Comments Regarding SIRA Website and Book Review of Cull of the Wild: Killing in the Name of Conservation
Hugh Warwick (Bloomsbury Wildlife), London, April 2024

COMMENTS REGARDING SIRA

A group calling themselves the Sidney Island Restoration Alliance (SIRA) has recently created a website entitled “Saving Sidney Island” (https://www.savingsidneyisland.ca/).

We would like to briefly comment on the new SIRA website. It says the following: 
“Eradication is scientifically sound, supports reconciliation, will be conducted humanely and ethically, and will ultimately reduce animal suffering”.

We disagree with this statement.

Is the intent to say that “scientifically sound” means eradication is necessary for achieving a particular level of restoration?   We agree that scientific research demonstrates that removing all the deer on Sidney Island will effect the island’s ecology. For the same reasons, the deer management done by the Strata has had that effect. Simply put, there would be more or less undergrowth and additional plant species depending on the number of deer. Weigh this against killing a well-managed herd of sentient beings and the many advantages of the presence of deer. (Believe it or not there are some)

As far as we know there is no ecological science that says eradication is sound any more than the past practice of deer management is sound. To advocate for eradication is imposing a value judgement arising from human subjectivity. It is not science.

The comment regarding reconciliation is a mystery. Parks Canada, as an agent of the Crown and owning Crown land (the national park) has certain legal obligations toward First Nations. The Sallas Corporation has no such obligation. First Nations have no access rights to Sallas Property. If we want to allow First Nations to use our property to grow or harvest plants or to hunt, then we must give them that right by passing bylaws. For us to admit First Nations have Aboriginal rights on private Sallas land would be a mistake. Unfortunately, because of our Council not responding to the intervention claiming aboriginal rights on private land in the CRT litigation, that mistake may have already been made. This is not to say we are against “Reconciliation”. It is simply not a consideration for private property owners.

To glibly suggest that eradication will be carried out in an ethically and humane way is a disingenuous glossing of reality to assuage guilt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But we can find nobody, or any animal welfare organization, who believes tracking deer with dogs within the confines of fencing is humane or ethical; nor is the use of helicopters to either shoot or herd animals. So, let’s be honest and admit that. A more honest statement would be to say: “we need to eradicate in spite of the cruelty.”

Interestingly Sara Dubois, BCSPCA Science Officer is quoted extensively in Hugh Warwick’s new book, “Cull of the Wild: Killing in the Name Of Conservation “ (Bloomsbury Wildlife, London, April 2024). She advises that the use of helicopters and Judas animals is “inhumane”! (page 279) More on this fascinating book later.

As for stating eradication will ultimately reduce animal suffering. Who knows? How do you measure suffering? We assume the suffering of a deer being tracked by dogs and caught in fencing or a deer dying from a non-lethal shot from a helicopter is far greater than a clean shot. If we have learned anything from Phase 1, it’s that the more humane method of killing deer is done by our SI hunters.  This sounds suspiciously like “let’s kill them all now so we won’t have to kill them later”. The numbers of animals killed is not the only measure of suffering. 

BOOK REVIEW: CULL OF THE WILD

The most significant book written about these matters has just been published by Hugh Warwick: “Cull of the Wild: Killing in the Name Of Conservation“ (Bloomsbury Wildlife, London, April 2024). It is packed with information and examples of culling and eradication, from the Orkneys to New Zealand’s 2050 Project. (Heading for failure). The author has an admitted bias which he is constantly fighting against. (He hates killing animals) There are a number of key learnings: issues of wildlife management and ecological restoration are complex and need to be addressed separately from the “science of ecology”; we tend to be trapped in our bubble of values, biases and prejudices; we find it difficult to “walk in each other’s shoes”. When private property is involved, it requires complete buy in by those owners. Anything less will lead to failure.

The tragic situation on Sidney Island is a result of PC’s desire to address the impact of deer on park land and taking the position that it was scientifically necessary to eradicate all the island’s deer.   This all or nothing approach has split our community.

The author points out a basic confusion between the science of ecology and the management of wildlife. Many of us on SI have fallen victim to this confusion. The science of ecology, if done properly, describes objective truth. We all agree about the truth on Sidney Island. There had been too many deer on the Island and, as a result of over browsing, there was a visible and deleterious effect on the forest understory. Reduction of the number of deer and therefore a reduction in the amount of browsing will increase a more diverse understory. That is what the science says. But the decision to eradicate is based on subjective criteria.

Warwick describes the difference between wildlife management and ecological science on page 43:
 “Put simply, deciding that, say, wading birds are more important than the lives of hedgehogs, is subjective.”

Or as a previous owner in an early Parks Canada video opined “flowers are more important than deer”.

To say that the science of ecology requires us to eradicate the deer on Sidney Island is a misunderstanding regarding the use of “science”. But it is constantly repeated and has been repeated as the key point in the SIRA website “Saving Sidney Island.” If we are going to be honest, we must admit we have no differences regarding the science. Our differences relate to our values, biases and principles. 

— Submitted by Robin Bassett