A Cranbrook City Council supporter puts finger to keyboard

"Someone has said that it requires less mental effort to condemn than to think." -- Emma Goldman

Occasionally I feel a fleeting twinge of slight compassion for the congenitally foolish souls who nurture fear and hatred in their bosoms. In other times and other cultures they could thoughtlessly vent against "others", people of different colour or religion or sexual orientation or whatever, and find sympathetic agreement and back-slapping support for their respective prejudices. It is increasingly difficult to do so in an era of ever more legalized political correctness.

But there are always animals; they remain "other" enough to be fit subject for views that would otherwise be seen as small-minded, mean, and wrong.

Consider Glen. As our coalition engaged itself in an effort to find more effective and humane approaches to the reduction of conflicts between deer and people than what had been enacted by city council behind closed doors, Glen took to his keyboard (full text) and wrote:

"Help us stop the slaughter of these beautiful animals" -----

"I have lived in Cranbrook my hole (sic) life....I've lived in my current house for 17 years. The first 8 to 10 years there was no problems (sic) with the deer......but in the last 7-8 years the problem has grown."

Okay, now in a way it's unfair for me to expose Glen's frail grasp of literacy by quoting him directly (and I won't embarrass him by giving his full name). Maybe English is his second language. We can tease him by asking if there was no problem, how can a problem grow, but hey, we know what he is trying to say.

The first question I would ask is, assuming that there were no deer and then there were, and then there were too many, what changed? Ever since the fall of Sir Isaac Newton's apple it has stood us in good stead to understand that we live in a cause and effect universe. If there is a problem, it works well to understand it. But Glen feels differently.

"Every night and even through the day time, these `beautiful animals' make there (sic) rounds through my neighbourhood...destroying every plant, flowers and shrubs that they come upon."

No, they don't. There is nowhere in all of Cranbrook, in all of British Columbia or in the entire world where there is barren ground because of deer of any species. Nowhere! Deer do eat vegetation, but compared to, say, goats, the range of vegetation they consume is limited. Some plant species they like more than others, and it is a good idea to either protect such plants, with fencing, or better yet, not plant them. That's a beginning. I love white cedar, for example, but it is not something I'd try to grow in Cranbrook. I love palm trees but I wouldn't grow them in Cranbrook, either. The cedar I'd not grow because it attracts deer who prune it as high as they can reach; the palm trees because I know the cold would kill them each winter. Both deer and climate are part of what we call the environment and I think it makes more sense to accommodate environmental limitations than to think we can fight them. I am reasonably sure Glen would not plant palm trees, because there have always been cold winters in B.C., but deer? He sees them as interlopers, something that can be controlled, therefore should be.

But ironically, what may not occur to him is that he can be part of that by learning what species of plants deer don't like to eat, and thereby not only have plants in his yard, but also avoid being responsible for the deer; not hugely responsible, but if not part of the solution, part of the problem. Glen continues: "My yard has totally been destroyed......not only that.....I have been charged at and my dog (a min pin) has been attacked on numerous occasions in my yard and on our daily walks."

First things first. During my own visit to Cranbrook I took time to visit Cominco Gardens in Kimberly. I got some nice photos of a resting doe, who moved away when I got too close. She headed down a slope to a road where there were a group of kids she avoided. But my question is how can there be a beautiful public garden with all those deer? We have provided the answer numerous times, so I won't repeat it here, but the problem is that the decision-makers prefer to be like Glen, to avoid those answers and assume that killing deer is not only a solution, but the only solution. Neither premise is true.

But the other thing that this website has demonstrated is that if we take Glen at his word (and I am reluctant to do so, given the absurdity of his claim about deer killing every single plant in his yard) and he can't walk his dog without risk of being attacked, there appears to be two classes of Cranbrook citizens. Those who can walk their dogs safely, and those who can't. How come? I know a deer can knock you over, I've even seen it happen, once, in many thousands of encounters I've had or witnessed, but it is so rare that of all the risks I face each day, it's at near the bottom of my concerns. It is not that deer can't "attack", it is that they almost never do. Mind you, they will snort, paw, even, and I know this is something some folks find horrific, walk toward, not away from, a person. Yes. But attack there has to be strong motivation, and even then, most deer just won't do it.

