Environmental Appeal Board

Environmental Appeal Board Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 APPEAL NO. 99-WIL-01 In the matter of an appeal under section 101.1 of the Wildlife Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 488. BETWEEN: Alvie Rema APPELLANT AND: Deputy Director of Wildlife RESPONDENT BEFORE: A Panel of the Environmental Appeal Board Toby Vigod, Chair DATE OF HEARING: Conducted by way of telephone conference call June 15, 1999 APPEARING: For the Appellant: Glenford E. Greene, Counsel APPEAL For the Respondent: Joseph G. McBride, Counsel This is an appeal by Alvie Rema of the December 16, 1998 decision of M.A. Hayden, Deputy Director, Wildlife Branch, to cancel Mr. Rema s firearm and hunting licences for three years; to require that he successfully complete the Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Education (CORE) program before his licence can be reinstated; and to deliver his B.C. Resident Hunter Number Card to the Deputy Director. The Environmental Appeal Board has authority to hear this appeal under section 11 of the Environment Management Act, and section 101.1 of the Wildlife Act. Mr. Rema is seeking an order setting aside the Deputy Director s decision. BACKGROUND Mr. Rema is an experienced trapper and hunter. He has trapped for over 20 years and hunted for over 40 years. In 1996, he had over 200 traps along his trap lines. In addition to a hunting licence and a firearms licence, he had a species licence to hunt black bear. Some time prior to April 28, 1996, Mr. Rema placed the carcass of a domestic goat on a tree in the Sunset Lake area, outside of Topley, B.C. This area fell within his trap lines. On April 29, 1996, Conservation Officer, Mr. T. Spado, received a complaint about the carcass from a local landowner. Mr. Spado and another Conservation Officer, Mr. M. West, began surveillance of the area around the carcass. At about 8:45

APPEAL NO. 99-WIL-01 Page 2 p.m. they observed a blue GMC truck, registered to the Appellant, entering the site. The officers later identified one of the occupants of the truck as Mr. Rema. On May 1, 1996, Mr. Spado and another Conservation Officer, Mr. D. Short, set up a video camera and hid in the trees. They observed a truck, identical to the one observed on April 29, 1996, parked in the area for about an hour. On May 2, 1996, Mr Spado placed a grizzly bear skin on a barrel as a decoy. In addition, he removed most of the goat carcass from the tree and placed it near the decoy. He set up a hidden video camera and commenced a surveillance of the scene with two other Conservation Officers, Mr. West and Mr. Short. On May 2, 1996, Mr. Rema set out from Topley with two young people, aged 14 and 18 years, accompanying him. He decided to check three beaver traps in the area. While checking one trap, he consumed one beer. At approximately 8:37 p.m., the Conservation Officers observed Mr. Rema arrive in the blue GMC truck and park at Sunset Lake. Mr. Rema stated he saw the head of what he thought was a black bear. He sat and talked with the youths and consumed another beer. While remaining in the truck, he loaded his gun with four shells. He viewed the bear s head through the scope on his rifle and took two shots from the truck. He aimed at and hit the decoy placed by the Conservation Officers. The three Conservation Officers approached the truck shouting that they were Conservation Officers. Mr. Rema appeared, on the videotape, startled and clearly angry. Mr. Rema was arrested, questioned and released. The Conservation Officers completed a Report to Crown Counsel on July 2, 1996. The report alleged three violations of the Wildlife Act and one violation of the Firearm Act. Mr. Rema was charged with the following offences: discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, contrary to section 28(1) of the Wildlife Act [now section 27(1)]; hunting bear by placing bait, contrary to section 17(m) of the Hunting Regulation; hunting grizzly bear without a license and an uncancelled species licence, contrary to section 1.03 of the Wildlife Act Firearm and Hunting Licensing Regulation; and having a loaded gun in a motor vehicle, contrary to section 12 of the Firearm Act. On September 9, 1997, Mr. Rema pleaded guilty to the charge of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle [section 28(1) of the Wildlife Act] and was convicted of hunting grizzly bear without a species licence. He was assessed $500 on each count. The court dismissed the charge of placing bait to hunt bear. The Crown stayed the charge under section 12 of the Firearm Act of having a loaded gun in a motor vehicle. The Conservation Officer wrote to the Licence Action Officer on September 15, 1997, requesting a review by the Wildlife Branch for possible licence suspension. By letter dated October 24, 1997, the Deputy Director notified Mr. Rema that he was considering cancelling the hunting and firearm licence and requiring the completion of the CORE examinations. He asked for submissions by November 24, 1997.

