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

Gatehouse said:
Probably a Livestock regulation. Livestock Acts often allow farmers to shoot dogs chasing their livestock.
Click to expand...

Most likely, in my area it's pretty common for people to shoot dogs that are running loose and on their private land. Especially if they have a farm or ranch land, people complain when their dog gets killed yet they make no attempt to securely fence in their yard or property.

Gatehouse said:
The most important issue seems to have been settled- No change to the boundaries for firearm discharge/hunting in the area.
Click to expand...

Agreed, nice to see for once no clamp down of existing regs. Unfortunate the dog was killed but sounds like details are just starting to come out, as a dog owner I'd hate to be in her shoes. Though I usually have my dogs on leash if off my property, especially during an open hunting season. As in control as our dogs are, you can't control them 100% of he time when in the woods and a scent is picked up. Our Beagle cross especially lol, stubborn little turd that she is.
 
I guess if she knew a hunter was in there, letting 10 dogs out could be interpreted as interfering with a legal hunt. No charges either way and call it a draw.
 
Gatehouse said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have only heard this on forums - where can I find out more details, please. PM me if you wish. Being a vocal hunter, I am catching an earful down here with the current flux of cidiots in our town.
 
Unlikely you will find something official until the investigation is complete.

I can empathize with you on the influx though. I always take the same position- situations like these are very rare, crown land is for all, hunters shouldn't be pushed away for the actions of an individual any more than any other group that has an individual that messes up. Be aware that you are not alone on the woods, be responsible for your own safety.
 
Just read further details on HBC - it was a private lease quarry and the walker had been told many times to not be there. You can't help people that don't want t o help themselves. Anyways, it was an accident and the hunter messed up - he needs to be responsible for his actions, just as this walker should be held to her decision of continuing to trespass after being told many times to not be there.
 
blaxsun said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lucille Lake is in MU 2-6 where...hunting for wolves is allowed
WOLF 2-5, 2-6, 2-11 to 2-16 Sept 10 - Mar 31 3
 
the article I've read said the lady was "hiking" a trail around Lucille Lake. Is this not true?
The accident happened near Lake Lucille, an area north of Squamish popular with hunters and members of the general public.
Click to expand...

to be in 2-7 one must be on the eastern side of Cheakamus River
 
Did it say she was hiking around the lake, or something more like hiking in the Lucille lake area? Because the Lucille lake area isn't a defined geographic area and can be interpreted many ways. Such as across the highway in 2-7.
 
legi0n said:
the article I've read said the lady was "hiking" a trail around Lucille Lake. Is this not true?


to be in 2-7 one must be on the eastern side of Cheakamus River
Click to expand...


According to the CO it took place in 2-7, not at all what most locals would call the Lucille Lake area. It was really poorly worded. They may as well said she was in the Hwy 99 area.
 
Gatehouse said:
According to the CO it took place in 2-7, not at all what most locals would call the Lucille Lake area. It was really poorly worded. They may as well said she was in the Hwy 99 area.
Click to expand...

Yup, poorly worded/reported and no effort to correct the details, including the lease land.
 
Gatehouse said:
According to the CO it took place in 2-7, not at all what most locals would call the Lucille Lake area. It was really poorly worded. They may as well said she was in the Hwy 99 area.
Click to expand...

Nah, I disagree. Hwy99 runs for hundreds of km from the US border to cache creek. Calling it the Hwy 99 area gives very little info. Meanwhile, Lucille lake is a small but popular lake that sits between Squamish and whistler. Anyone can look at a map, find Lucille lake, and know that's the general area it occurred in. It's still a better approximation of the location than, say, between whistler and Squamish.

This is a pretty standard issue in geography actually. Not everyone agrees on undefined area boundaries, it largely depends on your perspective. As a local, you feel that the Lucille lake area ends at the highway or maybe river, but to me, someone who has only limited knowledge of the area has no issues with considering the east side of the highway also part of the Lucille lake area.
 
Suther said:
Nah, I disagree. Hwy99 runs for hundreds of km from the US border to cache creek. Calling it the Hwy 99 area gives very little info. Meanwhile, Lucille lake is a small but popular lake that sits between Squamish and whistler. Anyone can look at a map, find Lucille lake, and know that's the general area it occurred in. It's still a better approximation of the location than, say, between whistler and Squamish.

This is a pretty standard issue in geography actually. Not everyone agrees on undefined area boundaries, it largely depends on your perspective. As a local, you feel that the Lucille lake area ends at the highway or maybe river, but to me, someone who has only limited knowledge of the area has no issues with considering the east side of the highway also part of the Lucille lake area.
Click to expand...

It happened on leased land in 2-7. The dog walker had been told many times by the lease owner to not enter the property. The hunter had permission to be on the property. The whole story of Lucille Lake was to spark interest from this person, who has been anti-hunting for years.
 
Suther said:
Nah, I disagree. Hwy99 runs for hundreds of km from the US border to cache creek. Calling it the Hwy 99 area gives very little info. Meanwhile, Lucille lake is a small but popular lake that sits between Squamish and whistler. Anyone can look at a map, find Lucille lake, and know that's the general area it occurred in. It's still a better approximation of the location than, say, between whistler and Squamish.

This is a pretty standard issue in geography actually. Not everyone agrees on undefined area boundaries, it largely depends on your perspective. As a local, you feel that the Lucille lake area ends at the highway or maybe river, but to me, someone who has only limited knowledge of the area has no issues with considering the east side of the highway also part of the Lucille lake area.
Click to expand...

