Full-text - Environmental Appeal Board

APPEAL NO. 88/05 WILDLIFE
J U D GEM
IN THE APPEAL
IHldlife
ENT
of Mr. Hans Marten Hansen
Act - Order of the Director
This Order was for the cancellation
and Guide Outfitter's
Before
Certificate,
the Director
to the fact that Mr. Hansen
three violations
of Wildlife
against
the
of 03 March 1988.
of the Guide Outfitter's
Licence
No. 318, of Mr. Hansen.
made his Order, he gave consideration
had pled guilty and been convicted
of the Wildlife
Act in Provincial
of
Court, which were
as follows:1.
He had failed to make every reasonable effort to
remove edible portions of moose carcasses to a
place of consumption (i.e., either a cold storage
locker, or a meat processing establishment - a
violation of Section 36 of the Wildlife Act).
2.
He had made a false declaration on a Guide
Outfitter's Report and Declaration Ca violation
of Section 84(1) of the Wildlife Act).
3.
He had failed
to submit a Guide Outfitter's
Report and Declaration for a sheep (a violation
of Section 55(1) of the Wildlife Act).
Further,
before
the Director
made his Order, he gave Mr.
Hansen an appeal hearing
at his level.
At that hearing
evidence
and subsequent
cross-examination.
addition,
from the Crown,
during
was prepared,
to the appeal.
the course
agreed
of the hearing,
to and presented
The Director's
the Crown, the convictions
a "Statement
by counsel
he heard
In
of Facts"
for both parties
Order was based on the evidence
at Provincial
of
Court and the "Statement
of Facts" which were as follows:-
...
2/
-
-...-
APPEAL
PAGE 2
NO. 88/05 WILDLIFE
1.
Mr. Hansen did not complete and file the required
report for the shooting of a nuisance grizzly
bear.
2a.
He failed to report the accidental
an undersized ram (Krook event).
2b.
He failed to file a Guide Outfitter's
Declaration for Mr. Steve Krook.
Judgement
Report and
3.
Mr. Schroeder, a hunter guided by one of Mr. Hansens'
employees, shot two moose, when he was only entitled
to one.
4.
Mr. Hansens' employees failed to make every reasonable
effort to remove the edible portions of moose to a
place of consumption (52 moose were involved).
5.
He assisted an American citizen
Assistant Guide Licence.
6.
He did not disclose the killing of a wolf by one of
his employees on a Report and Declaration of Guide
Outfitter.
7.
Some non-resident hunters, guided by his employees,
used species tags and licences belonging to other
persons, who did not hunt, and were not even in the
country.
A more detailed
"Statement
shooting of
of Facts"
description
in applying
for an
of the events in the agreed
can be seen in Appendix
"A", attached
to this
document.
A P P ELL
MR. HANS MARTEN
ANT
HANSEN
President, Scoop Lake Outfitters
R.R. #6, Paret Place
Ke1owna, British Columbia
VlY 8R3
Ltd.
. . . 3/
APPEAL
NO. 88/05 WILDLIFE
PAGE
3
D E C I S ION
The Environmental
Act and the Environment
Marten
March
Hansen against
Appeal
Management
Certificate
the evidence
1988, and has decided
and certificate,
his employees
of 03
Licence and Guide
has considered
to it at the hearing
that the cancellation
committed,
Accordingly,
Wildlife,
submitted
for the violations
of Wildlife
Guide Outfitter's
No. 318 were cancelled,
and argument
by the Wildlife
Act to hear the appeal of Mr. Hans
the Order of the Director
1988, in which Mr. Hansen's
Outfitter's
Board, authorized
of 08 June
of Mr. Hansen's
of the Wildlife
all of
licence
Act which he or
is too severe a punishment.
the matter
with the following
is sent back to the Director
of
directives:-
1.
The Appellant's Guide Outfitters Licence and Guide
Outfitters Certificate shall be renewed for the
normal period from 31 March 1988.
2.
The Appellant's Guide Outfitters Licence and Guide
Outfitters Certificate and the renewal thereof shall
be suspended from 17 December 1987. The period of
suspension shall be until 16 December 1988 unless
the Appellant
transfers
such Licence
and Certificate
with the consent of the Director to another person
before that date.
