Pests in the eye of the beholder

Why indeed is the cost of the removal of deer treated differently from that of rats?

Re: the letter to the editor ‘Taxes used for simple nuisance’ from R.A. Jones in the March 11 Oak Bay News. I read this letter with glee as I enjoy hearing comments and ideas from sideways thinkers.

Why indeed is the cost of the removal of deer treated differently from that of rats? Rats are smaller and now officially considered urban pests? Probably.

It would be interesting to see a case for recovery of rat removal made in court. Turning this on its side, why not make anyone annoyed by deer responsible for their own cost of removal from personal property? I bet the fences would start going up, and the tulips wouldn’t seem that important.

What caught my attention was the letter writer’s explanation that his rats were ‘relocated’, which I applaud, but let’s assume that relocation means sending the unwanted animals to a more suitable and natural habitat. Where exactly would this be?

Were Norwegian browns airlifted back to Scandinavia? The black ones sent to join their distant cousins in the sewers  of New York? Do we have a Rat Wilderness Reserve National Park? Who exactly is waiting to receive these rescue rats with open arms?

Perhaps more likely and a great deal less expensive was a trip to the Hartland Landfill with a chemically flavoured last meal, bless  ‘em.

I do love the letters to the editor.

H. Moffat

 

Victoria