APPEAL NO. 99-WIL-01 Page 3 In a letter dated November 4, 1997, Mr. Rema informed the Deputy Director that he was appealing the conviction of hunting a grizzly without a licence. He informed the Deputy Director that the appeal would be heard on January 26, 1998. The Deputy Director stated, in a letter dated November 7, 1997, that he would proceed with his decision on the licence cancellation, as the administrative licence function is separate from the criminal prosecution process. He requested a response by December 1, 1997. On January 28, 1998, the Deputy Director notified Mr. Rema that he had decided to cancel the licences for four years. The Deputy Director did not view the videotape of the events of May 1 and 2, 1996; did not review the transcript of the trial; and did not receive a submission from Mr. Rema. In reaching his decision, the Deputy Director considered the fact that Mr. Rema had been convicted of two serious offences discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle and of hunting a grizzly bear without a licence; and that he had committed two other serious violations. On February 23, 1998, Mr. Rema appealed the Deputy Director s decision to this Board. On June 12, 1998, and prior to a hearing on the merits, the Board ordered, with the consent of the parties, that the matter be sent back to the Deputy Director for a rehearing and that Mr. Rema be given a further opportunity to make a submission. On June 17, 1998, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of hunting grizzly bear without a licence. The Deputy Director subsequently reheard the matter and released his decision on December 16, 1998. On January 14, 1999, Mr. Rema appealed that decision to this Board. His grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The length of the suspension is inordinate considering the offence, the earlier decision of the Deputy Director on the same incident and the court decision in this matter; 2. The Deputy Director illegally considered factors which were unknown and undisclosed to Mr. Rema; 3. The Deputy Director erred in considering that the presence of two youths in the truck was a aggravating factor ; and 4. The Deputy Director s decision about the duration of the suspension is vindictive and arose solely because [Mr. Rema] was proved correct about his offences. RELEVANT LEGISLATION Section 24 of the Wildlife Act provides, in part: 24 (1) In this section, convicted includes the granting of an absolute or conditional discharge. (2) If a person holding a licence or permit issued under this Act or the regulations is convicted of an offence under

APPEAL NO. 99-WIL-01 Page 4 (a) this Act, other than section 22, subsections (6), (7) or (14) of this section, sections 26(1) (a), (e), (f) and (g), 28, 81 and 82, or section 3 of the Firearm Act, (b) section 9 of the Firearm Act or for any other cause considered sufficient by the director, and after providing an opportunity for the person to be heard, the director may suspend the licence and all rights under it for a period that to the director seems fit, or may cancel it. (5) If a licence is cancelled, the director may order that the person is ineligible to obtain or renew a licence for a period that to the director seems fit within the prescribed limits and the director must inform the person of the period of ineligibility. Mr. Rema pleaded guilty to a charge under section 27 [now section 28] of the Wildlife Act which provides, in part: 27 (1) A person who discharges a firearm or wounds or kills wildlife from a motor vehicle or from a boat that is propelled by a motor commits an offence. The Wildlife Act General Regulation, section 7.01 and 7.02 [B.C. Reg. 296/85 as amended by B.C. Reg. 174/88] provides, in part: 7.01(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under a section of the Act listed in Column 1 of Schedule 7.01, the person s hunting licence is cancelled automatically and without notice, and the person shall be ineligible to hunt and to obtain or renew a hunting licence for the minimum period set out in Column 3 of that schedule. 7.02 Where a person is convicted within a period of 2 years of a second or subsequent offence under ISSUES (b) section 12 of the Firearm Act, the person s hunting licence is cancelled automatically and without notice, and the person shall be ineligible to hunt or to obtain or renew a hunting licence for a minimum period of one year. 1. Whether the Deputy Director s failure in his decision of December 16, 1998, to acknowledge and distinguish his earlier decision raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

