BC Environmental Appeal Board
Skip to navigation Skip to Contents Skip to Accessibility Statement
Home Preliminary and Final Decisions Raymond Collingwood v. Regional Manager, Wildlife Act
Search Menu
Date
November 28, 2017
Act
File Numbers

2017-WIL-012

Decision Numbers

2017-WIL-012(a)

Third Parties

BC Wildlife Federation, Participant

Disposition
[CONSENT ORDER - APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART]
Links

Decision Date: November 28, 2017

Panel: Linda Michaluk

Keywords: Wildlife Act – ss. 51(2), 60(1); guide outfitter; quota; allocation; bull moose; consent order

Raymond Collingwood appealed a decision of the Deputy Regional Manager (the “Regional Manager”), Recreational Fisheries and Wildlife Programs, Skeena Region, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (the “Ministry”), regarding Mr. Collingwood’s annual quota and five-year allocation of bull moose.

Mr. Collingwood is a guide outfitter. Under the Wildlife Act, regional managers may attach a quota as a condition of a guide outfitter licence. A quota sets out the total number of a particular species, or type of species, that may be harvested by the guide’s clients in the guide’s territory during the period specified in the licence. In his decision, the Regional Manager advised Mr. Collingwood that he had a quota of 36 bull moose for the 2017/18 licence year, of which no more than one may be harvested within management unit (“MU”) 6-19 Zone A, and a five-year allocation (harvest target) of 120 bull moose for 2017-2021, of which no more than four may be harvested within MU 6-19 Zone A.

Mr. Collingwood appealed his bull moose quota and five-year allocation with respect to MU 6-19 Zone A.

During the oral hearing of the appeal, the parties negotiated an agreement to resolve the matter. By consent of the parties, the Board ordered that Mr. Collingwood’s five-year allocation of four bull moose within MU 6-19 Zone A was confirmed, but his annual quota of bull moose within MU 6-19 Zone A was increased to two until the allocation of four is reached.

Accordingly, by consent of the parties, the appeal was allowed in part.