| and into the beam of the landing light: Deer! A split
second later came a
| thump and a slight pull to the right which was easily
corrected.
|
| The engine remained running fine with no unusual
vibrations or noises so I
| pulled off the runway at the first turn-off, cleaned up
the aircraft and
| scanned around for damage. As my scan came to the
starboard horizontal
| stabilizer, I saw in the faint light bent metal and busted
fiberglass. It
| was painfully obvious the thump I'd felt was not something
being run over by
| my landing gear as I'd desperately hoped, but rather a
second deer.
|
| I parked the plane in its usual spot and assessed the
damage. Sure enough,
| the starboard stabilizer had its leading corner busted and
bent back with
| the rear corner twisted back over the trim tab. It was
also twisted back
| enough that the corner connecting to the empennage was
pulled out almost 2
| inches. There was wrinkling on the starboard side of the
empennage and
| vertical stabilizer and the beacon was knocked loose from
the fiberglass
| cap. Well, "knocked loose" may be a bit of a misnomer as
there was a bit of
| fiberglass still attached to the beacon which was left
hanging by the power
| cords. The damage to the port side was worse as the force
of the impact
| evidently twisted the entire tail section to the port
side. Also, the impact
| appears to have severed at least one of the control
connections as the
| control lock was in the yoke, but I was able to move the
elevator almost
| from stop to stop.
|
| I walked back to the scene of the impact to pull the
carcass off the
| runway - after all, there's no sense leaving it there for
the next poor soul
| to land - but there was nothing on the runway. Not even a
blood trail. The
| only apparent evidence of the culprit was the appearance
of two pairs of
| green eyes reflecting my flashlight beam at the edge of
the woodline west of
| the field and they ran off when I approached. After the
damage done to the
| plane, I was hoping to have something to at least kick.
|
| All things considered, I was lucky. This may end up being
minor compared to
| the damage that could have been caused had the first deer
struck the prop.
|
| Pics and vids posted on my site for interested parties.
|
| --
| John T
| http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
| Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework:
http://spf.pobox.com
| ____________________
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Because it is as fast as they move and when they meet a
faster predator (mountain lion or wolf) they get eaten.
When they meet humans they are either fed by slow walking
people or shot by fast moving bullets.



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "John Gaquin" > wrote in message
| . ..
| > There's nothing in their brains that can reconcile
another creature moving
| > at 45-60 mph.
|
| You say that based on what facts?
|
| It may well be outside that particular deer's experience,
or the deer may
| well just be a poor judge of closing rate (especially in
the dark with the
| primary object viewed being an artificial light source).
But I see no
| reason to think that deer are inherently unable to
comprehend and correctly
| respond to another object moving 45-60 mph. What makes
you think that they
| are?
|
| Pete
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:mVSKg.6853$SZ3.1572@dukeread04...
> Because it is as fast as they move and when they meet a
> faster predator (mountain lion or wolf) they get eaten.

Using that logic, humans are incapable of processing those kinds of speeds
as well.

Either your logic is incorrect, or we shouldn't be flying airplanes.

[John Gaquin]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "John Gaquin" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> There's nothing in their brains that can reconcile another creature
>> moving at 45-60 mph.
>
> You say that based on what facts?
>

Observable behavior, and an explanation offered some years ago by a game
warden in response to essentially the same question.

If you have acceptable facts upon which to refute such a claim, please share
them.

[Jim Macklin]

We can learn and alter our perceptions. But to do so
safely, we have instructors and training. Or you can follow
the "Hey, watch this" learning method and the survivors
learn if they remember after the drunken state wears off.


Humans are incapable unless trained by life experiences.
The fact that cars still try to beat trains, that
pedestrians step out in front of cars, that ...

Remember, humans have a brain that can think ahead, animals
brains may remember, but an animal can not see a parked car
and think about the tires being flat, the driver drunk and
passed out, the paint shines but will fade in the sun, and
all the thousands of things humans do think about.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:mVSKg.6853$SZ3.1572@dukeread04...
| > Because it is as fast as they move and when they meet a
| > faster predator (mountain lion or wolf) they get eaten.
|
| Using that logic, humans are incapable of processing those
kinds of speeds
| as well.
|
| Either your logic is incorrect, or we shouldn't be flying
airplanes.
|
|

[Jose[_1_]]

> Observable behavior, and an explanation offered some years ago by a game
> warden in response to essentially the same question.