APPEAL NO. 99-WIL-01 Page 5 2. Whether Mr. Rema placed bait for the purpose of attracting black bear. 3. Whether the Deputy Director erred in finding that Mr. Rema was convicted of discharging a firearm. 4. Whether the Deputy Director considered all the relevant factors. 5. Whether the three-year cancellation of Mr. Rema s firearm and hunting licences was reasonable in the circumstances. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 1. Whether the Deputy Director s failure in his decision of December 16, 1998, to acknowledge and distinguish his earlier decision raised a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Deputy Director initially issued a decision on January 28, 1998, to cancel Mr. Rema s licences for four years. Mr. Rema argued that the January 28, 1998 decision had an impact upon the December 16, 1998 decision. Mr. Rema stated that the Deputy Director should have acknowledged that he made his first decision while the appeal of the conviction was before the courts. His first decision was based, in part, on the conviction for hunting grizzly bear which was later overturned by the court. Mr. Rema stated that the Deputy Director should have acknowledged and distinguished his first decision in his second decision. He submitted that the failure to distinguish the two decisions influenced the Deputy Director s decision regarding the period of the suspension. In addition, the Deputy Director s December 16, 1998 decision was influenced by the earlier finding that Mr. Rema was hunting grizzly bear and that he had been hunting bear by placing bait. Mr. Rema argued this failure to distinguish the two decisions, would inevitably suggest that there had to be a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Respondent stated that as a result of this Board s consent order, the first decision was a nullity and therefore, the Deputy Director could not and did not refer to it in his second decision. The Deputy Director submitted that he reheard the matter by consent of the parties, and Mr. Rema can not at this stage raise the issue of bias. Further, Mr. Rema has submitted no evidence of bias. The test for bias is set out in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, at p. 394: [w]hat would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically and having thought the matter through conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decisionmaker], whether or not unconsciously, would not decide fairly. On review of these submissions, the Panel is satisfied that the second hearing before the Deputy Director was held with the consent of the Appellant. There was no suggestion in advance of that hearing that the Deputy Director was biased. The Panel is also satisfied that the Appellant had a full opportunity to present his case before the Deputy Director. This included the opportunity to make the Deputy Director aware of the court s decision to over turn the conviction for hunting grizzly bear. The fact that the Deputy Director did not make any reference to his earlier

APPEAL NO. 99-WIL-01 Page 6 decision does not lead the Panel to the conclusion that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias. Indeed the Deputy Director re-heard the matter and reduced the period of suspension based on the new information that was put before him. This was a new decision based on new information and accordingly it was unnecessary to distinguish the two decisions. 2. Whether Mr. Rema placed bait for the purpose of attracting black bear. The parties disagree on whether there is a connection between the placing of the goat as bait and the hunting of bear and the significance, seriousness or relevance of the above facts when it comes to deciding whether the licence should be cancelled. Mr. Rema argued the Director erred when he accepted as fact that Mr. Rema placed the goat carcass in the area for the purpose of hunting bear. Mr. Rema stated this finding of fact ignored the court s finding that the purpose of the placement of the goat was to bait wolves or coyotes. This lead to the incorrect finding by the Deputy Director that the hunting of bear by placing bait was illegal and improper and unethical. Mr. Rema s evidence before the Panel was that he placed the goat carcass to bait wolves, presumably because the wolves were damaging his traps. Further, he stated that he was carrying out his business as a trapper, including checking the condition of his traps for possible bear damage. He shot what he thought was a black bear, pursuant to his trapping licence. Mr. Rema argued that there was no direct connection between the placing of the goat as bait for wolves and his later shooting at the decoy that he thought was a black bear. These were two separate and unconnected incidents in his mind. He told the Panel that a pack of four wolves had come through that area regularly and that there were wolf tracks in the area. Mr. Rema explained that his interest in black bears was as a result of problems with the bears on his trap line. He has 200 traps and he might lose between 40 to 50 traps per year to bears. He had three traps in this area, although the closest trap was a quarter mile away. The traps in this area were for trapping beaver. He told the Panel that he had not planned to go to Sunset Lake that night. However, if he saw a black bear in the area of his traps, his intention was to shoot it. He was aware that, at that time of year, bears were attracted to the green grass in the area. Mr. Rema stated that he was in the business of watching his trap line and the bears were attracted by the bait of the traps. Counsel for the Deputy Director argued that Mr. Rema was hunting for bear in the area with the knowledge that the goat was nearby. Counsel stated that he Deputy Director considered Mr. Rema s unchallenged evidence that the goat had been placed for the purpose of baiting wolves or coyotes. However, he submitted that when the hunting for a bear is combined with the presence of the bait, it challenges the concept of a fair chase.

