There are better ways than a cull to manage the deer population

Limited-entry hunting program this fall is one measure already planned

Editor: My bride and I are residents in the Upper Mission and strongly oppose the deer cull advocated by some self-appointed petitioners.

We too must deal with the deer. We do this by putting up deer fencing in the winter, and planting vegetation that deer generally avoid.

The idea is to use one’s intellect to outsmart the herbivores. After all, aren’t we supposed to be smarter?

Like many who promote various petitions, the case of the petitioners is biased and full of half-truths.

My contacts with various neighbours indicate that the “petitioners” really aren’t interested in taking time to discuss options other than killing the animals.

Their apparent lack of research and disclosure ignores the “Limited Entry Hunting BC” program, to take effect this fall.

This essentially allows up to 30 does to be harvested in three Okanagan areas, one being near the Upper Mission. This plan was developed in consultation with provincial wildlife biologists. Over time, this will in fact reduce the deer population in a humane and controlled manner. The ministry will study, evaluate and make needed modifications.

Although I am not, and will never be, a hunter, I recognize that most hunters are in fact excellent markspersons and conservationists. They pride themselves on dispatching the animal with one clean shot, to minimize suffering, and allow a harvest of quality meat.

As to a cull, I wonder if the methodology of a cull was explained to the public.

Various nets are set up, in which the hapless deer are entangled. They thrash about in a panic, unable to free themselves.

They have a huge adrenaline rush, contaminating the meat for any use other than perhaps sausage.

Eventually, someone comes along with a bolt gun, driven by compressed air. They hold it to the animals head and fire. If it all sounds cruel, it is. We have many young children in the Upper Mission area. Do we really want to expose them to this and tell them its OK because we are so concerned about our precious gardens?

City council, take note, and citizens, wake up. You are not so superior that you are justified in using cruel methods to deal with animals that are but an inconvenience to you.

There is already one plan in place to deal with a deer overpopulation. There are other sound, scientific, and humane strategies, as outlined in Suzanne Pugh’s well written letter that appeared on Aug. 1.

Mahatma Gandhi is quoted as saying “The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

Applying this to a city, a “cull” is a nonstarter.

I read with amusement some of the letters regarding this subject.

One writer stated that if we don’t cull deer, we should not dispose of rats.

Deer do not spread disease fatal to humans. Perhaps that writer should look up the Bubonic Plague, and tell me what similar danger to humans that deer present.

And, one of the petitioners wrote a letter criticizing Suzanne Pugh’s excellent logical and reasoned approach to dealing with the deer. He stated that she wants to domesticate them and make them pets. I read the article several times, and could not find any such suggestion.

Oftentimes, when presented with logic and science, those opposed respond with absurd analogies, statements, and accusations. This seems to be the case with this issue. Many people are accustomed to instant this and that.

The limited entry doe tag system will help resolve matters, as would various approaches advocated by Pugh.

A reasoned and co-ordinated strategy will take some time. I would hope that city council, having denied the deer cull proposal once already, would stay the course and send the petitioners away again. Bob Sherman, Kelowna