Re: "Deer taking costly toll on hard-hit farmers' fields," Aug. 21.
If I had a business property worth a few million dollars without protective walls to prevent looting, most would say I was inviting trouble. I would also be declined insurance coverage for failing to uphold good business practices.
Take the farmers who incur losses on crops, rather than preventing deer damage by fencing or hedgerow installations. Just as we relate to common boundaries like walls, fences or signage, one can communicate to deer with barriers they understand. Farmers once did this with roses or fruit-bearing hedges, but since the rise of intensive farming, focus became crop yields rather than ideal growing conditions.
Following a forest clear-cut, deer have no protective shelter. They relocate to woodlands inevitably slated for development. Because developers are allowed to level woodland without leaving a proper deer barrier with food they like, everyone notices more deer, then cougars and wolves who must follow their prey. Culling all invaders becomes the hot topic, unless of course, the etiology is addressed. But we keep leaving that for future generations.
Demanding such ecological soundness from gainful ventures of the privileged is long overdue. Until then, farmers should expect to protect their efforts from trespassers like any savvy business person, without resorting to short-term cruel solutions that, in the long run, cost as much or more than some fencing.
Culling will not stop poor business practices that displace the deer.
Natalia Kuzmyn
Oak Bay
