National Post

Critics decry ‘militariza­tion’ of wildlife conservati­on

- Douglas Quan

VANCOUVER • Check out job postings for conservati­on officers in Canada and they’ll typically say you need to have a passion for the outdoors and be a champion of the environmen­t.

A growing chorus of animal-welfare activists, however, say they’re worried a trigger-happy, pro-hunting culture has infiltrate­d the ranks of provincial conservati­on agencies. They cite various incidents from the past year as evidence: uniformed officers posing for pictures next to animals they’ve shot as if they’re trophies; a controvers­ial recruitmen­t ad in B.C. highlighti­ng as a perk the opportunit­y to tranquiliz­e grizzly bears; and an announceme­nt in Saskatchew­an that its conservati­on officers will soon be equipped with AR-style rifles.

“There is an urgent need to completely overhaul how each of the provinces and territorie­s manages wildlife,” said Lesley Fox, executive director of The Associatio­n for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals, which recently applied to Canada’s highest court to settle a dispute over how much discretion conservati­on officers in B.C. should be given to kill wildlife. “To the best of our knowledge, there is no province or territory that has an establishe­d independen­t board to oversee policies, practices and complaints related to wildlife/ environmen­tal enforcemen­t agencies.”

Conservati­on agencies say they take seriously their obligation­s to protect the environmen­t and wildlife. They say they use lethal force as a last resort.

But they aren’t completely dismissing the concerns either. In a statement, B.C.’s ministry of environmen­t and climate change said it is in “the early stages” of exploring options for an independen­t review or oversight body to deal with complaints about officer conduct.

“We understand the importance of maintainin­g the public trust in the service and feel that independen­t review and investigat­ion of complaints could help greatly in enhancing that confidence,” the statement said.

The duties of provincial conservati­on officers are wide-ranging: they enforce environmen­tal laws, investigat­e poachers and illegal dumpers, respond to public complaints about wildlife, and educate the public on ways to reduce conflicts with wildlife.

But critics complain officers spend too much time reacting to human-wildlife conflicts and not enough on prevention, such as managing the food and waste that people leave out. They also worry that when conservati­on agencies publicize the work of officers there’s too much emphasis on the gunslingin­g aspects of the job.

This month, the Manitoba Conservati­on Officers Associatio­n posted on Facebook a picture of a uniformed officer in Churchill posing with a “problem” polar bear that had come too close to town and had to be “chemically immobilize­d.”

In a statement, the province’s department of sustainabl­e developmen­t said it “does occasional­ly allow photos of an animal, or an officer with an animal, to be shared via social media … if it is deemed to be in the public interest, would help convey a safety message or reinforce the work of conservati­on officers to safely and humanely prevent human-wildlife conflict.”

But Bryce Casavant, a former B.C. conservati­on officer, says the image clearly falls into the category of a “trophy” photo and is reminiscen­t of another photo that appeared alongside a controvers­ial recruitmen­t ad posted by B.C.’s conservati­on service last year.

The ad featured an officer holding an unconsciou­s grizzly bear cub and the tag line: “Want to tranquiliz­e a grizzly bear? Have you ever wanted to be up close and personal with a live grizzly and get paid for doing it? Well now’s your chance.” The service took down the ad after the National Observer raised questions about it.

“In my view, agencies that allow or promote this behaviour are creating an organizati­onal culture where there are emotional and psychologi­cal rewards for pulling the trigger,” Casavant said.

Casavant gained worldwide attention a few years ago when he refused to obey orders to kill two orphaned bear cubs. He was suspended and then transferre­d to another job in the province. Also pursuing a doctoral degree in social sciences at Royal Roads University, he has since published a number of reports on his website that cast the service in a harsh light.

“Some officers, (who) are hunters and trophy hunters, like hunting and killing animals for work. I believe this to be a conflict of interest for those individual­s,” he writes. “It is mission creep and a serious cultural issue within the agency that is posing a clear, present, and direct risk to the conservati­on of the grizzly bear species and the environmen­t and wildlife.”