"There is a (sic) elementary school near by and as the kids walk to and from school they have to walk around the deer.....I can assure you that one day some little kid is going to be attacked. And when (not if) this happens, it will be YOUR fault.....I will make sure the parents and public realize this."

Well, yeah, but the point is it never has happened. I was six when I first met a Mule Deer, as I ate a banana, which he chomped on. Was that an attack? I didn't think so, nor did my laughing parents. Check the Mule Deer compound at Calgary Zoo, which you can hold birthday parties for little kids, or book tours where children can mingle with a herd of Mule Deer. How come? Heck, for that matter there are little kids and extremely tame deer in petting zoos around the world, but how often do you hear of little kids being attacked by the hungry deer? Never. The statistical probability is greater that those children will be hurt by a meteorite so will those of us who allow them out of doors responsible not if, but when, that happens?

"eg: If you came into my yard and started to destroy it and charged at me or my little dog --- I would take a baseball bat to you-----but you say its (sic) okay for these beautiful animals' to do this"

Um, no. Nowhere on this website, in our literature or anywhere else do we say that it's okay for deer to destroy anyone's yard or any dog, or big dog. Glen's grasp on reality is sometimes frail; he can't always comprehend what he hears or reads, and that's an unfortunate handicap he has to live with. I get that. And I promise never to provoke him to take his baseball bat in hand, although I might urge him to undergo anger management therapy.

But what I don't understand is whether or not Cranbrook City Council is similarly handicapped? The secrecy with which they surround their deliberations leaves the possibility open that, like poor Glen, they have limited ability to comprehend. I can forgive and forget about Glen; he's not spending tax money, but I have much higher expectations for elected officials.

".....Not to mention the Cougars they are attracting......With my job I know and see the wildlife in the area...and in 30 years working, --- I have seen millions of deer and elk, hundreds and hundreds of bear....as for cougars, I've maybe seen 5 in 30 years ---THIS YEAR, I have seen 8 cougars in around town...why so many so close to town?---because of the deer!!!! -- Why not Cull these fricken varmets and use the meat to feed the needy......"

I admit that I'd love to see a cougar in the wild. I've looked for them in B.C., and more so in California in places where there are more Mule Deer and tamer Mule Deer than I saw in the Kootenays, but the best I've come up with is footprints. That said, I don't recall any reports of any cougars in Cranbrook, but I do recall reading of a llama killed by one. Llamas make a better meal because they can't fight back (soft feet, you see mind you, they can spit! I would not, however, defend myself against a cougar by spitting) and have more meat per unit of energy expanded in making the kill. So, do we ban llamas?

Dogs? I was quite surprised with I encountered so many dogs running loose in the Kootenays and subsequent investigation shows it is commonplace to allow dogs to run loose. The last stray dog I saw near my home here in Markham, Ontario, was being pursued by a very worried owner. We have laws against allowing dogs off leashes and they are rigorously enforced. People don't let their dogs run loose. I carry a leash in the trunk of my car with which to rescue strays, but haven't used it in three years, and the last time was for a boxer puppy whose owners were frantic.

Glen seems to think that the only answer to real or exaggerated or even made up risks caused by deer is killing. His range of options ranges from killing to killing, and heaven forbid that he or others take any responsibility for the presence of deer. In spite of millions of encounters between deer and children, world wide, many in zoos and parks I can find no record of a child being killed by a deer, but Glen is angry at people like me for not being worried enough. If he really wants to keep children safe keep them off the roads, out of cars and school buses and away from organized sports, all of which have killed so many more kids than deer ever have, deer having yet to kill a single one!

