Glenn Jim Responses to July 25th Blog Post (With Permission)

From:
To: deersafevictoria@yahoo.ca
Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2012 4:12:06 AM
Subject: DeerSafe Victoria Comment: July 24 CAG meeting commentary/Blog

As I read this commentary of the meetings proceedings, it really opens my eyes to the level of hypocrisy that the author is showing. Why would you try to make me look heartless in quotes taken out of context or by misguiding readers? Especially since you don't know me or the work that I do or my background!

You fail to mention why capture and relocate is rated low, the Province's Biologist do not support this option due to the high mortality rate of the affected deer!

At this meeting I also stated that in my cultural beliefs that 'Anecdotal" information can be treated as scientific as well and carry just as much weight as empirical evidence. I trust the words my elders have taught and shown me about the natural world and how we as human beings live within it and how the symbiotic relationships exist between all the Creators creatures...I didn't ask them to "prove it" Why did you not report this in your blog?

You say I "liken deer to cockroaches and rats". You fail to mention that in the context of my analogy it was that as creatures are removed (professionally exterminated in the case of the roaches) a vacuum is created and they just return. and yes, I still will say that they are like rabbits and rats, and other mammals that procreate in large numbers. Without a predator or means to abate their proliferation, they will overpopulate areas.

A question...why is the phrase "these meetings" emphasized within quotation marks without an explanation. I certainly did not put emphasis on my speaking it and you are not giving reasons for your doing so. Again you fail to provide more contextual information as to why I would not be attending more of "these meetings". As I mentioned in the meeting...I was going away on planned family holiday. And i would continue attending when I returned.

Also, thank you for quoting me from my presentation at the Traditional Foods Conference from 2010. It must mean you "Googled" to find out more about me. I hope others read the entire article to put this quote into context in which it was given.

As a final comment, thank you for allowing me to respond and counter your report to your blog, albeit a somewhat biased and somewhat deceptive account.

Glenn Jim

p.s. - One last question...Why was this CAG meeting a bit different, as the articles title suggests?

---

Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 10:11:08 -0700
From: deersafevictoria@yahoo.ca
Subject: Re: DeerSafe Victoria Comment: July 24 CAG meeting commentary/Blog
To:

I very much appreciate your email. This is the first time anyone has reached out from within the deer management process as devised by the CRD to create dialogue.

It was not my intention to personally offend you, but I can understand why you would see it that way. You may have noticed that I have quoted other CAG members on the blog – words that came out of their mouths that would not be reflected in the minutes.

I personally don't agree with capture and relocate and say so during my outreach to the public, for the very reasons you site. I also failed to mention why “Repellents” were rated low. I trust that residents will read the CAG minutes from the CRD website to find out why they came to the conclusions that they did.

The Deer Management Strategy claims to rely on scientific research by experts based on the Urban Ungulate Conflict Analysis, yet the CAG members were told to guess at the best practices, as directed by the facilitator at the July 4 meeting. Based on the claim that research is integral in a process such as DMS, anecdotal information should not be driving this process.
When you said you would not be attending “these meetings” it was unclear whether you were referring to your capacity as an expert on the ERWG or as a citizen on the CAG.

How can you favour a cull when you know that professional extermination creates a vacuum and they will just return? Far-sighted options that will allow the deer to find an equilibrium that they can live with makes much more sense, as does educating the public to co-habit with the wildlife that has as much right (or more) to be here than they do. A battle is being fought, and I've taken the side of the voiceless. Would they be polite or feel a need to explain themselves when their homes are ripped up by machines and paved over, with the survivors labeled as pests due for extermination?

I also hope that others have read the pdf from the Traditional Foods Conference. It is an important insight into traditional food gathering that so many in society are unaware of.

If you would like me to delete the blog entry, I will do so for you personally. My intentions have always been to expose the DMS for the manipulative exercise that it has been since it's conception. I bear you no ill will.

Kelly Carson

---

Thank you for your quick response Kelly. 

I don't think you need to delete the DeerSafe Victoria blog entry but clarify the statements in the context they were intended, or post these emails to the blog so readers are given that factual information you endeavour to have. 

I personally have served my community all my life in various capacities to make my community a better place and my integrity and honour is at stake. The blog attempts to convince people with factual information, which may be true in most instances but if it is done with deceit or deception due to lack of contextual information, all is for nothing and CRD residents are not able to make sound choices. 

As i said in my email, anecdotal evidence has its place. I believe it is justified to be used in this case. Let's just agree to disagree on this topic.

I dont believe going on holidays has any relevance to attending further meetings as a representative of either committee that I sat on, I stand by my earlier email comments.

Favouring a limited cull with other management options is a viewpoint I hold. I said this at the July 24th meeting, public education was also included in that statement. There are many other options as well as you can read in the posted final report.

As a last comment, i would like to relate a story shared by my wife when i was first appointed to the ERWG/CAG. It relates to her peoples traditional practices in her home territory in the Yukon. Back in the day, the elders would annually monitor wolf dens over a wide range. In the Spring, the men would go to the wolf dens and cull a small number of cubs from many litters scattered over their vast territory. This was done to ensure there was less competition for the valuable moose resource her people relied on for survival. It wasn't done out of malice or hatred, it was done so the populations of all affected stayed healthy and strong. It was part of the natural processes that evolved for them. This situation is similar. I don't hate deer, for many years I wouldn't hunt them because I felt sorry for them when they were killed. I know they have purposes in my life as a source of healthy, organic food source; and as a source of other things related to my culture. As a matter of fact, i highly respect the deer for that. I thank the Creator for allowing me to take this animal and providing my family and community with these things. So I don't make these choices lightly. In this instance, there is a need to reduce the different conflicts between the deer and the CRD residents, the RDMS is the tool to reduce some of that conflict.

Respectfully,

Glenn Jim