APPEAL NO. 99-WIL-01 Page 7 Counsel for the Deputy Director submitted that the Deputy Director s comment that this conduct is at worst illegal and at best improper and unethical must be understood within the context of the evidence and the Deputy Director s findings. The Respondent urged the Panel to interpret this statement as meaning that Mr. Rema s conduct was improper and unethical rather than illegal as there was no evidence before the Deputy Director that Mr. Rema had placed the bait for the purpose of attracting the bear. The Panel finds that Mr. Rema placed the goat carcass for the purpose of attracting wolves and accepts that there was a wolf pack in the area and that wolves regularly visited the area. The Panel also finds that Mr. Rema was prepared and ready to shoot a bear if he saw one near his trap line. However, the Panel is not prepared to conclude that Mr. Rema set the bait for the purpose of hunting bears. It is accepted that Mr. Rema was fully entitled to set bait for wolves. It is also accepted that Mr. Rema, as a trapper, regularly inspected his trap lines and is licensed to shoot bears who may be disturbing these traps. In this instance, the decoy was set in an area where Mr. Rema had active traps. The fact that there was wolf bait in the vicinity of the decoy does not lead the Panel to the conclusion that Mr. Rema was hunting for bear with the use of illegal bait. Nor does the Panel find that the shooting of the decoy under these circumstances was improper or unethical. 3. Whether the Deputy Director erred in finding that Mr. Rema was convicted of discharging a firearm. Mr. Rema submitted that the Deputy Director incorrectly found that Mr. Rema was convicted of discharging a firearm from a vehicle. Mr. Rema stated that he pleaded guilty to that charge, and [t]o state that Mr. Rema was found guilty suggests that he denied his responsibility for that offence. He did not. The Deputy Director should have considered this as a mitigating factor. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Deputy Director did consider the fact that Mr. Rema pleaded guilty. He agreed that the Deputy Director s description of convicted was somewhat inaccurate, but stated nothing turns on the distinction in reaching his decision. The Deputy Director considered the fact that Mr. Rema did not force the Crown to prove its case as a mitigating factor. The Panel notes that while the Deputy Director found that Mr. Rema was convicted of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle and was fined $500, he does not use the words found guilty. Mr. Rema was convicted of the offence after pleading guilty. Under section 59 of the Offence Act, [i]f the defendant pleads guilty the justice must convict the defendant or make an order against the defendant accordingly. The Panel finds that the Deputy Director had before him the transcripts of the trial, which show that Mr. Rema pleaded guilty to this charge. In addition, Mr. Rema stated in his submissions to the Deputy Director that he offered to plead guilty to count number one (the only count that he was ever convicted of. ) The Panel finds the Deputy Director was aware of Mr. Rema s action with respect to this charge. The use of the word convicted is not an error in fact. In any event, the Panel finds that nothing turns on the Deputy Director s use of the word convicted and that the Deputy Director did not err in making that finding.

APPEAL NO. 99-WIL-01 Page 8 4. Whether the Deputy Director considered all the relevant factors. The Deputy Director based his decision on several factors. These were as follows: 1) The conduct of Mr. Rema in loading and discharging a firearm from his vehicle is illegal, unsafe and unethical. 2) The hunting of bear by placing bait is illegal in BC. Although Mr. Rema states that the bait was placed to attract wolves, he admits to placing the bait and hunting black bear in the area of the bait. This conduct is at worst illegal and at best improper and unethical. Again this behaviour was conducted in the presence of 2 youths. 3) Mr. Rema admits consuming alcohol while hunting. This practice is also unethical, unsafe, can result in an automatic licence suspension under the Wildlife Act, and again was conducted in the presence of 2 youths. 4) Although I accept that Mr. Rema admits his mistake and is sorry, both specific and general deterrence of this type of conduct are important factors in my decision. A person with the experience level of Mr. Rema has no excuse for the type of conduct exhibited in this situation. Mr. Rema submitted that the Deputy Director did not consider the relevant factors in reaching his decision. Mr. Rema advised that the relevant factors that the Deputy Director should have considered were as follows. Mr. Rema stated that the offence of shooting from a truck is not serious when compared to other violations under the Wildlife Act. He argued there was no impact on wildlife as this was a decoy. The circumstances of his arrest, the conviction, the fine, and the cost of two hearings, were sufficient deterrence for Mr. Rema. The actions of Mr. Rema had minimal impact upon the two youth present as they were exposed to the arrest and trial which should convince them that they must get out of the vehicle before shooting. The non-cooperation of Mr. Rema during his arrest may be explained by his surprise of being arrested. The impact on Mr. Rema of removing his hunting privileges has been heavy, as it is his hobby. Finally, in considering the ethical behaviour of the hunter, the Deputy Director should have considered that he offered to admit what he had done wrong and stood up for what he had not done wrong. Mr. Rema argued that there were mitigating factors that the Deputy Director should have considered. This was his first violation in his lengthy hunting and trapping career and that he had shown remorse. Mr. Rema also stated that he had voluntarily refrained from hunting for four months from January 1998 until June 1998 during the formal suspension, and for seven months from December 1998 until this hearing in June 1999. Counsel for the Respondent stated Mr. Rema s actions were serious. The Deputy Director stated that it is unethical behaviour to hunt bear with the knowledge that there is bait in the area. It lessens the concept of fair chase. The Deputy Director considered that Mr. Rema s conduct may have left the impression with the youth that shooting from a vehicle, hunting bear near bait and drinking while hunting were all acceptable activities. While the misapprehension may have been

APPEAL NO. 99-WIL-01 Page 9 corrected, the Deputy Director argued it did not excuse the original creation of the wrong impression and the poor example for the youth. Counsel for the Respondent stated that the Deputy Director did not mention Mr. Rema s behaviour during his arrest in his decision. Therefore, it was only a minor factor. Counsel for the Respondent stated that the periods from January to June, 1998 and from December, 1998 to June, 1999 when Mr. Rema did not hunt were not voluntary, but rather were compulsory. Mr. Rema applied for and obtained a basic hunting licence, a black bear species licence, and a moose species licence between June 2, 1998 and December 24, 1998. Counsel for the Respondent argued that the fact Mr. Rema did not hunt from June, 1998 to December, 1998 was not voluntary, rather the opportunity to hunt did not present itself. Counsel for the Respondent also submitted that the Deputy Director took into account Mr. Rema s four-month suspension period from the date of the first decision to the Board s consent order. The Respondent submitted that the Deputy Director considered the full suspension as 48 months and then subtracted 12 months for mitigating factors including the original suspension. The Panel finds that the Deputy Director properly took the following factors into account. The Deputy Director correctly considered the seriousness of the offence of discharging a gun from a vehicle, drinking while hunting, and being in the presence of two youths during these actions. As noted above, the finding that Mr. Rema was hunting for bear in an area where a decomposing goat had been placed, as wolf bait, should not have been considered. The Panel also finds that there are several mitigating factors. Mr. Rema demonstrated remorse for his actions. He pleaded guilty to the charge of discharging a firearm in a motor vehicle. Mr. Rema has not had a previous suspension or cancellation during his long career of hunting and trapping. There was no impact on the wildlife population. In addition, the Panel finds Mr. Rema did not hunt during a four-month period from the date of the first decision to the date of the Board s consent order. On review of the evidence and the Deputy Director s findings, the Panel finds that the Deputy Director properly considered all but one of the relevant factors in reaching his decision. 