Home »
Cull still in district’s deer management toolbox
Victoria can once again expect a cry for help from the distant southeastern fringe of the province over its deer.
The District of Invermere, like several East Kootenay communities, is home to more deer than it and its residents are comfortable having among them.
On Nov. 2, fresh from a B.C. Supreme Court victory over a challenge put forth by the Invermere Deer Protection Society, 999 district voters turned out to answer a poll question, added to the Community Centre Referendum, asking if people favoured the use of culls.
Ten ballots were “rejected without objection and another was spoiled, leaving 988 valid ballots. Of those, 729 stated favour for culling and 259 were opposed
Council Nov. 12 received the official results of the poll.
“It provides us with some direction going forward. We got an opinion and that is good guidance for us,” said Coun. Greg Anderson.
Mayor Gerry Taft agreed.
“It does give some incite into what the public feels,” he said, noting that culling remains in the district’s “toolbox” for dealing with urban deer. “So far, we haven’t had a lot of success with the other tools. We’ll see what the province does.”
Taft made a motion that the district write a letter to Premier Christy Clark and Minister of Forests and Natural Resource Operations Steve Thompson to see if funding might be available to help a small rural municipality deal with provincial deer.
“We can try,” he shrugged, noting the district has “unique experiences” to share with the province and other municipalities, having done culls, dealt with public pressures and defeated a public challenge of the processes it undertook in order to do a cull.
“It is the Queen’s deer,” Anderson pointed out.
Taft’s motion was unanimously approved.
As for public queries about what it cost for the district to fight the court challenge, district chief administrative officer Chris Prosser said full costs will not be known for two to three months.
He said the district made an argument for full costs and the petitioners argued they were acting on behalf of public interests and wanted costs waived.
“We’ll go for as many costs as we can,” offered Taft.
Ian Cobb/e-KNOW
