1124 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Our society has indeed gone insane.

Everything is cratering around us and what do we do? We double down.

[aastra]

Meanwhile back in 2016, some east Kootenay towns were able to relocate 60 of their "urban deer" just to see what would happen, all to the tune of a measly $100,000.

 

Methinks removing 50-100 deer out of the Victoria/Oak Bay scene would surely have a noticeable impact for a while.

 

The critics of the Kootenay relocations were calling the results "mixed", because they said the evicted deer were just moving on to the next town. But obviously in Victoria's case or in the case of any large city, there is no "next town". Either the relocated deer try to move back into the city or they don't. If they return then it's not as if you've goofed and inadvertently spread the problem or some such thing. There's no risk with relocating deer out of genuinely urban areas, is my point. It can't backfire on you.

[LJ]

Just shoot the damn things, be done with it. Make a lot of free venison for the food banks.

[aastra]

^See, that's what Utah's division of wildlife said. They discontinued the relocation program because:

 

a) they were worried about spreading lice and disease

b) the relocated deer were dying from predation or other causes

c) needy families should really be eating more venison

 

I'm something of a goofball and yet even to me those seem like very goofball reasons (especially when each reason is evaluated in light of the other reasons, or in light of the deer overpopulation issue as a whole).

 

In particular, doesn't it seem extremely silly that we should be troubled because a fair number of relocated deer end up getting eaten by cougars, bears, wolves, coyotes, scavengers, etc.? The natural order of things is beautiful and precious... except when it's all wrong and we need to turn it upside down in order to (duh) make it better.

 

 

...about half of the deer did not survive after being relocated. In contrast, the average mule deer adult survival across the West is around 85%.

 

Rather than having a large portion of the animals die after relocation, lethally removing them allows the meat to be utilized to help people in need.

 

Edited by aastra, 04 February 2026 - 07:44 PM.

[aastra]

 

 

Rather than having a large portion of the animals die after relocation, lethally removing them allows the meat to be utilized to help people in need.

 

When a wild animal dies in the wilderness it surely doesn't do a bit of good for anyone or anything. Can we at least agree on that?