And while it is hard to find out what the culls cost, it appears that they are an enormously ineffective way to "feed the needy." Our preliminary calculations shows the meat coming in at somewhere between $20.00 to $38.00 per pound. So if you budget, say, $100.00 to feed a needy person, you can give him or her five pounds. Now, wouldn't it be better, if that's your intent, to buy something that cost less, and feed more! Using Glen's brand of logic, it seems to me that culling deer to feed the needy means that the starvation of those who don't get fed, because there is so much less food produced, is on the hands of whomever advocates this argument. And we aren't even going to get into the processing procedures that, it appears, produce a product that wouldn't be allowed to be sold to non-needy consumers.

"Why don't you assholes mind your own business.......We have a problem here and want to solve it before someone gets killed. And if my dog gets killed --- I will come after you people. And if a little kid gets killed -- Their blood will be on your hands."

We once had a little girl killed by a flying puck while attending an NHL hockey game. Now, should those people who have not tried to stop NHL hockey games from ever being played be held responsible if it ever happens again? I'm just trying to figure out the logic here. When the tragedy happened the NHL made changes to reduce the risk, but I suggest that both risks are so statistically low as to be too unpredictable to hold anyone responsible for anything, so long as one employs common sense precautions.

"So -- fuck off and mind your on business and let us solve this problem before something tragic happens.

Glen seems to have missed the point that doing something that does not reduce the number of deer is not really solving the problem.

"'beautiful animals' -- my ass. Yes when their out in the wild, they are ---- but these town deer are nothing but varmets (sic). This is not to mention what they have done to our cemetery....you cant (sic) leave flowers for your loved ones, because they get destroyed within hour. I want to live in a safe community...not looking over my shoulders every-time I'm out in the yard or out for a walk."

But no community is completely safe, is it? We all agree, although Glen seems to have missed the point, that we'd like to reduce the number of deer in town. We can't eliminate them unless we exterminate the species. Even Canada's biggest city, near where I live, has lots of deer within its borders. But we can and should and would like to reduce the absolute number of deer, and not only that, we'd like to reduce the conflicts between deer and people, not all people. I don't think Glen will ever be happy because if he's that worked up over deer, think how he must get about the real problems that beset us all each day.

"ps: When I was younger I worked at Burns meats in Calgary (1980-83) they killed 1400 pigs and 500 cows a day......I guess this is okay because they are not `beautiful animals'
Do you eat beef or pork or even chickens of (sic) fish.????"

Well no, I don't eat pork or even chickens or fish, nor do many of my colleagues. And just for the record, I do think even cows, pigs, chicken and fish may be beautiful, but it isn't their appearance that concerns me; it is partly the cruelty that they must endure, whatever their appearance, and partly the sheer waste of life for no reason, since we know so well that culling does not work.

But among those working to stop the culling are people who do eat meat, including venison, including hunters who, like us, have spent a lot of time among deer, recognize the silliness of the concerns about deer attacks overall, understand that randomly killing deer who are tricked into entering clover traps does not prevent the odd deer who may be so used to people as to frighten them. They understand that culling does not teach people how to safely act around deer. Heck, the deer that tend not to run off our mule deer, not white-tailed deer, so how does killing white-tailed deer do anything to resolve the fears of people like Glen? If that makes sense to such folks, okay, but should it make sense to informed people, to elected municipal officials? Or should they be, like Glen, resentful, angry and ill-informed?

They are the ones who worry me; the decision-makers who have marginalized their own critics, resorted to secrecy and as a result wasted both public money and the lives of animals who have tried to share our world. We can't ever make Glen happy, or rather, perhaps we can by assuring him that we're out there killing "varmets", even though that achieves so little at such a high cost, but intelligent and informed individuals really ought to be able to move past that into the realm of effectiveness.

Barry welcomes respectful, intelligent commentary and is willing to post and reply to such items below.