National parks charges against 4 kayakers in Nunavut withdrawn

Court orders Parks Canada to return any seized items to group

All charges under the Canadian National Parks Act and Migratory Birds Convention Act against kayakers Mark Agnew, West Hansen, Eileen Visser and Jeffrey Wueste were withdrawn in court in Iqaluit on Monday. The four were charged last year over alleged infractions inside Bylot Island Migratory Bird Sanctuary and Sirmilik National Park in Nunavut. (Photo courtesy of Paddling Magazine/Arctic Cowboys)

By Jeff Pelletier - Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

All charges have been dropped against a group of kayakers accused of breaking national parks laws in Nunavut last year.

In an Iqaluit courtroom Monday, Crown prosecutor Chris McCarthy withdrew charges against Edward Hansen, Mark Agnew, Eileen Visser and Jeffrey Wueste.

The four kayakers were facing 45 charges each, relating to events alleged to have occurred at the Bylot Island Migratory Bird Sanctuary and Sirmilik National Park near Pond Inlet during a months-long paddling trip last summer.

Among the withdrawn charges — which were contrary to the Canadian National Parks Act and Migratory Birds Convention Act — were possessing a firearm in a bird sanctuary and entering a restricted area of a park.

None of the kayakers were physically present in the courtroom for Monday’s hearing.

Defence lawyer Alison Crowe was present on behalf of Hansen, and lawyers for the other three appeared on videoconference.

The kayakers were part of an American group called the Arctic Cowboys, who took part in an 83-day voyage starting in July near Pond Inlet, according to posts from their social media feeds.

The kayakers were arrested by parks law enforcement with the assistance of RCMP on Aug. 25 in Cambridge Bay, and released.

In addition to withdrawing the charges, Justice Christian Lyons ordered, at the Crown’s request, that any items Parks Canada seized from the group be returned.

“The case is finished,” Lyons said.

McCarthy did not say in court why the Crown was withdrawing the charges.

Nathalie Houle, a spokesperson for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, said in an email that the Crown has no further comment on the case.

Speaking to Nunatsiaq News after proceedings, Crowe said she wasn’t expecting the case to end Monday.

It’s at the Crown’s discretion to proceed with prosecuting charges, and in this case it’s possible they didn’t see a reasonable chance of conviction, she said.

“We have a very reasonable Crown office here, and I thank the Crown for their decision,” Crowe said.

 

Share This Story

(23) Comments:

  1. Posted by 867 on

    Not having a firearm for protection in any national park in the arctic is stupid, no matter what the law states. That law should only apply to National parks in the south. Glad the courts sided with common sense.

    53
    9
  2. Posted by Maq-Pat on

    When you name yourselves “Arctic Cowboys”, you have to realize how that will influence regulators and enforcement.

    13
    10
  3. Posted by Northerner on

    I will carry a firearm regardless of any situation. Especially now, in this world of uncertainty. The world is tiptoeing as if land mines are about to be set off. Ask any inuk if they will ever wonder away from town with out a firearm. Danger is ever present even in the arctic. Bears, despite their size and weight. Can dash up to 80kmh, even going uphill. Wolves you will see running across the valley in a split second. I can say to my friend look a wolf running across from one hill to the next. My friend will ask where? I’ll just say you missed it, he’s over the hills now. Can you imagine if that wolf were holding a kid in it’s mouth.,Running through the hills? Wouldn’t you love to have a .44 on hand ready to shoot a grizzly beat or a polar bear charging at you 80kmh? Because when they see you out there in the wild, you’re not human to the bears and wolves. You are meat. Something to eat.

    25
    15
    • Posted by Common Since on

      Holy Cow, that’s the worlds fastest bear, a Cheetah runs 80-132Km/hr.
      I’ve seen a Grizzly run top speed 40Km/hr.
      wonder if they can run on water. Do the math bud.

      14
      9
      • Posted by SARCASM on

        Going on Youtube, check this stuff out.

      • Posted by Northerner on

        I’m not american so I don’t use mph. I use kmh. It’s ‘common sense’ around here where I’m from. Where I eat grizzly bears.

        2
        12
      • Posted by Northerner on

        A grizzly bear can dash I repeat dash up to 80 kmh even uphill. It can’t keep it up at 80 kmh so it’ll slow down to atleast 65 kmh. Cheetah on the other hand can sprint I repeat sprint 120kmh. I say sprint because they’ll run 1 minute tops. I have common sense. And it’s only common sense to carry a .44 anywhere. If not, atleast a break action shotgun. I’m only human. I can’t even run a top speed of 20 kmh.

        7
        10
        • Posted by Alan Klie on

          Sorry, Northerner, but a polar bear’s top speed (whether it’s a dash or a sprint) is 40 km/h. Still pretty fast (Usain Bolt’s top speed was 44 km/h) but not highway speed fast.

          7
          1
    • Posted by Terry M. on

      Ya, I find Northerner’s story somewhat far fetched to say the least. I’ve seen several polar bears running for their lives being chased by hunters on snow machines. The bears almost hit 50 so this claim of 80 is just fear mongering. Same too regarding wolves. They were running away from Northerner cuz that’s what they do. Wolves do not, as in never, kill people. In the last 75 years fewer than five instances of a wolf attacking a person have been reported. You’re way more likely to be hit by lightning or win the 6/49.

      14
      1
  4. Posted by Qavvigarjuk on

    Any Park in Canada where dangerous bears roam Polar and grizzly bears, people should be allowed to carry a firearm for protection. Is a bear’s life more important than a human life?

    14
    3
    • Posted by Leonardo Esch on

      Of course a bear life is more important than a human life. Humans are bilions and are destroying the entire planet. The rare places where humans are not at the top of the chain must be preserved, not “humanized”.

      7
      2
  5. Posted by Truestory on

    We’s in Nunavut. Learn how to spell Inuit words. QAYAQ!!! (Capeesh?)

    5
    25
    • Posted by Willt on

      “Kayak” is the English translation of the Inuktitut word for the and Inuit invention, “qajaq”. You actually spelled it wrong. The article is in English, so the English translation for qajaq was used.

      21
      4
      • Posted by Truestory on

        Ever heard of a word “sarcastic”? I was being 1.

        1
        9
        • Posted by Chim on

          You were being sarcastic for what purpose? Either way, doesn’t seem like you’re very good at it.

          • Posted by Truestory on

            I rest my case. Idiocy can’t understand “Sarcasm”.

            • Posted by Degree on

              You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

              You tried to be clever and witty. It was a fail. Give up.

              4
              1
  6. Posted by Robert Youens on

    There were 45 charges on each of them, 39 charges were withdrawn in court.

  7. Posted by Bertrand Russell on

    In the 2022/23 season, a total of 6 people officially visited Sirmilik National Park, including I guess, 4 foreign master criminals.

    Prior to the pandemic, visitation topped out at 508 persons (including cruise ships) in the 2018/19 season.

    When you think of the tens of millions of dollars spent on establishing national parks, we really have to ask how worth it is.

    Visitation is quite low, especially when increased tourism is always a key benefit touted to communities when new parks are created. This is hardly the basis for a new “green economy”.

    And now, we see how ineffective parks regulations appear to be. Either Canada is not willing to enforce these laws in Sirmilik, or, they are not worth enforcing.

    This all begs the question, why on earth do we have national parks in Nunavut anyway?

    12
    2
    • Posted by 867 on

      Good point. Then they hire parks canada staff to work in their park offices in these remote communities. Some national parks in the NWT/NU/Yukon get ZERO visitors per year, yet they hire people to staff the park offices. Who knows what their jobs are? These shouldn’t be national parks but instead just protected areas. Big time waste of $$$$.

      10
      6
  8. Posted by Jest Er on

    Thank the courts as they are needed more often to bring some sanity to the out of wack/crazy rules regulations we’re told to follow.

    2
    1
  9. Posted by Eighty three days on

    This story is about breaching
    regulatory offenses prescribed in parks legislation, eventually withdrawn. But my goodness, the info that caught my eye was how long it took for the kayakers to traverse from Pond Inlet to Cambridge Bay: 83 days. I’m a full blooded Inuk colonized with diet Pepsi, kuku and chips daily, and the idea of living off the land for nearly three months mindboggled me. That’s more insane than carrying a rifle on bear country. They faced far greater risks than potential polar/grizzly bear or wolf attacks. I would not dare to kayak for three months straight through rough waters, strong currents, snow, freezing rain, high winds, heavy fog, slippery or breaking ice pans or jammed ice that would constantly result in cold, wet, soggy clothing on top of constant hunger from burning high energy to keep continually warm and exercise from daily paddling. No wonder they call themselves Arctic Cowboys. Yeesh! I’m glad I stay home safe and warm. But yeah, when I camp one or two weeks a year, I just use pots and pans, oil drums, sticks to make a lot of noise to scare the bears away. But I also know when the bears are most hungry enough to attack (fall time) as well as the bears that are more likely to attack – teenagerish young bears, hungry mother bears, angry bears – the trick is to observe them very thouroughly at a safe distance – the problem is, they are also very thorough in their observation of us humans and can literally spy for surprise attacks

Comments are closed.