In other words, nothing, and the voice of authority. We live among deer
here too, and I've observed them. Nothing in their observable behavior
indicates an inability to "reconcile" (whatever that means) another
creature moving at 45-60 mph. I do wonder if deer crash into each other
in the forest, but I have not mounted deer-cams in sufficient quantity
to get any useful information.

> If you have acceptable facts upon which to refute such a claim, please share
> them.

The Great Spaghetti Monster (bless his noodley appendages) told me so.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Gaquin]

"Jose" > wrote in message news:XC1Lg.20846

>> Observable behavior, and an explanation offered some years ago by a game
>> warden in response to essentially the same question.
>
> ......Nothing in their observable behavior indicates an inability to
> "reconcile" (whatever that means) another creature moving at 45-60 mph.

.....other than the apparent inability to judge speed and/or closure rate on
vehicles moving at those speeds. Or perhaps many deer just have poor vision
across the board. I don't know. But I have observed, and asked, and
received what seemed a plausible explanation from a person who had studied
wildlife, so I accept that until confirmed information comes my way. Do you
have any of that confirmed information, Jose? If not, then you're no
better off than I am, are you?

[Jose[_1_]]

> ....other than the apparent inability to judge speed and/or closure rate on
> vehicles moving at those speeds.

"apparant" is not the same as "actual". Deer get hit by cars. That is
the observable fact. There are many possible explanations which do not
involve "inability to judge speed...". The standard explanation is that
they freeze in the headlights (I've seen that). They are not paying
attention because they are in rud (I've seen that - it applies to people
too btw). They expect the car to jump out of the way, like an animal
might (I have no way of knowing whether this is true or not). There are
probably scores of others.

> But I have observed, and asked, and
> received what seemed a plausible explanation
> from a person who had studied
> wildlife...

That's a good start, but the question remains open. It's merely a
=plausable= explanation. If it is disprovable by experiment, it would
even qualify as a scientific theory. But that's all. To test the
theory you'd reasonably need to test their ability to judge speeds, and
see if there is a correlation between those their (varying) abilities
and their (varying) rates of impact. I don't think such a study has
been done, and it doesn't sound easy.

> Do you
> have any of that confirmed information, Jose? If not, then you're no
> better off than I am, are you?

I am better off, because I know that I don't know.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[r. mutt]

The deer have a greater right to be there than you do bozo. The deer are on
the ground walking and you're flying around in an unnatural contrivance in
order to satisfy your need for ego gratification. No sympathy here.


"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> It happened to me August 29, 2006.
>
> I went out for night currency with a short hop to Winchester, VA (KOKV). I
> flew there VFR since the only clouds in the forecast would be up in the
> Class A realm. Besides, I don't fly VFR in the DC ADIZ very often and I
> could use the practice there, too.
>
> The only interesting thing at KOKV were the birds. It's not often I see
> birds (not bats) flying around well after dark, but there were a few
> sandpipers flitting around Winchester.
>
> The flight home to Leesburg, VA (KJYO) from my night currency landings at
> Winchester was uneventful. The landing, on the other hand, had a bit of a
> surprise in store.
>
> Rounding out on final, I had the numbers nailed and came in over the
> threshold right at 65 MPH indicated (yes, MPH, not knots). Just after the
> nose gear touched, I saw a shadow cross the center line from right to left
> and into the beam of the landing light: Deer! A split second later came a
> thump and a slight pull to the right which was easily corrected.
>
> The engine remained running fine with no unusual vibrations or noises so I
> pulled off the runway at the first turn-off, cleaned up the aircraft and
> scanned around for damage. As my scan came to the starboard horizontal
> stabilizer, I saw in the faint light bent metal and busted fiberglass. It
> was painfully obvious the thump I'd felt was not something being run over
> by my landing gear as I'd desperately hoped, but rather a second deer.
>
> I parked the plane in its usual spot and assessed the damage. Sure enough,
> the starboard stabilizer had its leading corner busted and bent back with
> the rear corner twisted back over the trim tab. It was also twisted back
> enough that the corner connecting to the empennage was pulled out almost 2
> inches. There was wrinkling on the starboard side of the empennage and
> vertical stabilizer and the beacon was knocked loose from the fiberglass
> cap. Well, "knocked loose" may be a bit of a misnomer as there was a bit
> of fiberglass still attached to the beacon which was left hanging by the
> power cords. The damage to the port side was worse as the force of the
> impact evidently twisted the entire tail section to the port side. Also,
> the impact appears to have severed at least one of the control connections
> as the control lock was in the yoke, but I was able to move the elevator
> almost from stop to stop.
>
> I walked back to the scene of the impact to pull the carcass off the
> runway - after all, there's no sense leaving it there for the next poor
> soul to land - but there was nothing on the runway. Not even a blood
> trail. The only apparent evidence of the culprit was the appearance of two
> pairs of green eyes reflecting my flashlight beam at the edge of the
> woodline west of the field and they ran off when I approached. After the
> damage done to the plane, I was hoping to have something to at least kick.
>
> All things considered, I was lucky. This may end up being minor compared
> to the damage that could have been caused had the first deer struck the
> prop.
>
> Pics and vids posted on my site for interested parties.
>
> --
> John T
> http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
> Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
> ____________________
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:111Lg.6906$SZ3.5449@dukeread04...
> We can learn and alter our perceptions. But to do so
> safely, we have instructors and training. Or you can follow
> the "Hey, watch this" learning method and the survivors
> learn if they remember after the drunken state wears off.

And that's relevant to the statement "There's nothing in their brains that
can reconcile another creature moving at 45-60 mph" how?

> Humans are incapable unless trained by life experiences.
> The fact that cars still try to beat trains, that
> pedestrians step out in front of cars, that ...

And that's relevant to the statement "There's nothing in their brains that
can reconcile another creature moving at 45-60 mph" how?

> Remember, humans have a brain that can think ahead, animals
> brains may remember, but an animal can not see a parked car
> and think about the tires being flat, the driver drunk and
> passed out, the paint shines but will fade in the sun, and
> all the thousands of things humans do think about.

And that's relevant to the statement "There's nothing in their brains that
can reconcile another creature moving at 45-60 mph" how?

Nothing in your post in any way addresses the original comment. Did you
have a point relevant to the original comment or my reply? If so, you might
want to post *that*.

[Peter Duniho]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> There's nothing in their brains that can reconcile another creature
>>> moving at 45-60 mph.
>>
>> You say that based on what facts?
>
> Observable behavior, and an explanation offered some years ago by a game
> warden in response to essentially the same question.

People get run over by cars all the time. That doesn't prove that "there's
nothing in their brains that can reconcile another object [creature] moving
at 45-60 mph". It just proves that an individual human misjudged the
situation.

Your game warden reference is meaningless, assuming he just a
run-of-the-mill game warden, as opposed to one that has done some sort of
in-depth biological study of the brain responses of deer (frankly, I doubt
*anyone* has done such a study, but I think it's a safe guess your game
warden hasn't).

> If you have acceptable facts upon which to refute such a claim, please
> share them.

I claim that you are in fact a hideous, green oozing monster who simply
pretends to be human. You are disguised with a supernatural effect that not
only hides your genuine appearance, it prevents you from even knowing your
true identity. In fact, the supernatural effect is known ONLY to me, for
reasons unknown even to me.

If you have acceptable facts upon which to refute my claim, please share
them.

Pete

[John Gaquin]

"Jose" > wrote in message news:Wt2Lg.20873
>
> I am better off, because I know that I don't know.

Then that would make us even. The difference seems to be that I'm willing
to accept that someone else might know.

JG

[John Gaquin]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>
> People get run over by cars all the time.

LOL now there are two who have no idea why deer run in front of cars, yet
are willing to insist that my posit is dead wrong.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>I am better off, because I know that I don't know.
> Then that would make us even. The difference seems to be that I'm willing
> to accept that someone else might know.

