Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters Aug. 8: Birth control for deer, pesticide danger, religious symbols

Focus deer birth control on bucks, not does Re: “Expand Oak Bay deer birth control across region: Victoria mayor, councillor,” July 30. After reading yet another deer control article, I have to offer my solution.
A4-deer-2821.jpg
Deer in Oak Bay, near Beach Drive. The municipality is trying to reduce its deer population.

Focus deer birth control on bucks, not does

Re: “Expand Oak Bay deer birth control across region: Victoria mayor, councillor,” July 30.

After reading yet another deer control article, I have to offer my solution.

Many people oppose a cull, and it seems that an immunocontraceptive injection after tranquillizing a doe is acceptable, but likely expensive.

Here’s what I suggest: tranquillize the bucks, then castrate them. There’s no permanent harm to the male deer, and since each buck can impregnate up to five does, it is more cost-effective.

Why is it that the females are the subject of this latest sterilization program when the males can be sterilized more effectively and efficiently?

Gerry Gabel
Saanich

Pesticides more likely culprit for fewer flies

Re: “Welcome the lizards if they deal with flies,” July 30.

In response to the letter-writer’s letter welcoming the lizard population here on the Saanich Peninsula, I would like to present another reason as to why we have fewer flies.

According to experts in the field, it is due to the increased use over the years of pesticides and herbicides that have killed off insects, including bees, rather than an increase in the lizard population.

Along with insects, our songbirds have been depleted at an alarming rate, due perhaps to not having enough insects to eat.

If anyone would like some lizards, we have thousands of them in our garden and will sell them off by the thousand cheaply. The only stipulation is that you have to come and catch them.

Sue Warren
Brentwood Bay

A double standard on environment issues

The Village of Cumberland gets an $85,000 fine for allowing too much phosphorus from its sewage outflow while Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley mine tailings pond failure, which resulted in 25 billion litres of toxic mine waste entering the watershed, does not even get a slap on the wrist.

The Mount Polley tailings pond failure resulted in 177 tonnes of lead, 400 tonnes of arsenic, 326 tonnes of nickel and 18,400 tonnes of copper flowing into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake.

The Mount Polley disaster was caused by the drive to cut costs, resulting in improper tailings pond dam design. No fine for the company, but bonuses for the company managers for keeping costs down.

Progress Energy built two massive dams to store water for their fracking activities. The Ministry of Environment did not fine this company, rather it gave it retroactive permits for the dams. One could go on with examples.

The small village of Cumberland, with a population less than 4,000, is treated very differently. The village has been busy trying to upgrade its sewage treatment system by borrowing millions of dollars and applying for provincial and federal grants to upgrade its system.

Rather then commend the village, the ministry has chosen to fine it. The Ministry of Environment seems to have two standards: With industry failures of compliance, nothing happens; with citizens’ failures of compliance, massive fines.

Bernhard H.J. Juurlink
Mill Bay

For plastic bags, rely on evidence, not emotion

Not only are plastic bags not the environmental boogeyman once thought (“reusable” bags are many times worse, says a recent study), banning them places an unduly harsh burden upon small businesses and likely raises our city’s carbon footprint through unintended negative environmental consequences such as the increased reliance on wood and cotton-based products, which each carry an enormous carbon footprint.

Reducing Victoria’s environmental impact is a laudable goal, but it must be pursued through evidence-based governance, not the doctrinal pronouncements of the well-meaning, but ultimately mistaken, environmental lobby.

Evan Keenlyside
Victoria

Saskatoon clinic an example for us

Re: “MDs, staff team up for better care,” July 7.

I am so glad that many in the health-care sector in B.C. are finally seeing the value of primary care centres with multi-disciplinary teams.

I lived in Saskatoon for 30 years where I was a “member/patient” of a co-operative health clinic.

Saskatchewan has had primary care centres since the 1960s. Not surprising as the “cradle of medicare.”

The Saskatoon Community Clinic offers the services of salaried physicians, nurse practitioners, physiotherapists, pharmacists, social workers and counsellors along with a full-service lab and pharmacy, all in the same building.

The clinic is run by an administrator who reports to a board of directors, elected from those who access the clinic’s services. It’s a wonderful model that is very cost-effective with well-served patients and happy and fulfilled staff.

And the fact it’s a co-operative brings so many benefits. Why is it taking so long for B.C. to catch up?

Joy Adams Bauer
Nanaimo

Religious symbols don’t necessarily mean bias

Re: “Victoria joins opposing Quebec ban on religious symbols,” July 12.

What some Canadians perceive as a threat — the indication of religion, through the wardrobe or accessory choices of public servants — constitutes not necessarily bias, but a projected fear.

Our society imputes no such bias to individuals who openly display tattoos, piercings and sloganed clothing, but supports a diversity of such expression.

The issue is to better educate and inform our children and public to respect and tolerate all individuals, no matter their religion. We gain nothing by instilling fear where it need not exist.

Juta Worster
Victoria

Forests a witness to predictable outcomes

Re: “Share your ideas on the future of forestry,” letter, July 4.

The CEO of the B.C. Council of Forest Industries proclaims that we have a “world leading sustainable sector,” and in the same letter points out many forest-dependent communities are facing the consequences of reductions in timber supply.

This is more than poor forest management. It is the predictable outcome of our imprudent and improvident arrangements for managing public forests by a system of private timber harvesting rights.

The unnaturally large mountain pine beetle epidemic was really an unwitting mountain pine beetle habitat enhancement project.

Lodgepole pine becomes susceptible to mountain pine beetle attack at 80 years old. Firefighting combined with a failure to harvest sufficient pine caused the buildup of huge areas of old pine with predictable consequences.

B.C. softwood lumber is experiencing export tariffs because the harvesting rights system is vulnerable to accusations of subsidy. The value-added wood products sector is underdeveloped because most public timber was allocated to sawn lumber and pulp producers.

One of the positive outcomes from social friction and civil disobedience over harvesting rights was an increase in legally designated parks.

However, the auditor general has cited the Ministry of Environment for failing to maintain the ecological integrity of parks. Added to this failure in forest conservation is that the existing system has no substantial provision for conservation and recreation management in our undesignated de facto parks.

This is an area of forest and other wild land that is likely to remain in natural condition in and around timber-producing forest landscapes that is greater in area than the forest used for timber harvesting.

The British Columbia government, the trustee of public forests, is avoiding any substantial discussion of the failed existing system in its present consultation.

Andrew Mitchell
Registered Professional Forester (retired)
North Saanich

Send us your letters

• Email: letters@timescolonist.com

• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times Colonist, 2621 Douglas St., Victoria, B.C. V8T 4M2.

Letters should be no longer than 250 words and may be edited for length, legality or clarity. Include your full name, address and telephone number. Copyright of letters or other material accepted for publication remains with the author, but the publisher and its licensees may freely reproduce them in print, electronic and other forms.