The CAMROSE BOOSTER, May 11, 2021 – Page 18
Council discusses bylaw to prohibit feeding deer By Lori Larsen
running around. I take the During the Committee view that the bylaw is fine, of Whole meeting on May 3, it gives us some teeth and is City of Camrose admina reminder to people not to istration presented a profeed the deer. I would be fine posed bylaw prohibiting the with it. The deer might still feeding of deer within City be here, but I think a few of limits. them will leave if they find The creation of the it too hard to feed.” bylaw came about as a result City deputy manof concerns from residents ager Kim Isaak added, “I regarding the deer populareviewed the proposed bylaw tion in Camrose. with Inspector Corbett of During a meeting held Camrose Police Service on July 16, 2020, with City (CPS), and we tried to come of Camrose administraup with something that we tion, council members and felt was in the middle of Camrose Fish and Wildlife the road that still allowed Enforcement Branch Dispeople to be able to have trict Officer Lorne Rinkel, their fruit trees. We are just hoping that people would and a subsequent meeting reasonably maintain these held on July 27, with adminthings so they don’t become istration and Fish and attractants to the deer. Wildlife biologist Delaney “There were other Frame, options were develthings we chose to leave out oped, including an education Lori Larsen, Camrose Booster campaign, feeding prohibi- Deer have no problem extending their necks up into trees to reach for fruit or munch of the bylaw, such as bird tion bylaw and public count on leaves. While this may be unavoidable, purposely setting out feed for deer is not only feeders,” said Isaak. “Lots of deer population. extremely dangerous for animal and human alike, but encourages the deer to stay around of other municipalities that do have deer problems will In an effort to head off the food source. prohibit bird feeders, which the upcoming season, where are asking people to cut down trees or things of also prevent the deer from coming onto their deer attractants are more readily available, that nature. We are asking them not to put out properties. We tried to come up with something City administration presented a draft of Bylaw feed or make it obvious that they are trying to that would be reasonable for the public, but 3170-21 Prohibition of Feeding Deer to council entice these animals to get closer in the com- something that could also be enforceable for for consideration. Under Section 3 of the proposed Bylaw, Pro- munity. It is a tough thing to follow. Fish and CPS as well.” Throndson suggested amending the prohibition, Section 3.1 states that no individual Wildlife won’t do anything about it unless there shall feed deer or cause deer to be fed within is an animal injured. They can do something posed bylaw to delete Section 3.3. Boyd suggested council direct administrathe limits of the City of Camrose. Section 3.2 then, but they are not inclined to try to move tion to amend the bylaw and bring a draft back states that no individual shall permit deer to these animals out.” City of Camrose manager Malcolm Boyd to a future council meeting. “Several of the be fed on property which is owned or occupied reminded council that the City has been doing instances of aggressive deer and complaints by the individual. from residents have included situations where Section 3.3 states a person or owner of a some education already. Boyd requested direction from council on it is neighbour against neighbour. One neighparcel of land with a tree or bush that produces an attractant, but not limited to fruit from a whether or not they would make amendments bour is actively attracting the deer, and the crabapple, mountain ash tree or Shepherdia to the proposed bylaw, or if they are just not other neighbour is actively trying to keep the deer out of their yard and away from their chil(buffalo berry) bush, must reasonably maintain wanting a bylaw at all at this time. City of Camrose community development dren or small pets. I think the root of what we them in a condition to minimize the accessibility of fruit and berries to wildlife (i.e. by way of general manager Patricia MacQuarrie informed are trying to achieve here is to enforce against fencing, pruning, not allowing fruit to accumu- council that after the previous meeting in July, that type of situation.” the City did do a deer campaign, including Councillor PJ Stasko agreed with councillate on the ground, etc.). In accordance to the definitions outlined in advertising in the paper and posts on social lor Throndson in eliminating Section 3.3, and Section 2 of the Bylaw, an “enforcement officer” media. “Some of the comments received back putting more force and focus into 3.1 and 3.2, means a member of the Camrose Police Service, were around aggressively or purposely feeding in “actively” trying to feed deer. Councillor Lindstrand suggested if council Community Peace Officer, or any other person deer using deer feed, and there is an inability appointed by council or the City manager to to enforce that because the City doesn’t have a is considering the bylaw, that Section 3.3 be deleted. enforce provisions of this bylaw; and “feed” deer feeding bylaw. “If we could amend the proposed bylaw to outCouncillor Hoveland indicated her first means to deliberately lay out food to attract law actively/purposely feeding deer, that would concerns were based on Section 3.3. “If amenddeer. Proposed penalties for feeding deer (Sec- be an improvement over what we have right now, ing or eliminating that would work, I am not tions 3.1 and 3.2) include: first offence $75, because we don’t have anything we can action opposed to the bylaw, including some changes to wording in 3.1 and 3.2, and eliminating 3.3.” second offence $150, and subsequent offences when people are doing that type of activity.” Councillor Wayne Throndson said, “We Councillor David Ofrim agreed that $300. Proposed penalties for failure to prevent accumulation of attractants (Section 3.3) tasked administration last year to come up Section 3.3 should be eliminated. Mayor Mayer directed administration to include: first offence $75, second offence $150, with something. The number of complaints we had about deer were plentiful, and we are amend the bylaw and return with a draft of and subsequent offences $300. coming up to the season where deer are going the amended bylaw to an upcoming council Council comments Mayor Norm Mayer began the discussion. to be aggressive again with little ones (fawns) meeting. “This may be more of an educational tool than anything else to make the public aware that we don’t want them feeding the deer and encouraging them (deer) to be in the immediate residential neighbourhoods. Councillor Agnes Hoveland inquired about the implications of the bylaw. “Does that mean, as an example, at my house, where the deer consistently prune the cotoneaster hedges, which have been there for the past 43 years– does this mean that we should look at removing those types of vegetation that have been around our homes for a long period of time?” Councillor Max Lindstrand suggested, “As I look at the options, I wonder if we could maybe emphasize Option 1, which would be a strong education program, as a first step before we move to a bylaw, which I think would be very difficult to enforce. “There are apples falling off trees all over the City. It is pretty hard to hold people responsible if a deer happens by and there are apples on the ground that haven’t been picked up yet. It seems to me that the bylaw, at this point, Lori Larsen, Camrose Booster As though camouflaged in this Camrose resident’s backyard, six deer seem quite at home, as they rest might be problematic.” Mayor Mayer responded, “I don’t think we between scouring the City for food.