So am I. I'm just not convinced you have found that person.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> >
> > People get run over by cars all the time.
>
> LOL now there are two who have no idea why deer run in front of cars, yet
> are willing to insist that my posit is dead wrong.

I love reading people in an argument!

I have no idea whether deer can understand something moving at aircraft
speeds. I don't know whether they can comprehend that or not.

But....some critters have a natural response that we might misread. I
have observed that antelope will run a straight line (at speeds up to
60 mph, by my car's speedometer) while running "from" a car. Funny
thing is, they might run parallel to the path of the car/road. I have
observed--and been told--that they won't jump a fence, but will run a
heck of a long way. They CAN jump, but usually don't. Why not?
Because for, oh, a half a million years or so, their main defense has
been speed. Just run. Fast and straight. Not much can keep up with
them.

A deer's main defense is freezing. I don't know why they jump in front
of the vehicle, but they do.

Don't read human behavior into animals. They aren't human. They
reason quite well for their world, but it can be difficult for them to
adapt as fast as we do.

cheers.

[Jim Macklin]

Gee, why don't you write something for me and IF I agree
with what you think I should say I'll post a comment.

You can be MY instructor IF you can do so safely and not
waste my time.




"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:111Lg.6906$SZ3.5449@dukeread04...
| > We can learn and alter our perceptions. But to do so
| > safely, we have instructors and training. Or you can
follow
| > the "Hey, watch this" learning method and the survivors
| > learn if they remember after the drunken state wears
off.
|
| And that's relevant to the statement "There's nothing in
their brains that
| can reconcile another creature moving at 45-60 mph" how?
|
| > Humans are incapable unless trained by life experiences.
| > The fact that cars still try to beat trains, that
| > pedestrians step out in front of cars, that ...
|
| And that's relevant to the statement "There's nothing in
their brains that
| can reconcile another creature moving at 45-60 mph" how?
|
| > Remember, humans have a brain that can think ahead,
animals
| > brains may remember, but an animal can not see a parked
car
| > and think about the tires being flat, the driver drunk
and
| > passed out, the paint shines but will fade in the sun,
and
| > all the thousands of things humans do think about.
|
| And that's relevant to the statement "There's nothing in
their brains that
| can reconcile another creature moving at 45-60 mph" how?
|
| Nothing in your post in any way addresses the original
comment. Did you
| have a point relevant to the original comment or my reply?
If so, you might
| want to post *that*.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

And some would say your comments have even less to back them
up than a run of the mill game warden or maybe he is a PhD
wildlife biologist who has studied animal behavior for
decades? I don't know, but I watched horses and dogs for
over twenty years and I could tell you what I remember, but
I did not write it all down, with footnotes, so I guess it
doesn't count.




"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "John Gaquin" > wrote in message
| . ..
| >>> There's nothing in their brains that can reconcile
another creature
| >>> moving at 45-60 mph.
| >>
| >> You say that based on what facts?
| >
| > Observable behavior, and an explanation offered some
years ago by a game
| > warden in response to essentially the same question.
|
| People get run over by cars all the time. That doesn't
prove that "there's
| nothing in their brains that can reconcile another object
[creature] moving
| at 45-60 mph". It just proves that an individual human
misjudged the
| situation.
|
| Your game warden reference is meaningless, assuming he
just a
| run-of-the-mill game warden, as opposed to one that has
done some sort of
| in-depth biological study of the brain responses of deer
(frankly, I doubt
| *anyone* has done such a study, but I think it's a safe
guess your game
| warden hasn't).
|
| > If you have acceptable facts upon which to refute such a
claim, please
| > share them.
|
| I claim that you are in fact a hideous, green oozing
monster who simply
| pretends to be human. You are disguised with a
supernatural effect that not
| only hides your genuine appearance, it prevents you from
even knowing your
| true identity. In fact, the supernatural effect is known
ONLY to me, for
| reasons unknown even to me.
|
| If you have acceptable facts upon which to refute my
claim, please share
| them.
|
| Pete
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Antelope will dive under a fence wire that is a foot off the
ground but not jump over it. Seen it happen more than once.
Antelope taste good.



> wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| John Gaquin wrote:
| > "Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message
| > >
| > > People get run over by cars all the time.
| >
| > LOL now there are two who have no idea why deer run in
front of cars, yet
| > are willing to insist that my posit is dead wrong.
|
| I love reading people in an argument!
|
| I have no idea whether deer can understand something
moving at aircraft
| speeds. I don't know whether they can comprehend that or
not.
|
| But....some critters have a natural response that we might
misread. I
| have observed that antelope will run a straight line (at
speeds up to
| 60 mph, by my car's speedometer) while running "from" a
car. Funny
| thing is, they might run parallel to the path of the
car/road. I have
| observed--and been told--that they won't jump a fence, but
will run a
| heck of a long way. They CAN jump, but usually don't.
Why not?
| Because for, oh, a half a million years or so, their main
defense has
| been speed. Just run. Fast and straight. Not much can
keep up with
| them.
|
| A deer's main defense is freezing. I don't know why they
jump in front
| of the vehicle, but they do.
|
| Don't read human behavior into animals. They aren't
human. They
| reason quite well for their world, but it can be difficult
for them to
| adapt as fast as we do.
|
| cheers.
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:LZ5Lg.6937$SZ3.4910@dukeread04...
> Gee, why don't you write something for me and IF I agree
> with what you think I should say I'll post a comment.

I'm not sure what your point is, yet again.

You are the one who replied to MY post, disagreeing with it. But you failed
to make any relevant points in your disagreement.

Why should I not respond, pointing out the lack of relevant points in your
disagreement? Should you expect to call into question any post you like,
without any rebuttals whatsoever?

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:c46Lg.6938$SZ3.1122@dukeread04...
> [...] I could tell you what I remember, but
> I did not write it all down, with footnotes, so I guess it
> doesn't count.

Nope, it doesn't.

[Jim Macklin]

Relevant too whom?



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:LZ5Lg.6937$SZ3.4910@dukeread04...
| > Gee, why don't you write something for me and IF I agree
| > with what you think I should say I'll post a comment.
|
| I'm not sure what your point is, yet again.
|
| You are the one who replied to MY post, disagreeing with
it. But you failed
| to make any relevant points in your disagreement.
|
| Why should I not respond, pointing out the lack of
relevant points in your
| disagreement? Should you expect to call into question any
post you like,
| without any rebuttals whatsoever?
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Before clay tablets, did humans learn anything?




"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:c46Lg.6938$SZ3.1122@dukeread04...
| > [...] I could tell you what I remember, but
| > I did not write it all down, with footnotes, so I guess
it
| > doesn't count.
|
| Nope, it doesn't.
|
|

[Montblack[_1_]]

("John Gaquin" wrote)
> ....other than the apparent inability to judge speed and/or closure rate
> on vehicles moving at those speeds. Or perhaps many deer just have poor
> vision across the board. I don't know. But I have observed, and asked,
> and received what seemed a plausible explanation from a person who had
> studied wildlife, so I accept that until confirmed information comes my
> way. Do you have any of that confirmed information, Jose? If not, then
> you're no better off than I am, are you?


I do know deer have a 'rods and cones' thing going on in their eyes. Nature
sacrificed some depth perception so it could bulk up on movement receptors.

The resulting depth perception /issue/ makes avoiding oncoming motorcycles
difficult for Bambi.

....1981.


Montblack

[Montblack[_1_]]

("r. mutt" wrote)
> The deer have a greater right to be there than you do bozo. The deer are
> on the ground walking and you're flying around in an unnatural contrivance
> in order to satisfy your need for ego gratification. No sympathy here.


Who conferred upon deer this right?


Montblack

[Jose[_1_]]

> I do know deer have a 'rods and cones' thing going on in their eyes. Nature sacrificed some depth perception so it could bulk up on movement receptors.
>
> The resulting depth perception /issue/ makes avoiding oncoming motorcycles difficult for Bambi.

