ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARDProvince of British Columbia

APPEAL NO. 88/16 W'LIFE

JUDGMENT:

In the appeal of Bruce Lloyd Kitchen, under theWildlife Act against the decision of the DeputyDirector of Wildlife to extend the period duringwhich he will be ineligible to obtain or renew ahunting licence beyond the minimum period of oneyear to three years from his conviction for twooffences under the Wildlife Act, dated June 22nd,1988.

APPELLANT:

Bruce Lloyd Kitchen,Kamloops, B. C.

3rd Floor, 712 Yates Street,Victoria, B.C. V8V lX5Ph: 387-3464/356-7032

Mailing Address:Parliament Buildings,Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X5

APPEAL NO. 88/16 W'LIFE PAGE 2

HEARING DETAILS

The hearing was held on February 28th, 1989, at theCoast Canadian Inn, Kamloops, B.C., before a Panel of theEnvironmental Appeal Board, consisting of Mr. George Reed,LLB., Chairman.

Miss Shirley Mitchell, Executive Secretary to theBoard, acted as Recorder for the proceedings.

REGISTERED APPELLANT:The registered appellant was BRUCE LLOYD KITCHEN, of

Kamloops, B.C.

He was not represented by Counsel and called nowitnesses.

RESPONDENT:

The respondent was the Deputy Director of Wildlife,Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C., represented by:

Nancy Crowe, from the Office of Guides,Regulations and Appeals, Wildlife Branch.

The respondent called no witnesses.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:

The appellant's grounds for appeal were contained in aletter to the Chairman of the Environmental Appeal Board,dated December 22nd, 1988;

"To brief you in on the facts of the case, I haveto tell you that last year I shot a big-horn sheepwithout licence to do so. This was an impulsiveact which I regretted as soon as I had done so.

APPEAL NO. 88/16 W'LIFE PAGE 3

At the Court case, Judge Terry Shupe fined me$1500.00 and suspended my licence for one year.A few weeks later, I received a letter from theKamloops Wildlife Branch which stated that theywere considering a suspension of my hunting licencefor five years unless I could show reason why theyshould reconsider. I wrote to them and expressedmy sincere regret at my actions and duly receivedanother letter from them saying that they haddecided to suspend my licence for three years.

I feel that this is excessive in view of theverdict of one year handed down by Judge Shupe.What I would be willing to accept is the $1500.00fine and a suspension of two years."

The only issue on appeal was the length of time forwhich the appellant's hunting licence was suspended inaddition to the one year mandatory suspension required bythe Wildlife Act following conviction under that Act.

EXHIBITS:

EX. 1 Game Regulations of B.C. RESPONDENT

EX. 2 Appeal Book RESPONDENT

DECISIONj

The Board authorized under Section 103 of the WildlifeAct and Section 11 of the Environment Management Ac~-o-----near the appeal of the appellant against the decision ofthe Deputy Director of Wildlife with respect to thesuspension of his hunting licence, has carefully consideredthe submissions before it at the hearing held in Kamloopson February 28th.

The Board upholds the decision of the Deputy Directorof Wildlife, dated November 7th, 1988.

The appeal, therefore, is dismissed.

APPEAL NO. 88/16 W'LIFE PAGE 4

COMMENTS OF THE BOARD:

1. The decision appealed from of the Deputy Director ofWildlife, dated November 7th, 1988, stated in part, that; -

"1 have considered the documents at hand as well asyour submission dated October 19, 1988, and havedecided under s. 25 Wildlife Act to extend theperiod during which you will be ineligible to obtainor renew a hunting licence beyond the minimum periodof one year to three years from the date of convic-tion.

"1 have made this decision because the illegalpossession of wildlife and the hunting of rare andprotected sheep not within the open season areserious offences. Your actions in knowingly poach-ing a female sheep in a closed area and going out ofyour way to conceal your guilt throughout theinvestigations by the officers, indicate a disregardfor the law and for the conservation of wildlife."You will again be eligible to obtain a huntinglicence on June 22, 1991."

2. The Deputy Director of Wildlife advised the appellant onSeptember 28th, 1988, that he was considering a furthersuspension of licence under s.25 of the Wildlife Act, and wasaffording the appellant an opportunity to be heard. Theappellant responded to this letter on October 19th, 1988, inpart, as follows:-

"I would like to assure you that I consider my licencea privilege and not a right, and I fully realize thatby my action I revoked that right as indeed the Courtdecreed. It is not my place to say how long that rightshould be suspended for, and I appreciate the opportun-ity to plead my cause. Believe me, the embarrassmentand discomfiture suffered by me from friends andco-workers, not to mention the distress of the trialand the ensuing publicity, plus the fact that I myselffelt true remorse and guilt, safely excludes me fromever repeating any offence in the future."

APPEAL NO. 88/16 W'LIFE PAGE 5

3. All the following points arose at the hearing and wereconcurred in by the appellant and the respondent.

4. The appellant was convicted under two sections of theWildlife Act on June 22nd, 1988.

1. Hunting wildlife not within the open season.

2. Unlawful possession of dead wildlife.

s. A fine was imposed and his hunting licence cancelled forone year, which cancellation is mandatory under theWildlife Act. The appellant had shot a female,California bighorn sheep, for which there was no openseason. The deer season was also closed in this area atthe time.

6. The appellant expressed innocence for his actions. Hestated he was an experienced hunter of 30 years, thatthis was a one-time thing7 it was foolish, and mostregrettable. He thought he was shooting a deer. Hefurther stated that he knew the season for sheep wasclosed, that it wasn't a person or a dog he was shootingat. He should not have shot so impulsively but shouldhave taken more time to identify the game.

7. The only hunting for mountain sheep in this area is on alimited entry basis, determined by lottery, and, there-fore, restricted to very few hunters. The sheep in thearea have been transplanted and are primarily for publicviewing.

8. The penalty provided, both fine and imprisonment, in thesections of the Wildlife Act, under which the appellantwas convicted, make the legislative intent very clear.

9. While Mr. Kitchen now expresses regret and remorse, thisdoes not, in the opinion of the Board, mitigate theseriousness of the offence and the disregard for wildlifeconservation legislation.

10. The Board feels that as an experienced and active hunter,fully familiar with the area, the appellant should havebeen aware that there were protected species such asmountain sheep in the area and be alert for their possible

~PPE~L NO. 88/16 W'LIFE PAGE 6

presence. Also, such a hunter should have been aware thatthe deer season was also closed, so to say that hebelieved he was shooting at a deer provides no explanationfor his act, whatsoever.

11. The Board finds that the suspension of the appellant'shunting licence for the additional period of two years wasproperly carried out under the provisions of the WildlifeAct. The Board concurs completely in the decision ofthe Deputy Director of Wildlife in this regard, ascontained in his letter to the appellant of November 7th,1988, and that the Deputy Director acted very reasonably.

Victoria, B. C.March 28th, 1989