EXSHAW – Residents in Dead Man’s Flats do not want a wildlife fence surrounding their community.
That was the message sent to councillors during a presentation by the Dead Man’s Flats Community Association during a council meeting on Nov. 13.
“From the very first meeting at the Mad Dog Café where the MD presented the proposed wildlife fence, residents of Dead Man’s Flats, including Pigeon Creek and Copperstone, have shown no support for the fence,” said Adam Storm, a member of the community group’s fence committee.
“Residents have expressed several concerns about the fence, including its impact on quality of life, property values, access to public lands, impact on wildlife, cost, maintenance and safety of residents, visitors and wildlife.”
In support of his argument, he stated that the wildlife fence envisioned in the area structure plan for the hamlet does not align with the MD’s triple-bottom line policy, namely its long-term social, economic and environmental goals.
More specifically, he argued very little information has been shared with the public about the total cost of the fence and who would pay for it.
On top of this, he said his organization has serious concerns about the design of the proposed fence, including how it would cross Pigeon Creek.
“As residents and voters, we are struggling with the idea of paying for a piece of infrastructure that is not wanted by any resident and evidence supporting its usefulness is not current or clear,” said Storm.
He said his organization also has serious safety concerns about the proposed fence, including animals that could make their way over, under or through the fence and become trapped within the hamlet. He also stated that to date there have been no recorded human-wildlife incidents in the hamlet.
During his presentation, he acknowledged that the wildlife fence has been part of the hamlet’s early planning, but urged councillors and administration to work with the community to update the hamlet’s area structure plan.
Reeve Dene Cooper said the issue isn’t so much about the fence itself, but the purpose of the fence.
“We’re not really talking about a fence, we’re talking about coming down to an agreement on the purposes of any fences that might be built,” said Cooper.
“We’re searching for what purpose the fence has and the problem that you find is that the different sections of the fence have different purposes.”
He said there were also other users to consider when discussing the proposed wildlife fence, including visitors to the Three Sisters Campground to the east of the hamlet as well as the province, which has been in protracted negotiations with the MD about swapping land near the wildlife underpass. He said there are also questions about hunting in the area.
“It’s an ongoing discussion and it could change parametres,” said Cooper, about the negotiations with the province.
“It could change the hunting issue if that land becomes wildland park, so what you are talking about is a very interesting question that needs an answer, that much council understands.”
During the discussion Councillor Paul Ryan also reminded everyone in the room that the only way to change the area structure plan, which is a statutory document, is by a vote of council, which would require a public hearing.
Following his comments, he asked if the Dead Man’s Flats Community Association intended to put together an application to amend the area structure plan.
“If it comes down to it, yes we will, but we want to work with you guys,” said Jake Micheals, another member of the organization.
Ryan warned that by doing so, any member of the public that believes they are affected by the amendment has the legal right to be heard at the public hearing and could challenge the impartiality of councillors, which could ultimately lead to a judicial review.
Complicating matters, the 2019 capital budget that was passed last week included $400,000 for wildlife fencing around Dead Man’s Flats.
