In a recent ruling by B.C.’s Environmental Appeal Board (EAB), the concept of “hunting” has come under scrutiny in a case involving a wildlife biologist’s actions towards an endangered caribou herd he has been 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 last ten years to the preservation of an endangered caribou herd at Kennedy Siding, a vital 223-hectare habitat for threatened woodland caribou near Mackenzie, B.C.
Heard’s approach to collecting caribou hair for DNA analysis was found to be in violation of regulations. On November 7, 2024, Ministry of Water, Land, and Resource Stewardship officials observed Heard using a “cable caster” device equipped with small clamps, known as alligator clips, to extract caribou hair for research purposes at a feeding site. Despite having a permit to gather DNA samples from hair and fecal matter, Heard was not authorized to directly remove hair from the animals.
Subsequently, Heard’s permit was revoked, leading him to appeal the decision. The EAB, in a ruling issued on May 7, concluded that his actions fell within the definition of illegal hunting as outlined in B.C. legislation. The Wildlife Act specifies that hunting encompasses the pursuit of animals with the intent to capture even a part of the animal, such as hair, without the requirement for the animal to be harmed or captured.
The province contended that permitting Heard’s actions could set a precedent for individuals to pursue and track wildlife as long as their aim was to capture only specific parts of the animal rather than the whole. The Environmental Appeal Board supported this argument, highlighting that Heard’s permit allowed for opportunistic sample collection within a designated area where hunting was prohibited.
Heard maintained that his use of the cable caster was less intrusive compared to previous methods he employed, such as dart guns and toy crossbows, which were deemed inappropriate in prior board rulings. Although suggestions were made in previous decisions for less invasive sample collection techniques, Heard failed to acknowledge the importance of opportunistic collection.
Following the ruling, Heard became eligible to reapply for a wildlife permit as of May 2 but declined to provide a statement on the matter to CBC News.
