A Letter in Response to the CRD Call for Interest

March 16, 2012

I would like to comment on several inaccuracies regarding the official Terms of Reference published on the CRD website and referred to in your letter:

1.    It is first stated that three (3) members of the farmers community will be included in the committee.  This is consistent with the proposed number specifically voted upon and approved at the meeting of February 22.  However, just a few lines below in the same document, it changes into  “…..at least three ….”.  This would mean 3 or more with no upper limit.  This contradicts the previous statement in the same document and is not consistent with what the committee deliberated.  According to this statement, the CRD board could in principle be entitled to nominate ALL 11 members from amongst the farmers community.  Therefore, I ask that the document be amended to reflect the actual correct number approved at the meeting.

2.    In the same Terms of Reference it is stated that “….A number of members of the public have indicated interest in their email submissions in participating….”.  I went through the 400 or so emails posted on the CRD website – I had real trouble finding even one that offered any positive and constructive participation in the public process to find remedies to human-deer interaction.  The vast majority of writers were whining about deer munching their shrubs and flowers and defecating in their back yard. 

3.    At the last meeting of March 14, it was said that the CRD received “more than 1,000 letters” which is a gross unjustified exaggeration as you well know.  This number of course was readily picked up by the media and promptly published in the newspaper thereby adding to the inaccurate and misleading reporting recently done on the deer issue.  Such exaggeration was totally unnecessary and in contradiction with a clear, unbiased and balanced procedure. 

I would strongly advise against recruiting members of the CAG from amongst the few hundreds of complainers who actually wrote to the CRD.  The other hundreds of thousands of citizens who did NOT write because they do NOT have an issue with the deer would be in this way overrun by a small minority which would render the CAG committee totally biased and one-sided.  This would be in obvious contradiction with the specific CRD guidelines which call for neutral and balanced procedure and a “…strong sense of community, willingness to work respectfully….”  .

I hope that you will give this matter careful consideration.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Prof.  N.R. Spogliarich

Saanich