• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Former CO, RSM of Alert charged

*WARNING: Not suggesting in anyway this is what happened, but since the scenario of an injured animal was presented, I thought I would add some food for thought. *

If this is a case of the destruction of an animal due to injury, the nature of the injury plays a role, especially if we’re talking about a species at risk.

If the animal is immobilized by the injury and is either laying down and can’t get back up or is dragging its backend because it has two broken legs or a broken back and/or hips, or it’s entrails are falling out, destruction could be justified since it would not be able to evade predators and be unable to feed and thrive.

If the animal had a single broken leg and is otherwise mobile and able feed, then destruction would be harder to justify since it had a better chance at survival. Even with a compound fracture, a leg may heal (albeit crooked but functional) or fall off. There are a lot of three legged critters out there that are still able thrive and survive.

Getting into federally protected species at risk, this adds further complications. More people would need to be consulted. Destroying an at risk species belonging to an at risk herd carries greater consequences for that herd than destroying a white-tailed deer in the Prairies.

In all cases, local wildlife branch staff or Canadian Wildlife Service staff should be notified and consulted on the best course of action.
 
If the animal is injured due to security provisions around the Station, does that make if the CAF’s responsibility to humanely dispatch the animal? Or does it make the CAF liable for injury due to placing fencing etc around the Station…

Or both?
 
KevinB said:
If the animal is injured due to security provisions around the Station, does that make if the CAF’s responsibility to humanely dispatch the animal? Or does it make the CAF liable for injury due to placing fencing etc around the Station…

Or both?
Click to expand...
Very good question. Hard to say without knowing the facts of the case. If those accused can provide evidence that they did their due diligence to reasonably prevent them from getting injured, it should not have gotten this far.

Technically, killing a big game animal without a license or outside a season, even when injured, is illegal. With the location being what it is, I can see it may have been difficult to contact someone at CWS or Nunavut Natural Resources, unless there’s an officer posted in Alert. It seems kind of impractical to wait for a conservation officer or CWS wildlife officer to travel there to put down the animal, but I am unfamiliar with their policies. I’m also not 100% familiar with the federal Species at Risk Act or its regs.

Also, it could depend on whether the incident was reported right away or if it was “kept in-house”.

Contemporaneous notes by all involved will be very important here.

Again I’m probably wildly speculating here…
 
RangerRay said:
*WARNING: Not suggesting in anyway this is what happened, but since the scenario of an injured animal was presented, I thought I would add some food for thought. *

If this is a case of the destruction of an animal due to injury, the nature of the injury plays a role, especially if we’re talking about a species at risk.

If the animal is immobilized by the injury and is either laying down and can’t get back up or is dragging its backend because it has two broken legs or a broken back and/or hips, or it’s entrails are falling out, destruction could be justified since it would not be able to evade predators and be unable to feed and thrive.

If the animal had a single broken leg and is otherwise mobile and able feed, then destruction would be harder to justify since it had a better chance at survival. Even with a compound fracture, a leg may heal (albeit crooked but functional) or fall off. There are a lot of three legged critters out there that are still able thrive and survive.

Getting into federally protected species at risk, this adds further complications. More people would need to be consulted. Destroying an at risk species belonging to an at risk herd carries greater consequences for that herd than destroying a white-tailed deer in the Prairies.

In all cases, local wildlife branch staff or Canadian Wildlife Service staff should be notified and consulted on the best course of action.
Click to expand...
I think it's a distinction of degrees. Any injury that limits an animals ability to forage and defend itself makes them vulnerable to either other animals, the environment or starvation and simply makes it a slower death. I think when the cause originates by human hand - directly or indirectly, there is a moral obligation to mitigate the situation. If a scenario such as this is the basis for the charges, then it all strikes me as so much regulatory pettiness.
 
RangerRay said:
Very good question. Hard to say without knowing the facts of the case. If those accused can provide evidence that they did their due diligence to reasonably prevent them from getting injured, it should not have gotten this far.

Technically, killing a big game animal without a license or outside a season, even when injured, is illegal. With the location being what it is, I can see it may have been difficult to contact someone at CWS or Nunavut Natural Resources, unless there’s an officer posted in Alert. It seems kind of impractical to wait for a conservation officer or CWS wildlife officer to travel there to put down the animal, but I am unfamiliar with their policies. I’m also not 100% familiar with the federal Species at Risk Act or its regs.
Click to expand...
This is starting to sound like a moot court type of discussion. Under Ontario's Police Services Act, I had the authority to dispatch an animal if humanity dictated it. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act says that is otherwise illegal without it being in-season and with a tag. Both provincial statutes. Hmmm.
 
In Nunavut there is a term called ‘friendly caribou’. Basically some of the natives are not ethical hunters (they see a herd of caribou, grab their rifle, and rapid fire as quickly as they can into the herd picking up whatever drops) and wound caribou on a regular basis. Said caribou then gets infected, loses its fear of humans, and will walk into town with no qualms because it is literally the walking dead at that point.

Generally no one is willing to put it out of its misery because you can’t eat the meat so no point in wasting a bullet. Not saying this is what happened here, just that life up there is very different to what our Southern society thinks it is. Much more like the wild west than 2023.
 
lenaitch said:
This is starting to sound like a moot court type of discussion. Under Ontario's Police Services Act, I had the authority to dispatch an animal if humanity dictated it. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act says that is otherwise illegal without it being in-season and with a tag. Both provincial statutes. Hmmm.
Click to expand...
So an affirmative defense if a Fish Cop was to actually try to charge you.
99.99% of the time, no one will charge for that knowing you have an legitimate defense, but theoretically they could and take it to trial to let the crown or judge toss it.

