Media Backgrounder

MEDIA BACKGROUNDER

For more information, please contact:

Manager, Marketing and Communications
613-238-5235 (office)
1-877-238-5235 (toll-free)
1-613-238-5292 (fax)
tirf@tirf.ca

In Canada, wildlife-vehicle collisions (WVCs) are a serious burden to our society. The consequences are widespread and include significant road safety, environmental, and socio-economic costs. Collisions with animals result in death and serious injuries for road users and financial costs have been estimated as high as $200 million annually[1]. Between four and eight collisions occur every hour with large animals, and of these it is estimated that over 45,000 collisions occur every year with large animals alone.

For large and small wildlife alike, collisions can also have a strong impact on biodiversity, particularly among endangered species that are at risk of disappearing altogether. Unfortunately, the means that efforts to better understand and address WVC issues are considerably impeded, first, by the limited availability of quality data, information, and resources for researchers and practitioners and, second, by the existence of few educational road safety resources for the public. [2]

To better gauge the full extent of gaps in research and data, in 2012 Desjardins Insurance contracted the Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) to investigate this issue as a first step towards addressing it.

• Part 1 consisted of a literature review of existing data and information regarding wildlife-vehicle collisions; and,
• Part 2 involved a feasibility study to explore gaps that could be addressed by an online clearinghouse.

The Wildlife Roadsharing Resource Centre (WRRC) was successfully launched in the summer of 2015. Modeled on the concept of an information clearinghouse, the purpose is to help fill gaps in WVC information, data, and resources that are needed by practitioners, researchers, and the public to help reduce and prevent WVCs. The two primary goals of the clearinghouse are to:

• Provide a centralized source of information, data, tools, and products relevant to the needs of researchers/practitioners in the road safety, ecology, and environmental disciplines; and,
• Provide useful information, tools, and resources to assist and educate the public to better understand and prevent WVCs.

Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions Fatalities and Injuries

• There were 296 people killed due to vehicle collisions with animals in Canada between 2001 and 2010 (TIRF National Fatality Database). This number may be under-represent the size of the program as data collected on fatal wildlife-vehicle collisions (WVCs) are not always consistently reported or the circumstances of some collisions may not be known.
• The number of non-fatal collisions with wildlife has been estimated at more than 45,000 collisions per year in Canada. [3]
• Limited research on the impact of WVCs on human fatalities and injuries is due, in part, to less abundant and less detailed data associated with these types of collisions. Furthermore, not all WVCs are reported, particularly those that result in minimal injury or property damage.
• A 2005 study examining police reports in nine (9) US states revealed that 77% of collisions occurred with deer. Although passenger vehicles represented the majority of WVCs, collisions with motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles, (ATVs) were a disproportionately high second largest contributor.[4]

Costs Related to WVCs

• The average cost per collision from 1996 to 2001 was $3,470 USD and an average yearly cost of $7,529,242 USD.[5]
• Property damage in 1993 caused by deer-vehicle collisions accounted for U.S. $1.1 billion.[6]
• Wildlife fencing combined with over- and under-passes and animal jump outs, which were calculated to be 86% effective in reducing WVCs, can be cost effective for roads that record 4.3 deer collisions per kilometre per year or more).[7]

Deer-Vehicle Collisions

• In North America, the most widespread, frequent, and largest number of wildlife-vehicle collisions (WVCs) involve deer.
• In 2004, a study was conducted across three counties in Southern Michigan by researchers at Michigan State University. The three counties represented varied deer and human populations, as well as varied traffic volumes that represented low to high levels. Among survey respondents, 20% reported having been involved in a deer-vehicle collision (DVC), 94% reported having seen a deer while driving, and 31% saw deer on a weekly basis. [8]
• Having experienced a DVC versus not had little effect on willingness to slow down when seeing a deer-crossing sign, 77% were willing to slow down versus 73% respectively.
• Only 46% of drivers reported a DVC to police agencies and only 52% reported a DVC to their insurance agency. The primary reason given for not reporting DVCs was that drivers did not feel it was necessary. DVCs were considered a serious problem by 81% of respondents, however among all drivers in the study, 79% believed that DVCs could not be prevented, in other words they believed that DVCs were random.

