CAG Meeting from June 19 Still Not Posted to Moderndemocracy

While the CAG meeting on June 27 was not filmed, the June 19 meeting was, and Moderndemocracy has still not posted it.

There were many inappropriate comments made at that meeting, including eye-rolling and tittering when the chair read a note to the group from Robin Bassett.  Robin had explained that he would not be in town for the next two meetings, but attempted some input via email.  The facilitator, Jan Pezzaro remarked "Thank you for the input from a distance, Robin."  There have been many absences during the duration of these meetings, but none have been met with such malevolence.

Robin Bassett has asked at every meeting for actual deer numbers, and financial loss numbers from Saanich farmers.  He has been told time and again by Jeff Weightman and Jan Pezzaro that those numbers are not available and that the farmers do not have to submit their losses.  Yet discussion pushes ahead without this fundamental information....

With no clear idea that a deer issue even exists we the taxpayers must sit idly by as Jan Pezarro is flown in from the mainland every week to lead the CAG members to the conclusion that they were chosen for.  Are the 13 communities in the CRD really obligated to financially help out a handful of small businesses who want the deer killed?

How to Create a Survey that will Lead the Public to Where You Want Them to Go

http://www.crd.bc.ca/surveys/Survey.aspx?s=62e23d4263b14f39a121ed52d9826dd1

A closed-ended question - "Have you stopped taking heroin?" is impossible to answer if you've never taken heroin.

Respondents are asked "To what extent do you agree that "Need for sustainable agriculture" should be a Principle of the Regional Deer Management Strategy?"  What is sustainable agriculture as defined by the CRD?  By the respondent?  Similarly, the question "To what extent do you agree that "Respect First Nations" should be a Principle of the Regional Deer Management Strategy?"

This Ordinal Scale survey will not allow one to submit until all the questions are answered, thereby leading the survey respondent to conclusions that they may not agree with.

Finally, the Goal - "To what extent do you agree that "Address the deer-human conflicts in the region: agricultural, impacts, public health and safety and ornamental gardens" should be a Goal of the Regional Deer Management Strategy?"  Public health and safety and ornamental gardens are given equal consideration by the CRD?   

In July the CRD will be posting other surveys for the public to take part in.  The next one "will include evaluation criteria, and the application of those criteria to the management options."

Animal Protection Groups Challenge Ministry of Environment Recommendations in Deer Report

For Immediate Release

Deer Cull Not Justified

New report released by animal protection

groups challenge Ministry of Environment recommendations in deer reports

June 20, 2012: Animal Alliance of Canada, the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada and Born Free USA have just released a report challenging Ministry of Environment assertions that deer are overabundant and must be culled to get their populations “under control”.

The paper authored by Liz White, Director of Animal Alliance and Leader of Animal Alliance Environment Voters and Barry MacKay, Canadian Representative for Born Free USA examines the rationale for lethal deer management put forward by provincial and municipal governments and challenges the accuracy of the reasons given to support lethal action.

“The Ministry is alleging an overabundant deer population as the reason for lethal action,” said Barry MacKay.  “However, their own figures do not support their assertions, with huge variations in deer count which demonstrate a lack of accurate deer data.  Are Black-tailed deer overabundant at 99,000 or 150,000?  Are Mule deer overabundant at 115,000 or 205,000?  And are White-tailed deer overabundant at 87,000 or 140,000?  I don’t think the Ministry knows how many deer there are and therefore have no scientific basis for the claim of overabundance.”

“We have taken the provincial and local government assertions and researched their accuracy.  Deer are blamed for damaging gardens, plantings and community forests, causing increased vehicular collisions, increasing the potential for disease transmission and demonstrating aggressive behaviour,” said Liz White.  “However, our research shows that government claims are largely called into question.  We urge that the Ministry of Environment, and municipalities who have culled or who are considering killing deer, to implement non-lethal measures when approaching human/deer interactions.”

