Appeal court dismisses Fur-Bearers' bear-cub killing case against conservation officer

The B.C. Court of Appeal has dismissed a casefiled by the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals against a conservation officer who chose to destroy a bear cub.

The case revolves arounda 2016 incident nearDawson Creek, B.C., in which the officer was called after an apparently orphaned bear cub was found in a ditch.

The woman who found the cub, TianaJackson, managed to get the bear into a dog kennel before the officer arrived.

According to submissions by the Fur-Bearers' lawyer,Arden Beddoes, it was undisputed that the officer killed the cub, which had beentrapped inthe enclosureand did notpose a threat to anyone.

Supreme Court ruling

The group appealed after losing its case in B.C. Supreme Court last year, when the judge decided that the conservation officer,Micah Kneller, had the authority to kill the cub.

In Supreme Court, the province said Kneller made the decision to destroy the cub because he didn't consider it a suitable candidate for captive rearing and release.

Beddoes, who was calling for a declaration from the Court of Appeal that there isn't "an implied power" for conservation officers to kill wild animals that don't pose a threat,argued on Thursday that the case comes down tosection 79 of the Wildlife Act.

That section states that "an officer may kill an animal, other than a domestic animal, that is at large and is likely to harm persons, property, wildlife or wildlife habitat."

Beddoessaid that in this case, because the bear was in an enclosure, it couldn't be considered "at large."

He also argued that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act addresses how a captiveanimal may be destroyed, noting that in that law, it's clear that a registered veterinarian or authorized agent if the vet isn't readily available must be consulted if the animal is in critical distress.

'Not humane to simply release the bear'

A lawyer representing the province,DavidCowie, argued that the bear wasundersized, emaciated andunhealthy, and a report by the conservation officer obtained via a freedom of information request claimed it "was not humane to simply release the bear at that time."

Cowiepointed to a section of the Wildlife Act that referred to "an officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties," leading to considerable discussion about what defined those duties, and whetherKnellerwas carrying out those duties in 2016.

Justice Harvey Grobermanread the appeal court's reasons for its decision, saying it would be inappropriate to consider the appeal proceedings as a case about Kneller's actions, and that the power to kill animalsas outlinedby the Wildlife Act is not limited to section 79, as the Fur-Bearers' lawyer argued.

Groberman didn't refer to thePrevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in his decision.

Follow Rafferty Baker of Twitter: @raffertybaker