• C. Edward Harder v. Regional Wildlife Manager

    Decision Date:
    File Numbers:
    Decision Numbers:
    Third Party:


    Decision Date: January 20, 2005

    Panel: Alan Andison

    Keywords: Wildlife Act, Permit Regulation – ss. 2(k), 2(p), 6(1), 6(3), 6(4); great gray owl, permit for possession; transfer of property.

    C. Edward Harder appealed a decision of the Regional Manager, Environmental Stewardship Division (the “Regional Manager”), who refused to issue Mr. Harder a permit for the possession of a great gray owl carcass, valued in excess of $200.  Mr. Harder asked that the decision be set aside, and that he be issued a permit to possess or a right of property in the owl.

    The Board held that Mr. Harder did not qualify for a possession permit under section 2(k) of the Permit Regulation, which allows persons to possess wildlife for ceremonial, societal, scientific, or educational purposes, as there was no evidence to indicate that Mr. Harder would possess the owl for an enumerated purpose.

    The Board also held that Mr. Harder did not qualify for a permit under section 2(p), which transfers the right of property in dead wildlife from the province to a person.  The Board found that section 6(1)(d) did not apply since Mr. Harder was not receiving the owl as part of compensation for conducting work on behalf of the government, and he was not applying on behalf of a charitable organization.  The Board held that sections 6(1)(a) and 6(4) did not apply, as the owl was not killed illegally.  The Board also found that no special circumstances existed that would justify granting a permit under section 6(1)(b).  Lastly, the Board found that section 6(3) did not apply, as Mr. Harder was not acting as an agent for an educational or scientific institution.

    Additionally, the Board held that the fact that a possession permit for an owl carcass valued at over $200 may have been improperly granted to another individual does not mean that a permit should be granted to Mr. Harder.

    Accordingly, the Regional Manager’s decision was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.