You can call an apple an orange or the sun the moon, but it doens't make it correct. :)

I don't know exactly by pinpoint where this happened, but the quarry and the road into there is also close to Daisy Lake. Daisy Lake is a much larger lake and it's visiible from HWY 99, and has a dam on the end of it that everyone that drives Sea to Sky highway sees. So it is a much easier landmark for millions of people than Lucille. And maybe most important, almost all of Daisy Lake is in 2-7, where this took place.

So why would she identify the area she was in as "Lucille Lake" which is in 2-6 and much less identifiable to the general public than Daisy Lake is? Assuming that we only are interested in "general" area and "anyone looking at a map"

Well, if you were a anti hunter to begin with, then your dog got shot by a hunter and then you decided to campaign to raise $12K and close areas to hunting and stop wolf hunting, what is a better narrative?

A) You were in the Lucille Lake area, popular with recrationalists, with an extensive network of roads, trails, camping and swimming opportunities when a hunter shot your dog, so hunting in the area poses a considerable risk to all recreationalists in the Lucille area.

or

B) You had bypassed a locked gate to tresspass in an area that you had been repeatedly told to keep out of, to walk the dogs in a quarry area and of course nobody uses (the not very attractive) Daisy lake as a recrationalist as it has a dam on the end of it. And there, a hunter with permission to be there shot your dog.


This is why an accurate description of location matters.
 
Last edited:
Gatehouse said:
You can call an apple an orange or the sun the moon, but it doens't make it correct. :)

I don't know exactly by pinpoint where this happened, but the quarry and the road into there is also close to Daisy Lake. Daisy Lake is a much larger lake and it's visiible from HWY 99, and has a dam on the end of it that everyone that drives Sea to Sky highway sees. So it is a much easier landmark for millions of people than Lucille. And maybe most important, almost all of Daisy Lake is in 2-7, where this took place.

So why would she identify the area she was in as "Lucille Lake" which is in 2-6 and much less identifiable to the general public than Daisy Lake is? Assuming that we only are interested in "general" area and "anyone looking at a map"

Well, if you were a anti hunter to begin with, then your dog got shot by a hunter and then you decided to campaign to raise $12K and close areas to hunting and stop wolf hunting, what is a better narrative?

A) You were in the Lucille Lake area, popular with recrationalists, with an extensive network of roads, trails, camping and swimming opportunities when a hunter shot your dog, so hunting in the area poses a considerable risk to all recreationalists in the Lucille area.

or

B) You had bypassed a locked gate to tresspass in an area that you had been repeatedly told to keep out of, to walk the dogs in a quarry area and of course nobody uses (the not very attractive) Daisy lake as a recrationalist as it has a dam on the end of it. And there, a hunter with permission to be there shot your dog.


This is why an accurate description of location matters.
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree with your points, I think you are interpreting this wrong. I would expect the location that was put in the article was chosen by the journalist not the lady who's dog was shot. For instance one source called it "near whistler" (the national post I think?)

I'm not trying to defend anyone here. In my mind both parties ####ed up. Im just trying to explain things (specifically how Lucille lake is/isn't a reasonable location, depending on your connection with the area) from a geography perspective.

Also I heard the hunter is facing no charges.
 
]
Suther said:
While I don't disagree with your points, I think you are interpreting this wrong. I would expect the location that was put in the article was chosen by the journalist not the lady who's dog was shot. For instance one source called it "near whistler" (the national post I think?)
Click to expand...

With the new information about where she was, I don't think I'm interpreting this wrong in the slightest bit. The journalist reported what was told to them. "Lucille Lake" would make this much more controversial than "gravel pit I wasn't allowed into" And I can certainly understand a National paper saying "near Whistler" as it would make more sense to their national readers.


I'm not trying to defend anyone here. In my mind both parties ####the ed up. Im just trying to explain things (specifically how Lucille lake is/isn't a reasonable location, depending on your connection with the area) from a geography perspective
Click to expand...
.

And I am also explaining from a geography perspective that Daisy Lake would have actually been a more accurate description for anyone interested in the story as 100% of the people that have been to Whistler have seen Daisy Lake, while only a miniscule amount know where Lucille is. But if you want to whip the local masses into a frenzy, best identify the area you don't want hunters as the popular recreation area, and not the quarry that you weren't supposed to be in anyway.

Also I heard the hunter is facing no charges.
Click to expand...

I have not heard this, but I am not surprised. I suppose she could pursue civil litigation with her new found wealth, but there is also the tresspass thing.
 
blaxsun said:
None of this changes the fact that the hunter didn't properly identify his target and made a very poor decision with respect to taking the shot.
Click to expand...

Yes, the small picture is that a hunter made an error.

The big picture is that an anti hunter is raising cash to campaign to close an area to hunting that she wasn't even in, citing public safety. As well, she wants to curtail wolf hunting because of emotion, while governemnt biologists are encouraging wolf hunting.
 
Gatehouse said:
Yes, the small picture is that a hunter made an error.

The big picture is that an anti hunter is raising cash to campaign to close an area to hunting that she wasn't even in, citing public safety. As well, she wants to curtail wolf hunting because of emotion, while governemnt biologists are encouraging wolf hunting.
Click to expand...
I guess we'll see what happens. The optics on this aren't good, and various groups (not just this woman) want to curtail hunting and shooting activities in this country.
 
Is there a prevalent Wolf population in the area? Honest question.
I grew up camping that backcountry and have never seen a wolf.
Coyotes? Yes. Bears, cougars, marmots, porcupine?
Yup. Wolves? No.
My brother's dog was part wolf, he wore a 4" red collar for this reason. He was always worried about this happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom