Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Deer Cull to Begin in January 2014 in Elkford, BC

Deer harvest in Elkford



posted Dec 30, 2013 at 3:00 PM— updated Dec 30, 2013 at 4:06 PM


The District of Elkford has a licence to cull 50 mule deer. The cull is to take place in January. - Tamara Hynd
The District of Elkford has a licence to cull 50 mule deer. The cull is to take place in January.
— image credit: Tamara Hynd

The District of Elkford will be harvesting up to 50 deer this January under a provincial licence to euthanize deer in town limits. The licence to kill 50 mule deer was issued in October.  Three separate deer counts showed there are 78 to 140 deer in Elkford. The last count in September showed deer numbers in Elkford town limits had lowered so the District is expecting to harvest 30 animals. The meat will be prepared for local food banks.


B.C. regulations dictate that no dogs (as is allowed in Alberta), no guns and no archery are allowed with the cull. A clover trap will be used to trap the deer and a captive bolt gun will euthanize each animal. The cull is expected to commence in January 2014 once the contractor is secured.



The deer harvest is motivated by public safety. Reports of aggressive deer attacking people and injuring dogs are the first concern. As the herd becomes unnaturally large there is a greater chance of a tick borne disease. The Committee held a public open house on November 26 to explain the planned deer harvest in January but only six to eight residents attended.



“The deer seem to have an issue with people with attachments,” said Bernie Van Tighem, District staff representative on the Urban Wildlife Management Council Advisory Committee. “Deer have gone after people with strollers and dogs on leashes.”



One deer went into a back yard killing a nine-month old puppy and there have been instances where vehicles have been driven between a human and a deer for safety's sake.



Elkford Council approved the recommendation from the Urban Wildlife Management Advisory Committee to create a new bylaw to deal with broad wildlife issues at the Nov. 25 regular council meeting. This bylaw will replace the existing Deer Feeding Prohibition Bylaw No. 676, 2006.



The current bylaw fines individuals $100 for feeding wildlife.



The new bylaw is intended to include all wildlife and match provincial fines. Residents could see a new bylaw in early 2014 that will continue to fine unintentional wildlife feeders $100 for putting their garbage out too early. New changes could involve individuals intentionally feeding wildlife, such as placing salt licks, or repeatedly leaving garbage out in a non animal proof container, resulting in a $300 fine.



“It appears we have an indigenous deer herd with two or three generations that have never left the townsite,” said Van Teigm. “It’s an unnatural herd. I think they live here because they are successful. We have created a predacious-free zone so they stay.”



There have been many reports of deer eating garbage and people habitually feeding the deer too.



In 2012, 433 Elkford residents participated in an online survey about the deer population in the townsite. Deer aggression towards humans, pets, threat of vehicle collision, damage to plants and trees and over population of the herd were the top concerns. Over 55 per cent of those surveyed had been threatened or a member of their immediate family had been threatened by a deer in town limits. Of those cases, 78 per cent reported it was by a doe in summer or spring.



Residents have used fencing, netting and screening, repellant and scaring as deterrents for deer. 24 per cent also said they knew of someone who fed deer.



In dealing with the population, capture and relocation was the top option, followed by controlled public hunting and education. Only seven per cent selected the capture and euthanize option.



Sixty per cent of the people surveyed had lived in Elkford for more than 20 years.

Monday, December 30, 2013

Deer culls loom in B.C. as politicians target urban bucks and does

B.C. deer cull looming
A buck mule deer sniffing the air at Nash Wash Wildlife Management Area, Utah, Dec. 6, 2008. (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Brent Stettler)



Dirk Meissner, The Canadian Press
Published Sunday, December 29, 2013 7:18AM EST
VICTORIA -- The mayor of Oak Bay, British Columbia, gets dead deer alerts.
Nils Jensen barely has time to sit for a coffee when his phone pings and signals another tragic deer fatality in the suburban Victoria community known as the Tweed Curtain for its primarily elderly and refined population.
"I get regular updates," Jensen said, as he gestured to his cell phone. "There it is, the deer count, 38 so far."
A deer squeezes through a fence in a handout photo in Oak Bay, B.C., released on Friday, Dec. 20, 2013. (District of Oak Bay)
That number of dead deer in Oak Bay in 2013 is a huge increase, Jensen said, considering there were zero reported deer deaths in 2008. But the number has been rising steadily over the years.
Oak Bay and several other British Columbia communities, including Invermere in southeastern B.C., plan to target growing urban deer populations in 2014 to prevent potentially hazardous human-deer interactions.
"Doing nothing is not an option because we can see the rising number of deer-human conflicts," Jensen said.
He said Oak Bay's deer management strategy includes public education, bylaw enforcement, including prohibitions on feeding deer, and more signs warning drivers to beware of deer on the streets but that residents can expect the launch of a deer cull sometime next year.
Gerry Taft, the mayor of Invermere, said his community is aiming to apply for a provincial government permit next year to launch its second deer cull because they attack dogs and are no longer way of people.
"The sheer number of deer is a concern for people," Taft said. "On garbage day, when we have curbside pickup, we have groups of deer walking down the street knocking over garbage cans and eating the garbage."
Jensen said he can recite numerous brutal and dangerous incidents involving deer in Oak Bay.
Police are regularly dispatched to shoot wounded deer after they've been hit by cars, and in one instance, officers were forced to put a deer out of its misery when the animal impaled itself trying to leap a fence.
"Some of them have died an excruciating death," Jensen said. "One of them had to be put down by an officer after essentially being completely cut open as it tried to vault a fence, unsuccessfully. This isn't an easy issue for anybody. It's complex. It's emotional."
Jensen said a grandfather reported a deer leaping over his grandson's head as the two sat in their backyard. The female deer was apparently fleeing the unwanted advances of a young buck.
There are videos of bucks locking horns downtown during mating season and reports of frolicking, love-struck deer running head-on into cars.
"They don't know about traffic safety," Jensen said. "They run into the street and strike the car or cyclist."
Jensen said his recently scheduled deer-cull meeting with representatives of the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals was delayed for several hours because a driver hit a deer in Oak Bay.
"That sucked. It was awful," said Lesley Fox, of the animal rights organization. "She was probably about eight months, not quite a year old."
Fox, who stopped to tend to the fatally wounded animal, said the fawn suffered at the side of the road for 90 minutes until Oak Bay police officers arrived to relieve its suffering.
Last spring, British Columbia's Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Ministry published an urban deer management fact sheet that said urban deer have become a safety concern due to growing conflicts between people and pets, increases in deer-automobile collisions and the tendency of deer to attract predators, including cougars.
The ministry said it will issue permits to communities opting for culls to reduce deer populations.
"Wildlife experts advise that capturing deer in collapsible clover traps and euthanizing them with a bolt gun is the safest, most efficient and most humane method of deer control in urban areas," the government fact sheet said. "Clover traps, which resemble oversized hockey nets, are placed in quiet locations to reduce stress on deer."
Trained contractors must conduct the culls and the deer meat must be processed by a qualified butcher, and "communities must make full use of healthy deer carcasses resulting from these culls, for example by donating the meat to First Nations, local food banks or other charitable groups."
Taft said Invermere's first deer cull in December 2011, when 19 deer were killed, revealed the extent of the emotions at stake when a community initiates such action.
Opponents to the deer cull cut the nets that held the deer, followed the cull contractors, slashed their tires and appeared to place deer repellent near the clover net traps, he said.
"There were definitely times where the contractor came to a net which had been triggered and there were no deer inside because the net had been cut."
But Invermere, like Oak Bay, is proceeding with the intention to conduct a deer cull next year, Taft said.
The Invermere Deer Protection Society tried unsuccessfully to sue the community for moving to a cull without properly consulting residents or considering deer mitigation options. The society has said it will appeal the ruling even though an official community opinion poll suggested that most residents favoured a deer cull.
"We're trying not to be held hostage by this small group of people who are playing these legal games," Taft said.
He said deer culls are expensive, but communities that feel they're part of an ungulate invasion want their numbers controlled. Taft said his community wants financial support from the province, but so far all that appears to be coming from the B.C. government are guidelines and permits.
"The cute thing that some of the deer lovers like is we have some raised crosswalks in different parts of town and the deer seem to love crossing the road on the raised crosswalks," he said.
But Victoria resident Dave Shishkoff, who represents the U.S. animal advocacy rights organization Friends of Animals, said B.C. communities such as Oak Bay and Invermere should fully explore non-lethal opportunities to deer culls.
He said enforcing local no-feeding bylaws, adding more deer warning signs on streets and roads, and fencing off Oak Bay golf areas would reduce deer populations rather than culls.
"Feeding deer is what keeps them in the area," Shishkoff said. "It's a huge problem. People are baiting deer, essentially, and keeping them in the neighbourhoods."
Changing human behaviour towards urban deer is required to control the conflict problems, he said.
"We need to be concerned for the deer and their safety, as well as our own. It's a lot harder to manage wildlife than it is to manage people, so if we manage ourselves it becomes much less of an issue."
Shishkoff said he's preparing a brochure that outlines how to use non-lethal methods to control urban deer and will distribute it throughout the community.


Thursday, December 26, 2013

Lack of Transparency or Public Engagement by Yet Another BC "Deer Committee."


ElkfordDeer

To the Elkford Wildlife Committee

Posted: December 23, 2013 Letter to the Editor

I am sad to see the deer cull in the District of Elkford this January 6. I am writing this to say I am extremely disappointed in the way it has come about, as I was a member of the Wildlife Committee this year.

When I joined the committee the deer cull was already planned and approved by the district office and council. The existence of the committee is a mere window dressing. It purported to provide community involvement but this was not true.

I am left with the belief and am extremely disappointed that the committee was one-sided, created to support decisions that were already made. The committee, district council and offices were not open to other viewpoints, ignored other viewpoints and limited public response. I believe that once my opinion was established as being opposite to what the committee was created to prove, my opinions were unwelcome.

For example, I voiced an unwanted opinion about the deer count declining over the past three years from 120 to 70 and the option of doing a hazing in the spring, after the deer had fawned. (This was successfully done in Kimberley.) After that I was not notified of meeting dates or the so called public meeting about the cull and had a hard time getting copies of the minutes which were not complete or at all informative of what actually transpired at the meeting.

The above explains the reasons for my resignation from the committee.

Some good may come for the not-yet-shot wildlife in our community. There is a bylaw that may protect some of the remaining wildlife in the district. I ask you to support this bylaw and put pressure on those expected to see it is enforced – not treated with the disrespect of the democratic procedure that has allowed killing 40 out of the remaining 70 animals in the district.

There are some familiar faces I will mourn when I no longer see them in my neighbourhood on my daily walk with my dog.

Robert MacKenzie, Elkford, Wild At Heart, Wilderness Capital of B.C. 

Friday, December 20, 2013

New deer survey underway

News staff

The Earthanimal Humane
Education and Rescue Society
(EARS) is conducting a survey to get
a better understanding of people’s
opinions on the deer situation in the
Capital Regional District.

EARS spokeswoman Susan
Vickery said there is no data
on how residents feel about the
deer population and their level of
knowledge on management options,
including non-lethal tools.

In November, Oak Bay council
voted in favour of trapping and
killing 25 deer to thin the herd.

We also need a baseline so we
can measure people’s opinion again
if and when a management plan is
enacted,” Vickery said. “How would
you know if people are feeling better
or are seeing less damage if a cull
does happen?”

Vickery is using a Victoria-based
research company to conduct a
telephone poll with CRD residents
and a mail survey targeting Oak Bay
residents in December.

She plans to share the results
publicly in early 2014. “I have been
working on it for a couple of months
and I’m trying to approach it from
an unbiased way which is really
hard to do when you have a vested
interest,” Vickery said.


Thursday, December 19, 2013

Referendum should be held on deer cull

posted Dec 18, 2013 at 5:00 PM

The deer cull issue will not go away despite attempts by the CRD to brush it under the carpet. 
 
Mayor Nils Jensen seems to be open to taking another look at council’s decision to proceed with the random killing of 25 deer. This letter is to encourage Jensen to provide informed leadership by listening to qualified biologists, the SPCA and the public.

Firstly, I have not seen any supporting arguments for a random killing of 25 deer from an unknown population brought forward by any qualified naturalist. In fact, I have read several reports stating that given the transient nature of Oak Bay’s deer population, deer from other jurisdictions (Saanich, Victoria) will come into our neighbourhoods to fill the void.

Further, a “cull” suggests targeting a subset of the overall population (does, bucks, fawns, sick or injured). The current proposal is to kill 25 at random. It doesn’t make sense to me, unless the overall objective is to kill the entire population.

The SPCA has gone on public record that clover trap/bolt gun with throat slitting follow-up is not humane at all.

If the number of deer is to be reduced, I would like to hear what humane options are available to do so.

Finally, the public needs to support whatever informed decision our representatives may make. Perhaps a referendum on the issue during the 2014 municipal election would allow us all to have a say.

Glenn Driscoll
Oak Bay

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Letter to the CRD from PETA

  December 4, 2013

To: Alistair Bryson, Chair, Capital Regional District Board of Directors
Capital Regional District Board of Directors
From: Jodi Minion, Wildlife Biologist/Issues Manager, PETA

Re: Deer management program

Your urgent attention is requested.
PETA is an international animal protection organization with more than 3 million members and supporters globally, thousands residing in British Columbia. We understand that the Capital Regional District is sanctioning the clover trapping and killing of deer in local municipalities in the apparent hopes of controlling the deer population. With utmost respect we must advise that this is a cruel and ineffective form of wildlife control. Every minute spent trapped is a terrifying eternity for these easily frightened prey animals, who can badly injure themselves in frantic attempts to get free. Video of a panicked deer caught in a clover trap can be viewed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XezJJNzg3nY. Lethal initiatives also tear families apart, leaving young/weak animals vulnerable to starvation and dehydration.
Please know that lethal methods fail to control unwanted animal populations, and actually backfire. This is because a spike in the food supply results, prompting accelerated breeding among survivors and newcomers. Populations actually increase. Effective deer management plans are adaptive and integrated, the keys being strictly-enforced wildlife feeding prohibitions and habitat modification (e.g., exclusion and deterrents) in residential/landscaped areas, along forest edges, and in restoration and riparian corridors (see attached document). We are happy to advise in greater detail.
May we hear back from you soon that the cruel trapping initiative will be cancelled? Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jodi Minion
Wildlife Biologist/Issues Manager

Deer Cull Debate Heats Up


(By the Broadcast Center News Team)
Friday, December 13, 2013

The question again being raised in the East Kootenay, do we need more deer culls?

Kimberley and Invermere City Councils believe so, and both have approved them for the near future. The fact that there are usually several culls a year points to the proof that they really don't work, says Invermere Deer Protection Society President Devin Kazakoff.

"It just creates a vacuum effect. If you take out 30 or 100 animals, the ones in the surrounding areas come in, and they have to keep doing it year after year."

If culls are not actually a long term solution, then why are deer culls carried out anyways? Kazakoff believes he has the answer to that as well.

"It's to make themselves look like they're doing something. So if people complain about deer, the quick, cheap, easy solution is to kill some. So they say to the townspeople, 'Look, we're doing something, we killed the deer for you', and that's why they do it."

If you do believe culls are a long term solution, then you're most likely mistaken. It is true that in the long run, you'll have to keep culling deer to keep urban deer numbers down, due to that 'vacuum effect' Kazakoff mentioned. This point of view is also supported by the province, as Wildlife Conflicts Prevention Coordinator Mike Badry details.

"In isolation, a cull will not be an effective long term resolution to deer conflicts. If you still have all the same reasons why deer are thriving in your community, then deer will continue to thrive and they'll rebound from any kind of population reduction."

Badry and Kazakoff agree that education is the key to stopping deer conflicts. Instead of seeing deer killed, the Deer Protection Society would rather that communities invest in education programs to inform people to keep attractants away and to never intentionally feed the deer.

In Invermere, the recent approval of a deer cull has the Protection Society up in arms, particularly because there is little scientific proof supporting culls, and how there wasn't sufficient public input allowed on the matter, except for the referendum. This previously sparked a lawsuit from the Society against Invermere. However, Invermere Mayor Gerry Taft isn't too concerned about the lawsuit, or the Deer Protection Society.

"Ultimately we believe that this is a small group of radical people, who are trying to bully a municipality and waste our resources. So we're not going to sit down and take that."

The appeal over the cull isn't expected to hit courts until next year. In the meantime, the cull will most likely be carried out. Even though there are arguments, debates over scientific proof and now lawsuits, there is one thing everyone can agree on: The deer are not going away forever.

"I would say there's never going to be an absolute zero level of conflict with deer," says Badry. "That would mean we don't have any deer within communities, and I think that's unrealistic."

For more information on the Deer Protection Society's stance on culls, including their own data, go to bcdeerprotection.org

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Kimberley Councillors had a gallery full of protesters

Kimberley Council votes to cull 30 deer

Kimberley Councillors had a gallery full of protesters as they voted for a 30-deer cull this week. - Jeff Johnson
Kimberley Councillors had a gallery full of protesters as they voted for a 30-deer cull this week.
—image credit: Jeff Johnson
In front of a group of silent protesters from the BC Deer Protection Society, Kimberley City Council approved three recommendations from the city’s Urban Deer Committee on Monday evening.
The first recommendation was that Kimberley undertake a limited cull of up to 15 deer in Marysville and up to 15 in the Blarchmont, Chapman Camp area. Council voted unanimously to go ahead with the cull with Councillors Albert Hoglund and Don McCormick absent.
Committee Chair Gary Glinz told Council said that the committee arrived at the recommendation after this year’s population counts conducted a few weeks ago. He said when they looked at counts and complaints in the Blarchmont, Chapman Camp area, they grouped together, whereas in Marysville there weren’t as many complaints but more deer were counted.
Secondly, Council voted to provide $2000 to start up an education  program in local schools.
Glinz said that the need for this arose because of some children being afraid of deer after close encounters.
It indicates a missing piece,” Glinz said. “To do it right we need someone who knows what they are doing. We want kids not afraid, but aware.”
Glinz said a professional would be needed to deliver the program because the School Board is careful about who they allow to speak to students.
It has to be non-political, non-partisan and age appropriate,” he said. “It’s worth approaching a professional to put the curriculum together.”
Thirdly, Council voted to continue to lobby hard for aversive conditioning — both through MLA Norm Macdonald and any other opportunity to speak to the government.
Aversive conditioning, or hazing, has been tried in Kimberley under a special permit but continues to be illegal under the BC Wildlife Act. Council is concerned that it has been quite some time since the trial (last May) with no movement on amending the Act.
I have to express my disappointment with the BC government,” said Coun. Darryl Oakley, who sits as council rep on the deer committee. “It’s just been so slow. I really feel strongly Kimberley could utilize this tool. This is an option that has some viability. I hope Norm Macdonald can push it along.”
Coun. Kent Goodwin said he was a little concerned about sending a mixed message to the government.
We are saying the deer are not our problem, but on the other hand we are saying give us more tools to deal with them. Maybe the province should be doing the hazing,” Goodwin said.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

BC Deer Protection Society protests at Kimberley council meeting

By the Broadcast Center News Team
Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Kimberley council may have approved a second cull for the city Monday night, but that doesn't mean all residents are pleased with the outcome.

The British Columbia Deer Protection Society were in attendance at the meeting of council, bringing with them protest signs, speaking out against the deer cull approved last night.

Some of the messaging on the signs said "Educate, don't annihilate," "Culling wastes tax dollars," and "Culling is inhumane and ineffective."

The Society also sent a letter to the city, outlining their stance on the deer cull and urging council to vote against any motion involving lethal population control.

A letter the society sent to city council states that council shouldn't "shine more negative light on Kimberley by choosing to slaughter deer once again."

The letter also quotes the BC SPCA, saying Kimberley "must aim to address the cause of the deer habituation, rather than opt for a convenient, short-term action that will divide its citizens."

