• Leonard G. Whyte v. Regional Manager

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


    Decision Date: October 31, 2007

    Panel: Alan Andison

    Keywords: Wildlife Act – s. 19; Permit Regulation – s. 2, s. 6; possession of dead wildlife; Bighorn Sheep horns

    Mr. Whyte appealed the decision of the Regional Manager, Environmental Stewardship Division, Kootenay Region (the “Regional Manager”), Ministry of Environment, to refuse to issue him a permit to possess a bighorn sheep head and horns. Mr. Whyte requested that the Board reverse the decision to refuse him a permit and order that the head and horns be returned to him.

    In denying Mr. Whyte’s permit application, the Regional Manager relied on section 6(1)(d) of the Permit Regulation (the “Regulation”), which states that he cannot issue a permit if the value of the wildlife is greater than $200. He did not provide any details regarding the how he determined the value of the head and horns.

    Mr. Whyte asserted that the value of the head and horns was less than $200. The Board found that Mr. Whyte had provided insufficient information to support his claim that the Regional Manager had erred in determining that the value of the head and horns exceeded $200. Moreover, neither of the two exceptions set out in section 6(1)(d) of the Regulation applied to allow for a permit to be issued regardless of the value of the dead wildlife.

    Mr. Whyte provided six examples of people who had allegedly had sheep heads and horns returned to them by the Ministry. However, the Board gave no weight to that evidence, as Mr. Whyte had provided very little information regarding the circumstances surrounding those examples. The Board also noted that each permit application must be decided on its own merits, based on the facts of the case and the law in effect at the time of application.

    Although one of the examples provided was the subject of a previous appeal to the Board (David Berank v. Regional Manager, Appeal No. 98-WIL-23, October 5, 1998), the Board did not find it relevant to this case, as the law that applied to that appeal was different from the one applicable here.

    The Board concluded that Mr. Whyte had provided insufficient evidence to support his request that the sheep head and horns be returned to him and that a possession permit be issued.

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