5. Whether the three-year cancellation of Mr. Rema s firearm and hunting licences was reasonable in the circumstances. Mr. Rema submitted that the three-year licence cancellation is unreasonable in the circumstances. Mr. Rema stated that the appropriate period should have been one year. Mr. Rema submitted that the Deputy Director should have considered the periods of cancellation for other offences under the Wildlife Act and Firearm Act. He submitted that the maximum suspension is ten years and the discretion of the director must be circumscribed by the range of specific cancellation times set out for other hunting offences in Regulation 340/82 (see Boucas v. Deputy Director of Wildlife (Environmental Appeal Board, Appeal No. 94/18(b), March 11, 1996) (unreported) at

APPEAL NO. 99-WIL-01 Page 10 p. 7)). Mr. Rema stated that under section 7.02 of the Wildlife Act General Regulation the period of suspension under the Firearms Act for discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle is one year where there is a second conviction within two years. He reviewed other periods of suspension for offences under the Wildlife Act and the Firearm Act. These ranged from one year for not exercising care for safety of persons or property [Firearm Act, section 3] to five years for using lights or set guns [Wildlife Act, section 26(1)(e) or (g)]. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Deputy Director is given broad powers under sections 24(2) and 24(5) of the Wildlife Act to exercise discretion to decide to cancel a licence and order ineligibility to obtain another licence. He took into consideration the automatic minimum licence cancellation under section 7.01 of the Wildlife Act General Regulations. Counsel for the Respondent submitted the periods listed in section 7.01 of the Wildlife Act General Regulation are minimum periods. The Deputy Director has the discretion under section 24(5) of the Wildlife Act to add additional periods of ineligibility to the minimum prescribed periods. The Panel notes that the Deputy Director decided the cancellation under his administrative powers under section 24(2) of the Wildlife Act. This section allows the Deputy Director to cancel a licence, after providing an opportunity for the person to be heard, if a person holding a licence is convicted of an offence under this Act or for any other cause considered sufficient by the Director. These are broad discretionary powers. In previous decisions, the Board has ruled that administrative penalties may be imposed separately from, and in addition to, courtimposed sanctions. While the severity of judicial sentences may be considered by administrative decision-makers, court-imposed sanctions are not determinative of an appropriate administrative penalty the processes for determining judicial and administrative penalties are independent. The Board has made this distinction clear in several past cases, including, most recently, Shayne Quintal v. Deputy Director of Wildlife (Environmental Appeal Board, Appeal No. 98-WIL-20, December 8, 1998); and Leveque v. Deputy Director of Wildlife (Environmental Appeal Board, Appeal No. 98-WIL-04, January 8, 1999) (both unreported). In addition, the Deputy Director may consider charges against an individual even if a court finds the individual to be not guilty or stays those charges. (see Ratushniak v. Deputy Director of Wildlife (Environmental Appeal Board, Appeal No. 98/33, March 23, 1999) and Shayne Quintal v. Deputy Director of Wildlife (Environmental Appeal Board, Appeal No. 98-WIL-20, December 8, 1998) (unreported)). The Board has found in the past that the range for licence cancellation is circumscribed by the other periods in the Regulations. As the Respondent points out the periods submitted by Mr. Rema are minimum periods for automatic cancellations. This is not an automatic cancellation. The broad discretion is provided to the Deputy Director to allow him to take into account the totality of the circumstances related to an incident or series of incidents. The comparison of the periods of the minimum periods of cancellation provided by Mr. Rema is useful as a way of indicating the seriousness of the offences. (See Loring and Loring v. Deputy Director of Wildlife (Environmental Appeal Board, Appeal No. 98-WIL-26 and 27, April 26, 1999) (unreported). However, the Deputy Director correctly did not restrict himself to the one offence. He took into account several different factors.