Interesting. Does it also make avoiding oncoming tigers difficult?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Huck]

Well I guess I will have to right off this post as well. We do people
have to get into ****ing contests over **** that doesn't matter or
isn't even related to the post whatsoever! How about wishing the fellow
well and thanking goodness that he was able to walk away from this
incident. I have been on short final in that same area with
students{warrenton} and had to go around because the deer does the
usual thing and looks at ya! I am now in SC flying and flying for a
gentleman in and out of a grass strip in edisto sc. I have had deer
looking at me as I taxi by them in the baron for take off. All the
while praying "please stay in the woods please stay in the woods" Deer
are a real serious hazard! I know a company that flew both a king air
90 and a Citation II and the owner hit a deer with king air totalling
the king air. Now that is serious damage folks.
I feel to many people take for granted the fact that nothing is coming
out at you once down on the runway. In the circumstances stated the
poor guy with the cessna had now chance of avoiding the impact. So take
that into account folks even when we do everything right something can
go terribly wrong! Ok enough of the profit of doom. Did i mention what
a great day of flying we had here in SC/GA. I really love picking my
way around t-storms{said in a sarcastic tone} YUM.
Happy flying to all!

matt tiberii
CFI CFII
Com asel amel ases
Montblack wrote:
> ("r. mutt" wrote)
> > The deer have a greater right to be there than you do bozo. The deer are
> > on the ground walking and you're flying around in an unnatural contrivance
> > in order to satisfy your need for ego gratification. No sympathy here.
>
>
> Who conferred upon deer this right?
>
>
> Montblack

[Andrey Serbinenko]

I guess, if you assume zero depth perception (the extreme case), an approaching
vehicle will appear either stationary, or slowly moving sidewise, gradually
increasing in size. An oncoming tiger is a) non-wheeled, i.e. has a lot more
apparent relative motion against the background, and b) doesn't have
a constant speed of advance, which also contributes to its non-stationary
appearance. All in all, if you're dumb enough not to be able to logically
infer the nature of the motion from increasing size and noise, lack of
depth perception can make it look distant and non-threatening kind of curious
thing moving sidewise and not towards you. Deer need help. I wonder if
there's anything simple you can do that will instantly reveal your 3D nature
to the deer, some sort of a clue for the depth-perception-impared.


Jose > wrote:
>> I do know deer have a 'rods and cones' thing going on in their eyes. Nature sacrificed some depth perception so it could bulk up on movement receptors.
>>
>> The resulting depth perception /issue/ makes avoiding oncoming motorcycles difficult for Bambi.
>
> Interesting. Does it also make avoiding oncoming tigers difficult?
>
> Jose

[Jose[_1_]]

> I wonder if
> there's anything simple you can do that will instantly reveal your 3D nature
> to the deer, some sort of a clue for the depth-perception-impared.

Flashing lights, twirling propeller tops, little flags (or big flags) on
the antennas, blowing the horn, shooting off a shotgun every fifty
feet... :)

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Gaquin]

"Jose" > wrote in message news:WwBLg.25147
>
> Flashing lights, twirling propeller tops, little flags (or big flags) on
> the antennas, blowing the horn, shooting off a shotgun every fifty feet...
> :)

In Michigan and Wisconsin, where they have thousands of deer/car crashes per
year, some research has been done as to countermeasures. While some data
are inconclusive, it does not appear that any of the
bells/whistles/noisemakers often touted have much effect at all.

[Peter R.]

"r. mutt" <nofishin.net> wrote:

> The deer have a greater right to be there than you do bozo. The deer are on
> the ground walking and you're flying around in an unnatural contrivance in
> order to satisfy your need for ego gratification. No sympathy here.

LOL.

Do you suppose the deer would have to show ID to the TSA had they spotted
him/her running around on the runway?

--
Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote

> Deer need help. I wonder if
> there's anything simple you can do that will instantly reveal your 3D
nature
> to the deer, some sort of a clue for the depth-perception-impared.

I was thinking a small heat seeking missile, auto-launched at anything in
the touchdown and roll-out zone, and a few degrees on either side of it.

Think Estes Rocket, with a beanbag warhead, or perhaps a tazer, with some
nice electronics in the nose to guide it.

Nothing lethal; just a good attention -getter! <g>

I may be onto something, here! How many buyers would I have, in the
readership, here? <(:-))>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Huck" > wrote

> Well I guess I will have to right off this post as well. We do people
> have to get into ****ing contests over **** that doesn't matter or
> isn't even related to the post whatsoever! How about wishing the fellow
> well and thanking goodness that he was able to walk away from this
> incident.

