The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997

Sometimes it seems as though the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources enacts and follows policies that are inimical to the welfare of the wild animals they are presumed to be protective of. People with a penchant to feel responsible when they see a bird or an animal in distress, hoping to be able to help it if it is wounded or the young abandoned to an obvious fate, have been cited for unlawful conduct.

When the Ottawa-Carleton Wildlife Centre was operating out of a building on the Nortel campus, receiving sick or wounded or orphaned wild animals, nurturing them back to a state of health, to then release them back to the area where they were found in need of human intervention, they experienced many incidences of interference and warnings by representatives of the Ministry. The unnerving and irritating continuity of these issues led to the Centre's disbandment.

Granted, those representatives were only doing their job, careful to implement and uphold the provincial laws that were enacted for the protection of the natural environment and the birds and animals that populate it. The ministry does authorize wild-life custodians to care for sick, orphaned or injured wildlife which must eventually be returned to the wild.

But on those occasions when well-meaning and compassionate individuals undertake to resuscitate an ill or wounded or orphaned bird or animal without knowing how to do so in a manner that will allow it to return to nature, they are taken to task, face fines and even possibly jail. Laws that are meant to protect the natural environment and its wildlife are valid and necessary.

But there must be occasions when it should be recognized that exceptions can be tolerated. The simple reason being that it is also policy, when wild birds or animals have been seized by Ministry officials from unauthorized shelters, to euthanize those 'rescued' animals and birds. That seems a cruel and undeserving blow both to the animals' existence and to the kindly aspirations of their caretakers.

Recently a goose that had been discovered as a lone, abandoned yellow-fluffy gosling had been taken in by an older couple who undertook to nurture the bird. The bird became imprinted on the woman, and it lived with the couple, becoming a part of their family. They lived rurally, and the bird joined other animals on their farm. Yet the Ministry confiscated the bird beloved of the couple and its fate is to be euthanized.

And a Dunrobin woman, Lynne Rowe, who operates the non-profit Constance Creek Wildife Refuge, charged with unlawfully keeping live wildlife when officials discovered two live raccoons at her animal refuge was fined $500. The two raccoons were found as pups, beside their dead mother. Ms. Rowe's animal refuge is unlicensed, thus prohibited from housing live animals.

It is located on Dunrobin Road, on a four-hectare property, in operation for two years. An application had been made for certification, but it is pending. And pending. And pending. Ms. Rowe had been charged and convicted a year ago on a similar charge, for keeping live deer at her refuge.

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, prohibits keeping wildlife in captivity unless authorized by the Ministry of Natural Resources. It's a huge pity that there's no human face on that Act. Nor even a gentle-compassionate animal face.

Nature is dispassionately indifferent; human beings are not.