Council has been discussing measures around urban deer for a number of meetings, leading up to the approval given for a second cull at Monday night's meeting.

Monday, December 9, 2013

PETA's Letter to the CRD

December 4, 2013



To: Alistair Bryson, Chair, Capital Regional District Board of Directors
Capital Regional District Board of Directors
From: Jodi Minion, Wildlife Biologist/Issues Manager, PETA

Re: Deer management program

Your urgent attention is requested.

PETA is an international animal protection organization with more than 3 million members and supporters globally, thousands residing in British Columbia. We understand that the Capital Regional District is sanctioning the clover trapping and killing of deer in local municipalities in the apparent hopes of controlling the deer population. With utmost respect we must advise that this is a cruel and ineffective form of wildlife control. Every minute spent trapped is a terrifying eternity for these easily frightened prey animals, who can badly injure themselves in frantic attempts to get free. Video of a panicked deer caught in a clover trap can be viewed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XezJJNzg3nY. Lethal initiatives also tear families apart, leaving young/weak animals vulnerable to starvation and dehydration.

Please know that lethal methods fail to control unwanted animal populations, and actually backfire. This is because a spike in the food supply results, prompting accelerated breeding among survivors and newcomers. Populations actually increase. Effective deer management plans are adaptive and integrated, the keys being strictly-enforced wildlife feeding prohibitions and habitat modification (e.g., exclusion and deterrents) in residential/landscaped areas, along forest edges, and in restoration and riparian corridors (see attached document). We are happy to advise in greater detail.

May we hear back from you soon that the cruel trapping initiative will be cancelled? Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Description: Description: http://mysite.peta.local/home/jodi-m/Personal%20Documents/Official/CID/Jodi.bmp
Jodi Minion
Wildlife Biologist/Issues Manager

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Letter to the editor in response to Elkford's plan to 'harvest' deer

Please don’t kill deer, Elkford.  The impending cull is a disturbing about-face from the admirable declaration on your town’s website that “Elkford remains a place where nature prevails – and humanity borrows a bit of space.”

Your committee has worked hard and they’ve followed the advice given in the Urban Ungulate Conflict Analysis written.  The town thinks it has an effective solution to resolve conflict between citizens and deer.  However, the advice was flawed and the solution will not work.

There is no biology or wildlife science involved in the decision to undertake lethal population control.  In fact, it appears that mule deer numbers in SE BC are in troubling decline and the only places with stable populations are towns.  No matter how many deer are seen in un-scientific counts, there is no over-population.  In some of our communities, such as Fernie and Grand Forks, it appears populations in town are also decreasing.

We all have natural habitat within and just beyond our boundaries.  Ungulates are transient and will continue to migrate in and out of town after culling.  In every jurisdiction that culls, it is ongoing and may become an “annual culling program” as it is in Helena, MT, the model for the BC report.  Kimberley is talking about culling again – after 100 deer were killed just 2 years ago.  The cost increases too – rising from $300 to $625 per deer in Cranbrook in their controversial, secretive program last spring.

BC SPCA wrote recently, “the proposed cull actions are not a scientifically sound or sustainable solution.” And further, “an indiscriminate cull like that conducted in Cranbrook which neglects considerations for gender and age class is unethical and contrary to generally accepted principles of wildlife management.” They said communities “must aim to address the cause of the deer habituation, rather than opt for a convenient, short-term action that will divide its’ citizens."

The “harvest” of deer in Elkford is not ethical hunting nor is it a cost-effective way to provide meat to food banks.  The Lake Windermere Rod and Gun Club code of ethics states they have “a deep respect for the game they pursue” and that they will harvest game only in “fair chase”.  Last spring, deer meat cost Cranbrook citizens $13 per pound.

Finally, the emotional and social impact of slaughter hurts communities.  While we are decorating with artificial deer and singing about Rudolph – council plans a slaughter.  The brutal killing method was never devised for wildlife and is considered in-humane outside slaughterhouses.

Elkford, please be true to your theme.  With compassion, tolerance and patience you will prove your willingness to share the “bit of space” that is crucial to the wildlife. 

-Devin Kazakoff

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

IDPS going to Appeal Court over deer


Posted: December 3, 2013


Just when the District of Invermere thought it was safe to get down to the brass tacks of town infrastructure and management, with the 2014 budget up for discussion, it must again contend with urban deer.
The Invermere Deer Protection Society (IDPS) filed a notice on Nov. 25 with the BC Court of Appeal regarding the recent judgment in BC Supreme Court to dismiss its petition against the District of Invermere.
InvUrbanDeer“We are appealing the judge’s decision because we believe that a city council’s decision to kill wildlife, such as deer, should be based on reliable scientific evidence. We are disappointed that the judge did not admit some of the evidence that IDPS put forward in that regard,” said Devin Kazakoff, society president.

The District of Invermere passed two resolutions about killing deer in Invermere. It decided to reduce numbers and then maintain an artificially low population of 50 deer, the IDPS noted in a Nov. 28 press release.

“They want to cap the deer population at 50 animals for no scientific reason at all. This number was dreamed up by a committee of citizens who volunteered for the specific purpose of ridding the town of animals considered a nuisance. This is not right,” said Vince Zurbriggen, IDPS vice president.

It is obvious that deer migrating into the town from the surrounding area may negate any reduction in the local population rendering any cull ineffective, the IDPS release suggested.

District of Invermere officials say they are disappointed this issue has returned to the front burner.

“The District of Invermere (DOI) is very disappointed that the Invermere Deer Protection Society (IDPS) continues to waste public resources and time, both those of the DOI and our Provincial Court system. The filing of an appeal is just the most recent example of many unnecessary actions by this group,” said Mayor Gerry Taft.

District voters showed overwhelming support for the district in its efforts to control urban deer population in the town during a Nov. 2 opinion poll where 729 voted in favour and 259 opposed to the deer cull question.
The IDPS believes the opinion poll, piggybacked onto the community hall referendum, doesn’t tell the entire story about how residents feel about culling as a tool to thin the deer population in town.

“An earlier survey clearly indicated how unreliable these ill-conceived opinion gathering exercises are. In that survey that forms the basis of the Invermere culling decision, residents said that “capture and euthanize” was the least preferred “management option.” We are convinced residents are just plain confused about what is meant by culling – that it is a cruel, shameful method of killing deer and further that killing urban deer is an unjustified, simplistic form of management,” the IDPS press release outlined.

“Just because it seems a majority of citizens bought into the biased message that killing is necessary does not mean that majority-rule is a valid method of determining wildlife biology management decisions. The district chose to use an ineffective, in-humane method to appease complainers,” said IDPS director Sue Saunders.

Municipalities must step back and avoid making unscientific, hasty decisions about wildlife management – a subject that by their own admission, they know little, the IDPS continued, adding, wildlife expert Wayne McCrory said this about Invermere: “If the issue is to reduce the numbers and dependency of the mule deer now living in the community then I don’t think the cull is a good long-term social and biological solution. A much more comprehensive understanding and approach is needed that includes a much greater emphasis on a program of non-lethal approaches.”

Taft said the district has done everything it can to take a measured and fair approach to the problem of deer roaming freely through the town.

“The DOI remains confident in our position and stands behind the processes we have followed, which are processes set out by the Provincial Government and their wildlife biologists,” he said, adding the district will continue to look after residents’ tax dollars by fighting to ensure the IDPS bears all court costs.

“We will continue to push for the IDPS to post securities and guarantees of their ability to pay court costs, and we will also be seeking assistance from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities around legal fees. Our goal is to manage and minimize the financial burden a small group of radical individuals, who do not respect the will of the majority of the DOI population, can cause to the taxpayers. We will not be bullied,” Taft told e-KNOW.

Kazakoff said the IDPS continues to support “true science-based wildlife management within municipal boundaries if it is well-funded and long term. The plan must be humane and derived from thorough understanding of wildlife populations. Managers must anticipate and measure the consequences of all management actions. Wildlife science, not public opinion, should form the basis of a municipal wildlife management plan,” he concluded.

For more: http://www.e-know.ca/news/invermere-supports-borrowing-cull/

Ian Cobb/e-KNOW