I think that was in the posts, back a bit. (quite a bit) It is usual to
have thread drift, and opposing viewpoints, especially when it comes to
animal rights, ect. The animal rights people are very vocal, and have
strong beliefs, and there will always be someone to call them on it.

So really, don't be so down. It really was a pretty minor escalation, all
things considered.

In case nobody did wish the guy well, and give thanks for his safety, I
will. I've had a tangle with a deer, and it was only a 6 month old, but it
sure busted up my car. There isn't a damn thing you can do about it; just
say oh well, and go on with it.

Same with this thread.

See ya!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

> > The deer have a greater right to be there than you do bozo. The deer
are on
> > the ground walking and you're flying around in an unnatural contrivance
in
> > order to satisfy your need for ego gratification. No sympathy here.

Huck: Just kill file this Bozo, who is obviously a troll, and go on with
it. He is not worth getting your blood pressure up over. Notice I had to
respond second hand, cuz I already had him in the dumpster.
--
Jim in NC

[Jose[_1_]]

> I was thinking a small heat seeking missile [...]
> How many buyers would I have, in the
> readership, here? <(:-))>

Can you make them for automotive applications?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jose" > wrote

> Can you make them for automotive applications?

Humm, might be hard on bicyclists, pedestrians, and oncoming traffic, in the
"full auto" selection! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> It happened to me August 29, 2006.


Well John, You will be happy to know that you will be able to safely fly to
my local airport ELD soon without worrying about deer. They have just gotten
federal funding to spend over $1 million to build a seven foot high fence
all the way around the place specifically to keep deer out.

The funds are out there so maybe you need to get your airport manager to
work on getting some.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote

> Well John, You will be happy to know that you will be able to safely fly
to
> my local airport ELD soon without worrying about deer. They have just
gotten
> federal funding to spend over $1 million to build a seven foot high fence
> all the way around the place specifically to keep deer out.

Silly, that will never work! Deer are far too clever. They will just get
wire cutters and shovels, and go under the fence!
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Macklin]

A good deer fence is two 6 foot fences about three feet
apart, the deer can jump the first fence but come down
inside and can't jump the second. Every hundred yards or
so, there is an opening to let the deer out. Sell it as an
anti-terrorist security fence.



"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
|
| "John T" > wrote in message
| m...
| > It happened to me August 29, 2006.
|
|
| Well John, You will be happy to know that you will be able
to safely fly to
| my local airport ELD soon without worrying about deer.
They have just gotten
| federal funding to spend over $1 million to build a seven
foot high fence
| all the way around the place specifically to keep deer
out.
|
| The funds are out there so maybe you need to get your
airport manager to
| work on getting some.
|
|

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Huck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I have been on short final in that same area with
> students{warrenton} and had to go around because
>the deer does the usual thing and looks at ya! I am
> now in SC flying and flying for a gentleman in and
>out of a grass strip in edisto sc. I have had deer
> looking at me as I taxi by them in the baron for
> take off. All the while praying "please stay in the
> woods please stay in the woods" Deer are a real
> serious hazard!

I think that it depends upon the area of the country that you are in...
While up in Iowa, I heard a lot about people hitting deer... While driving
through Mississippi on the way from New Orlean to Iowa, I often encountered
large numbers of deer on the side of the highway at night, but none of them
got spooked and bolted across the road... Hell, I saw more deer along the
highway in one spot than I have in multiple deer hunting seasons...

My first flight into the Slidell, LA airport allowed me to be greeted by a
turkey walking across the runway... As I'm rolling out towards him, he
doesn't pick up speed or anything... He just continues his slow walk across
the runway... I moved to the left side of the runway a bit and let him
pass... My right wing probably went over the top of him, but he appeared
totally unfazed by it... As if aircraft landing by him is a totally normal
occurance...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message
...
> Deer need help. I wonder if there's anything simple you
> can do that will instantly reveal your 3D nature to the deer,
> some sort of a clue for the depth-perception-impared.

I've found that a 30-06 and a .308 to be particularly effective...