The report is available at: Animal Alliance:  www.animalalliance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/report-BCDeerCullingJune192012.pdf

Deer protection group wins right to lawsuit

Devin Kazakoff (left) and Vince Zurbriggen (right)

By Kristian Rasmussen
Pioneer Staff
A group that has rallied to save Invermere’s urban deer population celebrated victory in a legal battle with the District of Invermere.
A Justice for the B.C. Supreme Court ruled on May 29th that the District of Invermere cannot recover legal fees and dismiss previous legal action by the Invermere Deer Protection Society.
The Invermere Deer Protection Society is a group of Columbia Valley residents that formed in opposition to a permit issued by the province that gave the District of Invermere the right to cull up to100 urban deer.
Locking antlers with the district over Invermere’s urban deer population since talk of the cull amped up earlier this year, the anti-cull group filed an injunction and lawsuit against the District of Invermere in an attempt to halt the controversial cull action.
The cull was permitted to move ahead in February, and in response to the overhanging lawsuit, the district counter-sued the group to regain legal costs and dump the protectionists’ lawsuit.
The matter went to the B.C. Supreme Court, which brought down its May ruling, throwing out the district’s attempt to recover legal fees and dismiss the continuing lawsuit by the Invermere Deer Protection Society.
As a result, the town will not recover any of its costs relating to the case, which total close to $30,000 in taxpayer dollars, and the deer protection group is now able to pursue its lawsuit against the district.
“We started this organization to challenge the district’s decision,” said Devin Kazakoff of the Invermere Deer Protection Society. “This means that we can continue to make a difference and protect wildlife and hopefully change the way other cities and towns make their decisions about wildlife management.”
The district worked to have the lawsuit expelled on the grounds that the permit for the deer cull had expired March 15th, and therefore there were no longer legal grounds for a challenge.
The judge presiding over the case found that although the cull permit expired, Invermere council’s August 2011 decision to reduce the urban deer population to 50 by the year 2014 would continue to affect deer populations into the future, and would set a precedent for the rest of B.C., Mr. Kazakoff said.
“This decision will make other towns do their proper research,” he added.
Invermere Mayor Gerry Taft said that he is unhappy that Invermere had to be the town made an example of by the lawsuit, because mayor and council were following provincial guidelines.
“Unfortunately it is our taxpayers who have to foot the bill,” Mayor Taft said. “It seems to be their [the Invermere Deer Protection Society’s] goal to use us as a precedent.”
If the anti-cull group really wanted to deal with who is actually responsible for setting protocol when it comes to wildlife management, they would sue the province and not one of the communities that followed provincial recommendations, Mayor Taft added.
Vince Zurbriggen of the Invermere Deer Protection Society said that relying on provincial figures, the District of Invermere did not do enough research of its own when it came to the cull and relied mainly upon findings from other East Kootenay municipalities.
“We want them to do their proper research and not just look at wiping out the deer because they are eating our tulips,” he said. “The district has not concentrated on finding any other solution except for a cull. They have not involved us.”
Conversely, the Invermere Deer Protection Society has made little attempt to work with the District of Invermere, Mayor Taft countered.
“There was the suggestion at one point that if we worked with them and promised not to do any culls in the near future they would hold the lawsuit and not go any further,” he said. “As far as we are aware they have never offered to fully withdraw the lawsuit or stop the legal action.”
The ongoing battle makes it hard for both sides to find middle ground in managing urban deer populations. Mr. Kazakoff said that his society is willing to work with the District of Invermere to settle the law case out of court, if possible.
“This is something that still can be done,” he said. “The DOI doesn’t want to work with us or drop their lawsuit until we would drop ours. We are not going to do that unless they say that there is not going to be a cull. We are both at the same point.”
The ongoing battle has been counterproductive, dividing citizens and costing taxpayers money, Mayor Taft said.
The Invermere Urban Deer Advisory Committee, a council-appointed group of Invermere citizens with varying experience dealing with wildlife, continues to meet and discuss the ongoing urban deer issue.

TUESDAY'S JUNE 12, 2012 MEETING WAS NOT VIDEOTAPED BY MODERNDEMOCRACY. ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC WHO DO NOT PHYSICALLY APPEAR AT THE C.A.G. MEETINGS ARE NOW LIMITED TO MINUTES ON THE CRD WEBSITE

Second Half of the June 5 Meeting Posted Note: unable to embed this session. Please click on the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=581-XBKtmCA&feature=g-all-u

The First Half of the June 5 CAG Meeting is Posted