Editor:
Sechelt council has been petitioned to allow bow hunting of elk within the urban area in order to "harass" the animals because they are a danger to both dogs and rose bushes.
Apparently the kill rate of bow hunting is 20 per cent. Am I missing something here? If the kill rate is 20 per cent, what happens to the other 80 per cent of arrows? I presume they either miss their mark (relatively safe in an urban area) or they wound the elk.
I was always told to stay away from wounded animals because they could be dangerous. Biologist Darryl Reynolds is quoted as saying that "hunting in this case is not about killing animals, it's about harassing, it's about removing them out of the areas where they're going to be a safety issue to people."
It's been my experience after hiking in remote areas for many years that elk are not exactly interested in meeting me and will move on at the mere sight of me. I imagine if I were to intentionally make some noise, they would move away even faster. If dogs are getting stomped, as Mr. Reynolds says, it is because they are chasing the elk, not because the elk are chasing the dogs.
Awhile back we had a small herd of elk that frequented our residential neighbourhood. They were eventually trapped and relocated. Why isn't this a possible solution if all other approaches fail? Why must we always come out blasting whenever we have the slightest bit of trouble co-existing with animals? We're supposedly the ones with the big brains in this scenario why can't we use them to come to reasonable, common sense solutions?
Peggy Collins
Pender Harbour
