British Columbia’s Environmental Appeal Board has upheld a refusal to let a disabled hunter drive on closed roads at Premier Ridge, finding insufficient evidence to override the area’s conservation protections or show that alternative hunting arrangements failed to accommodate him.
In Kuntsi v. Deputy Regional Manager, Recreational Fisheries & Wildlife Programs, 2026 BCEAB 37, decided August 26, 2026, panel chair Cynthia Lu dismissed Raineri Kuntsi’s appeal. The decision concerned his individual exemption application, not a general ban on disability-related hunting accommodations.
An exemption request for a familiar hunting area
Kuntsi applied in May 2025 to drive on certain closed roads within the Premier Ridge Motor Vehicle Closed Area in the Kootenay region. His eligibility to apply for a disability-related hunting permit was not disputed. He wanted to hunt elk and deer in an area he said he had used for more than four decades.
The decision distinguished two kinds of vehicle restrictions. A motor vehicle closed area restricts vehicle use by hunters and other recreational users. A motor vehicle hunting closed area restricts driving for hunting and related transportation but does not impose the same restriction on other recreational driving. Premier Ridge falls into the first category, with specified road and private-property exceptions.
The ministry refused access to the closed roads Kuntsi requested. It instead issued a permit allowing other assistance and access arrangements, including assistance from hunting companions. The permit ran from August 22, 2025, to March 31, 2026, replacing an earlier permit the ministry said had been issued in error.
Expiry did not make the appeal pointless
The ministry argued that the appeal was moot because the permit had expired. Kuntsi’s appeal, however, sought an exemption lasting four to five years.
Lu rejected expiry as a sufficient reason to end the proceeding. Although ministry policy aligned these permits with the annual hunting-licence year, the regulation allowed a regional manager to issue an exemption for a longer period. Policy could not remove that statutory discretion. The board therefore still had to decide whether Kuntsi should receive access to Premier Ridge.
Other road users did not establish an entitlement
Kuntsi argued that driving a few kilometres on closed roads would not add meaningful harm where forestry, grazing and other activities already involved motor vehicles. He submitted photographs of roads, users and vehicle tracks, and aerial images of forestry activity. He also argued that activities such as horseback riding and livestock grazing could spread invasive plants.
The ministry said the closure protected a wildlife refuge, winter range and habitat connectivity, reduced disturbance and helped smaller roads recover. It relied on the duty to accommodate disability to the point of undue hardship, arguing that the conservation risks of additional access outweighed the benefit of allowing the particular routes requested.
A ministry habitat specialist’s expert opinion, introduced in the appeal rather than before the original decision-maker, identified risks including wildlife disturbance and displacement, invasive plants, habitat fragmentation and cumulative effects. Kuntsi challenged the opinion’s reliance on studies from outside British Columbia and argued that local elk were accustomed to traffic.
The board accepted that vehicles already used parts of Premier Ridge. Some roads were open year-round or seasonally, and forestry and grazing licensees operated under a different legislative scheme. But Lu found that other users’ access did not establish that Kuntsi should receive an exemption under the Wildlife Act. His application had to be assessed on its own facts and legal considerations.
Lu found no convincing evidence explaining why those other uses justified his requested access. His assertion that elk were accustomed to traffic was unsupported and had not been accepted as expert evidence. Even if true, it did not explain why additional exposure was justified when reducing wildlife disturbance was one reason for the closure.
Accommodation did not require these particular roads
The board considered the alternatives in Kuntsi’s permit. Its reasons described access to motor vehicle hunting closed areas across the Kootenay region with two hunting companions, along with assistance from companions in parts of the province without vehicle restrictions.
Kuntsi said he could not hunt in high country and was too old to explore unfamiliar areas. Lu found his submissions unclear about which areas he meant and why he could not hunt there with assistance. While recognizing the value of local knowledge, she was not persuaded that unfamiliarity with other areas outweighed the conservation concerns or demonstrated inadequate accommodation.
The board ultimately found insufficient evidence to grant a Premier Ridge vehicle exemption for any period and dismissed the appeal. It did not impose a fine, decide a human-rights complaint or establish that disability-related exemptions are unavailable. Its conclusion rested on the evidence, alternatives and environmental concerns in this application.
