The appellant appealed pesticide use permits issued to the respondent to apply Vision herbicide to forested land near Quesnel. The appellant owned property near the boundaries of the spray area. He operated a guide outfitting business and he maintained that the spraying would destroy the browse which attracted moose to the area and the moose would no longer visit. The appellant’s wife also testified that their son plays in the spray area and she was concerned about the herbicides effects on her son.
The Board found that the herbicide was safe and would have no unreasonable effects on the appellant’s family. Much evidence was led to show that the federal tests done on Vision were incorrect however the Board found much of this evidence was hearsay and therefore of little probative value. On the grounds that moose habitat would be compromised, the Board decided that some cooperation was needed between the appellant and respondent and urged the latter to do as little possible damage as possible to ungulate habitat. It decided it could not make an order since cooperation must be two-sided.