On the other hand, one could also argue that just the wearing of hunter's
orange seems to be good at making them scarce...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:cF2Mg.15331$SZ3.4910@dukeread04...
> A good deer fence is two 6 foot fences about three feet
> apart, the deer can jump the first fence but come down
> inside and can't jump the second. Every hundred yards or
> so, there is an opening to let the deer out.

Why would you want to let the deer out before determining if it is the
proper size for your BBQ grill?

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Deer need help. I wonder if there's anything simple you
>>can do that will instantly reveal your 3D nature to the deer,
>>some sort of a clue for the depth-perception-impared.
>
>
> I've found that a 30-06 and a .308 to be particularly effective...

You need two rifles? I've found my lone 7mm Rem Mag to work fine. :-)

Matt

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:54:54 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Grumman-581 wrote:
>> "Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Deer need help. I wonder if there's anything simple you
>>>can do that will instantly reveal your 3D nature to the deer,
>>>some sort of a clue for the depth-perception-impared.
>>
>>
>> I've found that a 30-06 and a .308 to be particularly effective...
>
>You need two rifles? I've found my lone 7mm Rem Mag to work fine. :-)

7mm Mag for Deer? One properly placed shot and it's cut, quartered,
and ready for packaging.


>
>Matt
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Matt Whiting]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:54:54 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Grumman-581 wrote:
>>
>>>"Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Deer need help. I wonder if there's anything simple you
>>>>can do that will instantly reveal your 3D nature to the deer,
>>>>some sort of a clue for the depth-perception-impared.
>>>
>>>
>>>I've found that a 30-06 and a .308 to be particularly effective...
>>
>>You need two rifles? I've found my lone 7mm Rem Mag to work fine. :-)
>
>
> 7mm Mag for Deer? One properly placed shot and it's cut, quartered,
> and ready for packaging.

Well, it isn't quite that good. :-)

Matt

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> You need two rifles? I've found my lone 7mm Rem Mag to work fine. :-)

Different rifles over the years... Come to think of it, I probably killed
more deer with an old 30-30 than anything else... Probably had more to do
with the fact that I got a chance to use it more often than the higher
powered rifles in that I had more spare time to go hunting back in my
younger days... And then there was the old 7.7mm Arisaka that my father
brought back from WW-II... I really liked the sights on that rifle...

[Trevor]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "John Gaquin" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > There's nothing in their brains that can reconcile another creature moving
> > at 45-60 mph.
>
> You say that based on what facts?
>
> It may well be outside that particular deer's experience, or the deer may
> well just be a poor judge of closing rate (especially in the dark with the
> primary object viewed being an artificial light source). But I see no
> reason to think that deer are inherently unable to comprehend and correctly
> respond to another object moving 45-60 mph. What makes you think that they
> are?

Well, having grown up in Pennsyvania, it's certainly in my experience. In the
daytime, deer can watch you driving right towards them at 45, whatever, and they
stay put. In the nighttime, it's the same thing, except YOU can't see them
until they are well in your headlights, and the deer are often on the side of
the road until you get there. Even living in an area at the moment without much
deer, I still am on guard driving at night through the woods, particularly in
the fall when deer seem to get more active. Although I didn't hunt, I was
always happy when rifle season got started. Because deer have few predators
left other than man, their herds have gotten out of control, and too many deer
can do great damage to the environment as they strip foliage and bush and kill
small trees, which then leaves the landscape bare to errode away.

I once stopped completely on a two lane highway for a lone deer parked next to
the double yellow line. It didn't budge. I tapped the horn. It curiously
looked at me. Next I turned off the headlights. Then I turned off all the
lights. Eventually it slowly wandered off. I moved forward slowly until I was
confident her unseen friends were behind me. (Deer usually travel in packs).

I'm not sure how to really avoid deer when landing, other than luck and finding
an airport with a very tall fence (deer can jump very high and can also swim
amazingly well) . I've heard of overflying the field before landing at night,
but I'm not sure this would work, since even if they were scared and moved away
(hah!) deer could merely move on to the runway while you're on downwind again.

Now moose, that's a different story. Deer will damage your car/plane and will
get injured/killed if you collide. With moose *YOU* get injured/killed if you
collide.