In a recent ruling by B.C.’s Environmental Appeal Board (EAB), the interpretation of “hunting” has been scrutinized, leading to the disciplinary action against a wildlife biologist for his conduct towards an endangered caribou herd he is researching 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 last 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 for collecting caribou hair for DNA analysis were found to be in violation of regulations.
On November 7, 2024, Heard was observed by Ministry of Water, Land, and Resource Stewardship personnel using a “cable caster” contraption equipped with small clamps to gather caribou hair at a feeding station via a live webcam. Despite having a permit to collect DNA samples from hair and fecal matter, Heard was prohibited from directly removing hair from the animals.
Following the incident, Heard’s permit was revoked, prompting his appeal. The EAB’s ruling, issued on May 7, confirmed that his actions constituted illegal hunting under B.C. law.
The Wildlife Act defines hunting as the pursuit of animals with the intention of capturing any part of them, including hair, regardless of whether the animal is harmed or captured subsequently, as emphasized by the tribunal.
The province contended that permitting Heard’s actions would set a precedent for individuals to target wildlife as long as their aim was to secure a specific part of the animal rather than the whole. The Environmental Appeal Board concurred with this argument.
Heard maintained that his use of the cable caster was less intrusive compared to his previous methods, which included a dart gun and a toy crossbow. However, these prior approaches were deemed inappropriate uses of his permit in earlier EAB decisions in 2021 and 2022.
Heard is now eligible to reapply for a wildlife permit as of May 2 but declined to provide a statement regarding the ruling.