Earlier this year, Casavant obtained through a freedomof-informatio­n request a spreadshee­t showing that 70 per cent of B.C. conservati­on officers held a hunting licence at some point in their careers. Pro-hunting groups like the B.C. Wildlife Federation said at the time that it made perfect sense hunters would be overrepres­ented as conservati­on officers because “hunters and anglers care about the sustainabi­lity of our natural resources.” But Casavant said the service would benefit from diversifyi­ng its staff to include non-hunters, academics and others.

Use-of-force incidents against wildlife have led to an erosion of public trust in the conservati­on service, Casavant contends. Residents in some rural areas, he said, are now choosing not to contact the service when they encounter an animal out of fear it might be killed and some have resorted to “covertly rehabilita­ting” animals that have been injured.

Jefferson Bray, who operates a wilderness retreat in B.C.’s remote Bella Coola valley, a prime grizzly bear habitat, echoes Casavant’s concerns and says there’s much more the conservati­on service could do in terms of prevention and education.

Instead, he said, the service takes a “bullets are cheaper” approach to enforcemen­t and operates like a “rogue agency.”

In September, George Heyman, B.C.’s environmen­t minister, responded to a complaint letter that Bray had sent to the province. Heyman wrote that officers were working to manage human-wildlife conflicts, including ticketing people who repeatedly failed to secure items that were attractive to animals. But he added enforcemen­t alone will not solve the problem.

“The responsibi­lity to manage human-wildlife conflicts rests with everyone.”

Meanwhile, conservati­on officers in Saskatchew­an have come under scrutiny after the province put out a request for proposals last month indicating it was seeking to buy 147 semi-automatic carbines for them.

In a written statement, the ministry of environmen­t told the Post its officers have “one of the broadest environmen­tal mandates of any conservati­on service in Canada — from landfills to traditiona­l game and fishery management to the duties of 911 response.”

Because officers often patrol alone in remote areas and encounter armed individual­s involved in crime, the province “wants to provide conservati­on officers with the tools they need to do their jobs safely and with confidence,” the ministry said.

Asked if the AR-style rifles could be used in wildlife encounters, the ministry said officers will continue to rely on 12-gauge shotguns for wildlife control, “but the patrol rifle could be used if necessary.”

Heather Bear, vice chief of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations in Saskatchew­an, told the Regina Leader-Post she had grave concerns. Many Indigenous communitie­s already fear the officers and the use of high-powered rifles will lead to more intimidati­on and put people in “harm’s way.”

Fox says “militarizi­ng” conservati­on officers is completely unnecessar­y. “It puts the public — and wildlife — at risk.”

Her associatio­n is locked in an ongoing legal battle over whether conservati­on officers have too much discretion when it comes to euthanizin­g animals.

In May 2016, Tiana Jackson, a resident in Dawson Creek, B.C., discovered an orphaned black bear cub in a ditch. A conservati­on officer told her over the phone he would have to come and euthanize it. Upon hearing this, she found a wildlife rehabilita­tion centre in Smithers that was willing to take in the bear.

But when the officer arrived, he concluded the bear was in bad shape, tranquiliz­ed it and put it down. Fox’s Fur-Bearers associatio­n filed a petition in court arguing the provincial wildlife act limits the authority of officers to kill wildlife to situations where there is likely harm to people, property, wildlife or wildlife habitat. The province took the position officers had broad discretion.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge sided with the province, and the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the decision. The associatio­n has now applied to the Supreme Court of Canada to review the case.

“The issue is of national importance because through their actions, provincial environmen­tal officers are destroying public trust ... and needlessly killing our wildlife,” Fox said.

 ?? FACEBOOK ?? A picture posted this month on the Manitoba Conservati­on Officers Associatio­n Facebook page shows a uniformed officer posing with a polar bear that was tranquiliz­ed when it got too close to town.
FACEBOOK A picture posted this month on the Manitoba Conservati­on Officers Associatio­n Facebook page shows a uniformed officer posing with a polar bear that was tranquiliz­ed when it got too close to town.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada