Dog Shot-No changes planned for hunting boundaries in Sea to Sky

Gatehouse

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
147   0   0
Location
Pemberton BC
No changes are planned to the hunting boundaries in the Sea to Sky region. That is the message from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

A petition is circulating on social media that wants to see the hunting boundary moved further away from Highway 99 for hunting between Squamish and Whistler. The call comes after a local therapy dog was accidentally shot by a hunter on a trail near Lucille Lake recently. The petition claims that the dog was shot 200 yards from the highway.

From North Vancouver to Squamish 1 kilometre to the east and 400 metres to the west of Highway 99 is designated as a no shooting zone. There are also areas around communities, parks and some lakes that are set aside as no shooting. Shooting restrictions on all numbered highways mean 15 metres either side of the centre line on single lane roads are classified as no shooting areas, while 15 metres from the edge of the paved road on either side is the area on a twinned highway. Lucille Lake is near a twinned portion of Highway 99.

Concerns of allowing hunting in the area have been raised by residents, given the proximity of Lucille Lake to the highway and the increase in recreational visitors to the overall region over recent years.

The Province says that human safety is their top priority and that they act swiftly when a safety concern is identified; the Conservation Officer Service is currently investigating the dog incident. In a statement to Mountain FM the Province says that ‘In most cases, Crown land throughout the province is multi-purpose, and incidents involving hunting and firearms are extremely rare’. Officials also say that ‘hunters need to be aware of their target and what is beyond it, if there is any doubt, don’t shoot’.

There are no signs alerting the public to hunting in the area, as is with most Crown land according to the Ministry; ‘Placing signs in areas of the province where hunting and other outdoor recreation occurs would be cost prohibitive’. Members of the public are advised to take safety precautions when walking on Crown land, such as keeping dogs on a leash or under control and making themselves visible and heard. It’s also recommended that dogs be outfitted with hi-vis or other markings to make them visible.

This story originally appeared on Mountain FM.
 
Last edited:
Charges may be recommended against a hunter who shot and killed a Squamish therapy dog near Lake Lucille on Sept. 18.

Valley Calderoni, founder of Canine Valley rehabilitation centre, was walking her dog, Kaoru, and nine other dogs from the centre, she said, when the dog was shot.

There was speculation Kaoru may have been mistaken for a wolf when the Squamish man shot her, but Sgt. Simon Gravel of the Conservation Officer Service told The Chief hunting of wolves is prohibited in the area where the incident occurred.

“The event occurred in the management area 2-7 and there is no wolf hunting in that specific area,” he said.


The 2-7 area is “fairly small” Gravel said, and has no open season on wolves, but it is surrounded by areas that are open.

Across the highway from where Kaoru was shot, wolf hunting is allowed. “It is the responsibility of the hunters to know where they are and know if there is an opening for the specific species they are hunting for,” Gravel said.

There is no signage that alerts hunters to boundaries, he confirmed.

Gravel said the investigation is continuing and is “thorough.”

Should it be deemed warranted, the Conservation Service would recommend charges to the Crown and if the charges are approved, the case moves forward.

Everyone involved with the incident is co-operating fully, according to Gravel.

The municipalities of Squamish and Whistler both have bylaws banning the discharge of firearms within their boundaries.

Outside municipal boundaries, there is no restriction on the discharge of firearms.

South of Squamish and north of West Vancouver there is a hunting closure that extends one kilometre east of Highway 99 and 400 metres west.

North of the District of Squamish there is no general hunting restriction, other than that firearms can’t be discharged from the road itself.

“You have to be 15 metres off the pavement if there is more than three lines and 15 metres off the centre line if there is less than three lines,” Gravel said.



**Please note this story has been corrected. The original story had the date of the incident as Sept. 28 rather than the correct date of Sept. 18.


@ Copyright 2017 Squamish Chief
 
"No changes are planned to the hunting boundaries in the Sea to Sky region. That is the message from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. A petition is circulating on social media........

Looks like the "social media" crowd; not even waiting for the investigation to be completed won't be getting their way. At least for now.
I predict this thread will end up being locked, just like the other thread on the subject.
 
Again, let's wait until all the facts are released.

This article does bring up a valid point about zone boundaries , which are starting to be improved.In Saskatchewan they started to use more definitive landmarks to identify zones.It is tough sometimes when boundaries can be two or more objects( road, body of water , treeline, train track , etc......).Not making any excuse as it's is the hunters responsibility but sometimes a little more clear definitions help.
 
Again, let's wait until all the facts are released.

On this site, only use information that is important to your augment, how ever incomplete the information is.

This article does bring up a valid point about zone boundaries , which are starting to be improved.In Saskatchewan they started to use more definitive landmarks to identify zones.It is tough sometimes when boundaries can be two or more objects( road, body of water , treeline, train track , etc......).Not making any excuse as it's is the hunters responsibility but sometimes a little more clear definitions help.


The answer is to install a big white line through the forest.
 
More news:

Dog walker was trespassing in a quarry, an area she had repeatedly been asked to stay out of.

Hunter had permission to be there.

Nice, as time goes buy I knew tidbits would come out. Is the quarry private land? In the original story I read it as the hunter thought she was going to be attacked but then they changed the wording.
 
I assume the quarry is a mining lease. A mining lease gives similar rights as private property to the lease holder. There is a gate that she had gone around, apparently numerous times, and numerous times was cautioned she was not to be in the area
 
The hunter wasn't allowed to shoot wolves in that area (permission or not), so here we go round and round in circles again... It still doesn't change the fact that it was reckless to take the shot in the first place. And yes, if she was trespassing on private property she should be fined.
 
Tagged for interest

I do recall reading the Ontario regs and reading something about shooting dogs on private property and thinking WTF. I'll have to see what it was that I remember finding
 
Tagged for interest

I do recall reading the Ontario regs and reading something about shooting dogs on private property and thinking WTF. I'll have to see what it was that I remember finding

Probably a Livestock regulation. Livestock Acts often allow farmers to shoot dogs chasing their livestock.
 
If this was true im sure charges would have been filed already, careless use of a firearm comes to mind.

It seems the handler was very close, but down an embankment off the side of the road. So only meters away, but still out of sight of the shooter. At least that's my interpretation of it.

Where the hunter f-ed up was not properly identifying it, and there being no wolf season in the area. Of course a claim of self defense would eliminate the whole no season issue. In fact, a decent lawyer would likely be able to argue against any charges coming from misidentifying the dog due to the circumstances (if you think a wolf is about to attack you, your judgement is going to be impaired and you likely won't be thinking so much as reacting, especially considering the close proximity)


Regardless, Gatehouse is right. The important part is the boundaries are not being changed.
 
Back
Top Bottom