The suspension under these
conditions shall cease if and when the other person
has acquired all of the Appellant's interest in such
Licence and Certificate.
3.
The stay in the operation of the Director's order
imposed by the Board on 20 May 1988 is lifted.
No
action shall be taken against the Appellant for
exercising his rights under the Licence and Certificate
while the stay was in operation, notwithstanding
the
suspension imposed by the Board.
4.
In considering an application to transfer the Appellant's
Licence and Certificate to another person, the Director
shall ignore the offences or alleged offences of the
Appellant.
. . . 4/
APPEAL NO. 88/05 WILDLIFE
PAGE
4
COMMENTS OF THE BOARD
The Board, in it's decision, was influenced by the following
information given in oral evidence or in the exhibits:1.
Mr. Hansen was not personally present when any of
the hunting violations took place. In almost all
of the situations, Mr. Hansen did not acquire
knowledge that the violation had taken place until
after the investigation by the conservation officer,
Mr. Donald Thatcher. It would seem, therefore,
that all of the hunting offences were committed
without Mr. Hansen's knowledge and without his
consent.
2.
The Board understands that none of the licenced
guides who actually were involved in the hunting
offences were charged with an offence. The Board
wonders why? Surely if their licences and the
obligations under those licences mean anything,
they too should have been charged. The Director
says that the responsibility for any violation is
Mr. Hansen's alone. From Section 106(1) of the
Wildlife Act, there is no doubt that Mr. Hansen
must bear a substantial amount of the responsibility
for the offences, but not all, and particularly if
there is some doubt that the offences were committed
without his knowledge or consent. It seems that Mr.
Hansen has been singled out and not treated fairly
in relationship to other offenders.
3.
Counsel for the Wildlife Branch of the Ministry of
Environment & Parks, confirmed that it was agreed
by both himself and counsel for the appellant in the
"Statement of Facts" that a one year suspension of
Mr. Hansen's Guide Outfitters Licence would be
appropriate given all the circumstances. Also it
was stated by Mr. Braidwood, that this was concurred
to by the investigating officer of the offences.
Further, Mr. Groberman stated that that was the
position of the Ministry at the time the "Statement
of Facts" was drawn up, and still is the position
of the Ministry today.
4.
The circumstances and evidence which were before the
Provincial Court Judge were similarly before the
Director of Wildlife at the administrative hearing.
The Provincial Court Judge only imposed a fine upon
Mr. Hansen of $2,500.00. The maximum penalty for
the three offences that the Provincial Court Judge
• . 5/
APPEAL
NO. 88/05 WILDLIFE
PAGE
5
could have ~posed was $11,000.00 and/or a term
of imprisonment of six months for each offence.
The Provincial Court Judge, after hearing the
evidence, and presumably using his experience in
matters of this kind, set the penalty in relationship
to what he considered was appropriate.
5.
In addition to the $2,500.00 fine, because of the
adverse publicity, and the actions of the Wildlife
Branch of the Ministry of Environment during the
eight month investigation, and the suspension which
was issued in June, 1987, Mr. Hansen also experienced
a "loss of revenue in 1987 of approximately $150,000.00
in relationship to 1986 revenues.
It would, therefore,
"appear that his financial penalty for the offences
committed is actually far in excess of the $2,500.00
(perhaps in the order of $150,000.00).
6.
Counsel for the Appellant pointed out that Mr. Hansen
had put his whole life into the building of Scoop
Lake Outfitters Ltd., and that the operations are
worth in excess of $1,500,000.00 in the aquisition
and development of the guiding enterprise.
He further
said that to uphold the Director's order and cancel
the Certificate and Licence would amount to a penalty
of this magnitude.
He said that to impose this horrendous
penalty on Mr. ·Hansenand his wif~, is like expropriation
without compensation of his whole life's work.
7.
The Board was told that Mr. Hansen had arranged a sale
of his guiding area and business establishment pending
the results of this hearing, that is if there was
anything left to sell. It would therefore appear, that
if the Director of Wildlife feels that it is desirable
to have Mr. Hansen removed from guide outfitting in
British Columbia, he has a method to accomplish this
end, without destroying Mr. Hansen and his wife
financially.
~-------Chairman
Environmental
Victoria
British Columbia
Appeal
Board
04 July 1988