APPEAL NO. 99-WIL-01 Page 11 Mr. Rema argued the cancellation decision was not consistent with other cancellation decisions under the Wildlife Act. Mr. Rema has urged the Board to consider the cancellation in Boucas v. Deputy Director of Wildlife (Environmental Appeal Board, Appeal No. 94/18(b), March 11, 1996) (unreported)). In that case the Board upheld the Deputy Director s decision to cancel the licence for three years where the Appellant shot a grizzly bear (a potentially fertile sow grizzly) out of season using bait, did not show remorse, continued to hunt, and the appellant s past offences (arising from the same incident). In the same case, Dr. Vargas received a cancellation of one year. The Deputy Director considered the following factors: Dr. Vargas remorse, his suffering considerable public embarrassment, the grizzly cub is less important and he voluntarily refrained from hunting. The Panel notes the Board has previously considered several hunting licence cancellation cases. They ranged from a three year cancellation for a hunter who killed an elk in the wrong hunting zone (both zones were open for hunting, but the hunter s licence was limited to a particular zone), (Hopkins v. Deputy Director of Wildlife (Environmental Appeal Board, Appeal No. 96/10, January 6, 1997) (unreported)); five years for hunting at night with a light, though no animal was killed, (Collier v. Assistant Deputy Director of Wildlife (Environmental Appeal Board, Appeal No. 93/15, May 2, 1994) (unreported)); and ten years (the maximum) for killing two bighorn sheep and a goat using someone else s hunting licence, and going over the bag limit, (Johnston v. Deputy Director of Wildlife (Environmental Appeal Board, Appeal No. 95/45, September 4, 1996) (unreported)). Most recently, the Board has reduced a two year license suspension to 18 months where the appellant was convicted of discharging a firearm in a no shooting area and hunting over cultivated land without the consent of the landowner. In that case, the appellant was shooting as at a deer that had been set up by the Conservation Officer Service. (See Richey v. Deputy Director of Wildlife (Environmental Appeal Board, Appeal No. 97-WIL-11, June 18, 1998) (unreported)). While the Panel is not strictly bound by precedent, the Panel finds that the licence suspension period of three years is excessive in the circumstances. Specifically, the Panel finds that the three year suspension that was imposed by the Deputy Director was influenced by his finding that Mr. Rema used bait to hunt bear, regardless of whether it was placed for that purpose. For the reasons set out above, the Panel rejects that finding. However, the Panel finds that the other factors considered by the Deputy Director were correctly considered in reaching his decision. In determining an appropriate period of suspension, the Panel has reviewed the factors of this case and previous suspensions that have been upheld by this Board under the Wildlife Act and Firearm Act. The Panel finds that Mr. Rema s actions are more serious than those actions described in the Richey matter but are less serious than the actions described in the Boucas matter. Accordingly, the appropriate period of suspension is greater than 18 months and less than 3 years. In this case the Panel finds that 2 years is an appropriate suspension. The Respondent asks for costs of one dollar in this case to discourage Appellants from making what the Respondent believes are vexatious allegations. The Panel finds that this is not an appropriate case to make an order for costs.

APPEAL NO. 99-WIL-01 Page 12 DECISION In making this decision, the Panel of the Environmental Appeal Board has carefully considered all of the evidence before it, whether or not specifically reiterated here. Mr. Rema s hunting and firearms licences are cancelled for two years, from 23:59 hours on December 24, 1998 to 23:59 hours on December 24, 2000. The Board upholds the Deputy Director s order that Mr. Rema successfully complete the CORE program before his hunting and firearm privileges may be reinstated. The appeal is allowed, in part. Toby Vigod, Chair Environmental Appeal Board October 18, 1999