Moose-Vehicle Collisions

• Since moose are heavier than deer, vehicles sustain more damage when it strikes a moose as compared to a deer. Moose are taller and have a higher centre of gravity. Thus, during a collision the trunk of the moose’s body is often higher, resulting in an impact on the hood of a vehicle or intrusion into the occupant compartment. Consequently, occupants of vehicles that strike a moose are more likely to be killed or injured as compared to collisions with smaller animals.
• Quebec researchers collected data on moose-vehicle collisions in the Laurentides Wildlife Reserve, a forested area north of Quebec City with a high density moose population, between 1990 and 2002. Collisions with moose were generally highest between mid-May to late August, with a peak in collisions during the latter half of June. Collisions also occurred most often at night and were typically highest on Fridays, as well as increased when both air temperature and atmospheric pressure were high. The presence of a single brackish pools (higher salt content than typical fresh water sources) was associated with increased collisions, although, greater numbers of pools did not result in increased collision numbers. Areas with valley crossings and roads surrounded by steeper terrain revealed increased collisions.[9]
• Quebec researchers conducted a study along Highway 175 in the Laurentides Wildlife Reserve (Réserve faunique des Laurentides) south of Saguenay, Quebec between 2005 and 2007. This area receives heavy snowfall, is densely forested, and has a substantial moose population. Where road salt is used to melt snow and ice on roads in the winter, the spring run-off washes the salt into roadside ditches and nearby pools. Moose do not consume enough sodium during the winter months and thus are attracted to these ditches and pools in the spring. The complete removal of roadside salt pools reduced the number of road crossings by moose; however, if moose were provided new pools in different areas road crossings increased. These findings are important considerations in planning by road engineers and in particular winter road maintenance management.[10]
• A one-year study of moose-vehicle collisions in 2003 undertaken in Prince George by the University of Northern British Columbia found that more moose-vehicle collisions occurred on roads adjacent to greenbelts where lighting was not as prevalent as city streets and where speed limits were higher. They were also more likely to occur between June and November and from dusk to dawn.[11]

Mitigation Research

• In Canada, wildlife-vehicle collisions (WVCs) have risen by approximately 9% between 1996 and 2000[12] and continue to pose a risk as traffic volumes increase in Canada[13], in part because road networks and other transportation corridors (e.g., railways) act as barriers to wildlife and ecological systems.
• A study by Clevenger et al. found that mitigation fencing resulted in a significant decline in the occurrence of WVCs within the Banff National Parkway, despite increased traffic volumes. However, the results varied depending on the species type, where ungulate (e.g., moose or deer) mortality dropped by 80% while carnivore (e.g., wolves or cougars) mortality dropped by only 16% and no difference was recorded for coyotes. The differences were largely attributed to the type of mitigation fencing used which was specifically designed for ungulates. [14]
• One hundred and twenty two (122) studies reviewed in van der Ree et al.’s 2007 study demonstrated that the wildlife crossings they examined produced some level of successful mitigation for the animal type for which the measure was designed. [15]
• A 2011 study found that risks for WVCs increased alongside roads that provided shrub for wildlife cover, foraging, encouraged the presence of prey, were flat and easy to traverse, or followed riparian (i.e., banks alongside water) corridors.[16]
• The articles by Clevenger et al. (2001) and van der Ree et al. (2007) also revealed that exclusion fencing and wildlife crossings play an important role in reducing WVCs. However, both studies noted that more research is required to improve the effectiveness of these measures, both in terms of the animal species that they target and in terms of the degree of effectiveness these measures actually have on reducing WVCs and improving habitat connectivity.

