In a recent ruling by B.C.’s Environmental Appeal Board (EAB), the interpretation of “hunting” has come under scrutiny as it upheld a disciplinary action against a wildlife biologist for his actions towards an endangered caribou herd he was studying in northern B.C.
Doug Heard, a former provincial government wildlife biologist and adjunct professor at the University of Northern B.C., has dedicated the past decade to the restoration of an endangered caribou herd at Kennedy Siding, a critical 223-hectare habitat for threatened woodland caribou southeast of Mackenzie, B.C. His methods of collecting caribou hair for DNA samples were found to be in violation of the law.
On November 7, 2024, Heard was observed by Ministry of Water, Land, and Resource Stewardship officials using a “cable caster” device on a live webcam to shoot small clamps, known as alligator clips, in an attempt to collect caribou hair for research at a feeding station. While Heard possessed a permit for DNA sample collection from hair and fecal pellets, removing hair directly from the animals was deemed unauthorized.
Subsequently, his permit was revoked, leading to an appeal. In a ruling issued on May 7, the EAB concluded that his actions did constitute illegal hunting as per B.C. law. The definition of hunting in the Wildlife Act encompasses the pursuit of animals with the intention of capturing any part, even just hair, without the requirement for the animal to be wounded, killed, or captured.
The province contended that permitting Heard’s actions would set a precedent for individuals to target and track wildlife as long as their aim was to capture a specific part rather than the entire animal. The Environmental Appeal Board supported this stance, emphasizing that Heard’s permit allowed for opportunistic collection of samples within a restricted hunting area.
Heard argued that the cable caster was less intrusive compared to his prior methods, such as using a dart gun and toy crossbow, which had been deemed unacceptable in previous board decisions. Despite being eligible to reapply for a wildlife permit as of May 2, Heard declined to comment on the ruling.
The ongoing debate highlights the complexities surrounding wildlife research and conservation efforts, particularly concerning the boundaries of permissible actions in studying and protecting endangered species.
