Kimberley Vision Statement (2008) -
" Kimberley is a community enjoying outstanding quality of life in harmony with nature and each other."
The key word in the vision statement is "harmony". At the moment - in Kimberley - we are not experiencing anything remotely close to "harmony" when it comes to the deer issue. Therefore, we are not acheiving our Vision Statement of 2008. In addition, some people would say we are going backwords... away from harmony with nature. From a purely biological perspective, I would agree with that. Actually, I've heard a full range of opinions on this issue (as, I'm sure, most of you have) ranging from "Live and Let Die" to "I don't ever want to see a deer in this community again - kill them all!"
There is a safety issue in this equation as well, and the safety issue is not just the chance of being attacked, it is one of disease. Too large of a population will grow beyond the carrying capacity of the habitat that they live within, causing mass starvation at some point and disease before that ( e Coli could be a problem for the human population as well, at some point, I'm not sure at what point though).
There is a concept of Cultural Carry Capacity that needs to be factored into this - some people are upset with Mayor Olgilvie and council because a very important discussion has not happened in Kimberley when it comes to the Deer population - what about the concept of "humane" being factored into this equation? The Deer are now "Citizens of Kimberley!" This piece of the equation needs a voice too.
Clearly there is some discussion that needs to happen on this front.
Here is my position on the Deer issue:
- I like having (some) deer around and would support working toward a population that is in "harmony" with our community - we would feel safe walking/working/playing in our community. What is the size of that population? Good question. I think a population of approximately 40 for Kimberley and Marysville might work, but a wildlife biologist may suggest a smaller number. Whatever the number is, it has to be one that the majority of people are ok with (safety issues, disease issues, gardeners, keeping predators away from our community etc, all of these things must be considered and discussed). The number must be sustainable, in other words we will have to work to keep the population from going up -all factors need to keep fecundity in check. I seriously doubt the number will go down. We will not get consensus on this issue, but we might get a compromise.
- I agree with the BCSPCA position that pain and suffering must be avoided. If animals are to be killed, then it should be instantaneous - no pain and sufffering. I feel that if animals are to be killed then the pros (Conservation Officers and/or RCMP) should do this job - community safety is the priority, also the BC Gov. can foot the bill, not the taxpayers of Kimberley). I am glad to see that the limited hunt idea has been rejected for Kimberley, I had a huge safety concern with that idea.
- I would support working towards a full comprehensive urban wildlife management plan for Kimberley, I think we need one for all species that are impacting the community, and for those species with escalating populations.
Darryl Oakley