Road Safety and Deer

• Do not swerve to avoid deer. The majority of collisions are caused by drivers attempting to avoid animals and instead lose control of the vehicle or crash into another vehicle or roadside hazard.
• At night, deer typically freeze in the presence of headlights, usually as a result of over-stimulation to their eyes. Flash your lights on and off to allow deer to recover from the over-stimulation and react.
• Do not rely on deer whistles to frighten away deer. Studies show that whistles have little to no effect.
• Deer are incredible jumpers, able to leap as high as 3 m and as far as 9 m. For this reason, some roads and highways are lined with special tall, reinforced animal fencing. However, in most areas, fences or drainage ditches are not typically designed to prevent deer from accessing the road and will not stop them from doing so.
• Deer travel in herds. As such, when you see one deer expect more, particularly in the spring and summer when fawns follow their mother.
• Drivers should be prepared for more deer during both fall and spring peak periods. Collisions with deer are typically highest during the fall mating season. This is also the hunting season and thus deer frequently move around to avoid human activity.

Road Safety and Moose

• Moose are one of Canada’s largest mammals, weighing upwards of 500 kg – nearly half the weight of most cars, a third the weight of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and other large size vehicles, and outweigh motorcycles altogether. Hitting a moose can be similar to hitting a small car.
• Watching for moose at night time is made difficult due to their height. Most people are able to see light reflected in the eyes of animals in the dark. However, the eyes of moose are generally too high up for vehicle headlights to produce reflections. Combined with their darker brown, grey, or black colouring, moose can be very difficult to see at night.
• Increased collisions with moose occur during the fall rut and hunting season as moose move to different areas for mating or to avoid hunters.
• During a typical 24-hour period, moose are active from dusk through the night until dawn as they forage for food.
• In terms of habitat, moose are found near lakes, muskegs, and streams. They are also especially attracted to saltwater pools that accumulate next to roads as a result of winter road de-icing. Collisions can increase at times just after heavy snowfall periods in the winter or in the spring.
• Roads often divide animal habitats thus act like a barrier to movements between the various needs of wildlife such as water and food sources or migration and mating activities. Wildlife will cross roads to reach these destinations; however, their natural defences against predators are not very useful to protect them from or to avoid vehicles.
• Moose have very poor eye sight. They largely rely on their sense of smell and hearing and are therefore less likely to see clearly the potential threat of a fast approaching vehicle.
• With respect to the flight-or-fight response nature of animals, moose tend to be aggressive and are more likely to charge a vehicle if it deems it a threat.

Road Safety and Small to Medium-Sized Wildlife

• Do not swerve to avoid small animals. The majority of crashes are caused by drivers attempting to avoid animals and instead lose control of the vehicle or crash into another vehicle or roadside hazard.
• Small and medium wildlife can be active at all times of the day or night depending on the animal, but peak times for animal activity tend to be at dawn and dusk.
• Like large animals, small animals also prefer to be near sources of water like wetlands, bogs, lakes, or rivers as well as foliage that provides food and good cover.

About White-Tailed Deer in Canada

• Vehicles are the primary cause of death among deer.
• Deer are known to ‘freeze and stare’ into the headlights of vehicles. Studies have suggested that deer are temporarily blinded by the bright light.
• Once blinded, researchers believe that the over-stimulation of this sense causes deer to remain still until their eyes adjust or the light source is removed.

About Moose in Canada

• There are between 500,000 and 1,000,000 moose across Canada. Although moose inhabit all Canadian provinces and territories, they are not native to Newfoundland. A handful of moose were introduced to the island in the late 1800s and the population has since grown.
• Moose often drink water next to roads that contain salt from previous winter road de-icing.
• They have poor eyesight.

 About Turtles in Canada

• According to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), a group of experts that assess the status of species in Canada, a number of Canada’s turtles are endangered or threatened. The most dangerous threat to turtles is humans.
• Roads in particular represent a serious threat to land-based turtles. In Canada, turtles will often traverse roads to move to and from nesting areas, usually during the months of May and October. Additionally, female turtles often prefer the dirt, gravel, or sandy areas next to roads as a place to make their nests and lay their eggs.
• Although the majority of Canada’s freshwater turtles inhabit Southern Ontario turtles can be found along the southern borders of most of Canada’s provinces.
• Different turtles nest at different times, but the range in Canada is usually between the months of May to July.
• The majority of Canada’s land-based turtles are found in the warmer southern regions of Ontario and Quebec; however, turtles can be found in all provinces with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, or the three northern territories. These turtles prefer wetland areas, ponds, muskegs, slow-moving rivers and streams, or shallow lakes.

