A wildlife biologist’s attempt to collect hair directly from live caribou using a projectile device counted as hunting under British Columbia law, even though his aim was to obtain research samples rather than capture an entire animal, the Environmental Appeal Board has ruled.
In Doug Heard v. Regional Manager, Recreational Fisheries and Wildlife Programs, 2026 BCEAB 24, decided May 7, 2026, panel chair Michael Tourigny upheld the cancellation of Heard’s wildlife permit and a one-year period of ineligibility imposed in May 2025. The earlier order specified May 2, 2026 as his eligibility date; the appeal decision did not start a new one-year ban.
A research permit with limits
Heard studies caribou in north-central British Columbia. His permit authorized possession and disposal of caribou hair and fecal pellets for scientific analysis, but did not authorize methods for collecting hair directly from live animals. It required compliance with the laws governing the permitted activities.
In November 2024, ministry staff observed Heard on webcam footage using a cable caster to propel an alligator clip at caribou and collect hair. The activity took place in an area closed to hunting during that period. After a written opportunity-to-be-heard process, the regional manager cancelled the permit and imposed the period of ineligibility.
Heard appealed, arguing that he had not been hunting, that the decision did not properly account for animal-care information, and that cancellation was unreasonable. The board heard the matter afresh on written submissions rather than simply reviewing the manager’s decision for errors.
The regulatory history mattered. Earlier decisions had rejected proposed direct-sampling techniques and instead permitted opportunistic hair collection. Heard had not appealed those decisions. Tourigny treated them as relevant background, but declined to reopen their merits in the appeal of the later cancellation.
Taking a sample could fall within the hunting definition
The Wildlife Act’s definition of hunting extends beyond killing an animal. It includes activities such as shooting at, pursuing or stalking wildlife with an intention to capture it, whether or not the animal is actually wounded, killed or captured. The permit regulations separately allow authorization for scientific hunting and for possession of wildlife parts; Heard held the latter type of authorization, not permission to hunt.
Heard argued that intending to obtain only hair was different from intending to capture the whole animal. The regional manager answered that taking a part directly from a live animal involved capturing or controlling it, however briefly, and that the narrower reading would undermine wildlife protection.
Tourigny accepted the manager’s interpretation. Reading the definition in the context of the Act’s wildlife-management and protection purposes, he found that excluding an intention to capture animal parts would be illogical. He also agreed that the direct sampling in this case involved taking control of the animals, however briefly.
After reviewing the video, the board found on a balance of probabilities that Heard had been hunting during a closed season without the necessary authorization. It also confirmed that the conduct breached his permit conditions and that possession of the resulting samples was unauthorized. These were findings in an administrative permit appeal, not a reported criminal conviction.
Heard also said he had followed earlier directions to use less invasive techniques. Tourigny rejected that characterization: the earlier decisions referred to opportunistic collection, such as obtaining hair from trees or structures against which animals had rubbed. They did not authorize obtaining hair directly from live caribou with the cable caster.
Conservation contributions weighed against compliance history
Heard argued that officials should have supported innovation and engaged in dialogue rather than using the cancellation process. He alleged bias against his research and said the footage showed negligible disturbance to the animals.
Tourigny found no evidentiary support for the allegation of bias. He said the manager acted within the statutory permit-review process and that Heard had opportunities to present his case both before the manager and on appeal. The board also found that the video showed startled animals flinching and moving away, amounting to more than negligible disturbance. It did not accept that the method’s consistency with scientific standards had been established by expert evidence.
The board nevertheless recognized the value of Heard’s work. McLeod Lake Indian Band had submitted a letter supporting his research and its contribution to caribou recovery in its territory. Tourigny treated those contributions as a significant mitigating factor, as the regional manager had also done.
Against that, the board weighed the prior advisory concerning an unauthorized sampling method, earlier refusals to permit direct collection, Heard’s failure to seek approval for the new technique, and the disturbance caused to the animals. It concluded that cancellation and the previously imposed one-year ineligibility period appropriately balanced the importance of the research against the conduct and compliance history.
The appeal was dismissed. The decision clarifies that a scientific purpose and a non-lethal technique do not themselves take direct wildlife sampling outside the statutory hunting rules. It does not prohibit all research sampling, establish that Heard remains ineligible for a permit, or determine whether he later obtained one.