A lot like LEOSA here, where active and retired LE can carry a gun in every state, but due to some states laws, you are theoretically violating them, despite having a Federal law that allows one to. — I don’t know of a case that has been filed for that, any time I was questioned about having a gun in a non carry friendly state my credentials made the question go away.
 
KevinB said:
So an affirmative defense if a Fish Cop was to actually try to charge you.
99.99% of the time, no one will charge for that knowing you have an legitimate defense, but theoretically they could and take it to trial to let the crown or judge toss it.

A lot like LEOSA here, where active and retired LE can carry a gun in every state, but due to some states laws, you are theoretically violating them, despite having a Federal law that allows one to. — I don’t know of a case that has been filed for that, any time I was questioned about having a gun in a non carry friendly state my credentials made the question go away.
Click to expand...
Oh, for sure. It was just a mental exercise bouncing off the legal concept of the 'order' of legislation (federal > provincial > municipal). I do know members have been challenged on how they did it (built-up area, safety, etc.) but that's not game laws.

I have a lot of respect for wildlife enforcement personnel. They are a dedicated bunch considering the funding and support they get from their Ministry, in Ontario anyway.

I actually don't know what to call them now - it's a good thing they drive trucks, their official position descriptor has gotten 'complicated', both languages and all that. This is Ontario after all. I saw a highway carrier enforcement vehicle the other day - it seems they have just given up and simply put the Ontario wordmark on it. Sorry; off-topic stroll over.
 
I believe in most provinces, police are usually appointed by legislation or other means as wildlife/fisheries/conservation officers so they can have the authorities under fish and wildlife legislation to act if they need to.
 
RangerRay said:
I believe in most provinces, police are usually appointed by legislation or other means as wildlife/fisheries/conservation officers so they can have the authorities under fish and wildlife legislation to act if they need to.
Click to expand...
As it is in Ontario, simply be definition in the Act (except the federal wildlife statutes, where I don't think Ontario police are generally designated). The issue isn't authority as it is knowledge. Like most regulatory law, it can be complicated. There is very little training given at the police college and while there is probably a decent understanding of broad issues like powers and authorities and general offences, the minutiae of seasons, zones, etc. can be complex. Some members are more in tune with it than others, depending on location and, quite frankly, interest.
 
Fishbone Jones said:
There's a moral and ethical component that needs to be considered.

Do you let the animal suffer? Freeze to death? Or let it stay immobilized while being attacked and eaten alive by carnivores? Or do you do the proper and moral thing and put it out of it's misery. Yes, all those things also happen in nature, but that is part of the cycle of life and are acceptable. When it happens as a result of human intervention and infrastructure, then it becomes our problem to remedy and we should do the right thing for the animal.
Click to expand...
But are we not part of the cycle of life? Is the animal getting injured by infrastructure really different from getting injured by a rock wall? Being attacked and eaten by carnivores may save another healthy animal from those same carnivores so maybe we should let nature take its course. Perhaps putting it out of its misery and leaving it there for the carnivores would be the best option.
 
RangerRay said:
I believe in most provinces, police are usually appointed by legislation or other means as wildlife/fisheries/conservation officers so they can have the authorities under fish and wildlife legislation to act if they need to.
Click to expand...
or you have the CO's responsible for the area on speed dial, call them and explain the situation and they give the go ahead to put down the animal. By inviting the various agencies up and showing them your operation, you can create those sort of relationships and trust.
 
My suspicion since first seeing this story is that the territorial government is trying to force the federal government to clean up the area, and the two named members were just colleratoral damage.... the latest update confirms my theory.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
or you have the CO's responsible for the area on speed dial, call them and explain the situation and they give the go ahead to put down the animal. By inviting the various agencies up and showing them your operation, you can create those sort of relationships and trust.
Click to expand...
Alert is different... there is no "local". There are no civilian flights, and the military ones come from Trenton. Most provincial/territorial services aren't going to approve a 5+ week trip from Iqaluit, to Trenton, to Alert, to Trenton, to Iqaluit for a single caribou with copper wire in its antlers.

Remember, when this happened both Alert and Iqaluit had two week quarantines for people traveling into those areas.
 
Furniture said:
Alert is different... there is no "local". There are no civilian flights, and the military ones come from Trenton. Most provincial/territorial services aren't going to approve a 5+ week trip from Iqaluit, to Trenton, to Alert, to Trenton, to Iqaluit for a single caribou with copper wire in its antlers.

Remember, when this happened both Alert and Iqaluit had two week quarantines for people traveling into those areas.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, during summer there are quite a few flights in and out of Alert, in 2016 they were weekly during supply ops. So it would not be that long, unless they cut back flights. The idea is to build relations with the government agencies and you can have a few people that represent the territory and the various agencies that have a interest/regulatory role up there/ You be surprised how many barriers can be overcome with such a site tour. As for the quarantines is that still a thing? Site visits and tours can be a powerful way to build relationships, understanding and problem solve. Build those relationships and then a phone call to deal with such a thing would have been enough to satisfy the regulatory bodies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MilEME09
    • Wow
    • Sad
    • Like
Two Canadian Armed Forces members face drug/weapon charges
Replies
6
Views
2K
Castus
Castus
The Bread Guy
"UK to issue ‘threat alert’ over China’s attempts to recruit RAF pilots"
2
Replies
33
Views
14K
brihard
B
daftandbarmy
    • Like
The Bolduc Brief: Evaluating the Leadership Failure of Generals and Admirals in Today’s Military
Replies
0
Views
2K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Retired AF Guy
    • Like
Departmental Results Report 2022-2023
Replies
2
Views
5K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Kirkhill
    • Like
The Arctic
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
37K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Back
Top