 

[1] L-P Tardif & Associates Inc. (2003). Collisions Involving Motor Vehicles and Large Animals in Canada. Final Report. Ottawa, ON: Transport Canada, Road Safety Directorate.

[2] Vanlaar, W. G. M., Gunson, K. E., Brown, S. W., and Robertson, R. D. (2012b). Creating a Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Clearing House in Canada: A Feasibility Study.Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF).

[3] L-P Tardif & Associates Inc. (2003). Collisions Involving Motor Vehicles and Large Animals in Canada. Final Report. Ottawa, ON: Transport Canada, Road Safety Directorate.

[4] Williams, A. F., and Wells, J. K. (2005). Characteristics of vehicle-animal crashes in which vehicle occupants are killed. Traffic Injury Prevention, 6(1), 56-59.

[5] Bissonette, J., Kassar, C. A., and Cook, L. J. (2008). Assessment of costs associated with deer-vehicle collisions: Human death and injury, vehicle damage, and deer loss. Human-Wildlife Conflicts, 2(1), 17-27.

[6] Conover, M. R., Pitt, W. C., Kessler, K. K., DuBow, T. J., and Sanborn, W. A. (1995). Review of human injuries, illnesses, and economic losses caused by wildlife in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 407-414.

[7] Huijser, M. P., Duffield, J. W., Clevenger, A. P., Ament, R. J., and McGowen, P. T. (2009). Cost–benefit analyses of mitigation measures aimed at reducing collisions with large ungulates in the United States and Canada: A decision support tool. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 35.

[8] Marcoux, A., and Riley, S. J. (2010). Driver knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes about deer–vehicle collisions in southern Michigan. Human-Wildlife Interactions, 4(1), 47-55.

[9] Dussault, C., Poulin, M., Courtois, R., & Ouellet, J.P. (2006) Temporal and spatial distribution of moose-vehicle accidents in the Laurentides Wildlife Reserve, Quebec, Canada. Wildlife Biology, 12(4), 415-425.

[10] Grosman, P.D., Jaeger, J.A.G., Biron, P.M., Dussault, C., and Ouellet, J.P. (2011). Trade-off between road avoidance and attraction by roadside salt pools in moose: An agent-based model to assess measures for reducing moose-vehicle collisions. Ecological Modelling, 222(8), 1423-1435.

[11] Rea, R.V. (2004). Investigating Methods to Reduce Urban Moose-Related Vehicular Collisions Within the City of Prince George, British Columbia. Ecosystem Science and Management Program, University of Northern British Columbia.

[12] L-P Tardif & Associates Inc. (2003). Collisions Involving Motor Vehicles and Large Animals in Canada. Final Report. Ottawa, ON: Transport Canada, Road Safety Directorate.

[13] Gunson, K. E., Chruszcz, B., and Clevenger, A. P. (2003). Large animal-vehicle collisions in the Central Canadian Rocky Mountains: Patterns and characteristics. Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University.

[14] Clevenger, A. P., Chruszcz, B., and Gunson, K. E. (2001). Highway mitigation fencing reduces wildlife-vehicle collisions. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29(2), 646-653.

[15] van der Ree, R., Gulle, N., and Holland, K. (2007). Overcoming The Barrier Effect of Roads: How Effective are Mitigation Strategies? An International Review of the Use and Effectiveness of Underpasses and Overpasses Designed to Increase the Permeability of Roads for Wildlife. International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET). Little Rock, AR: Center for Transportation and the Environment.

[16] Gunson, K. E., Mountrakis, G., and Quackenbush, L. J. (2011). Spatial wildlife-vehicle collision models: A review of current work and its application to transportation mitigation projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(4), 1074-1082.