What’s new:

According to emails released through British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, conservation officers with the Ministry of Environment want and need body cameras when they are in the field.

The hope is that cameras would keep officers safe and protect their reputations among the public.

Why it’s important:

An incident occurred last year near Dawson Creek, BC, where Conservation Officer Micah Kneller was called to deal with a sickly black bear cub. A young couple had rescued the cub and were taking care of it. According to the official statement, when Kneller arrived he determined that the cub had to be euthanized as per wildlife regulations. The couple protested, but Kneller took the bear away to be put down.

In response, the couple took pictures and recordings of the officer and posted them to social media, where they claimed the officer killed the bear in front of them. This resulted in severe public backlash for Kneller and for the Ministry of Environment.

After the incident, Kneller and a superior officer said in an email conversation that they would like to have shoulder cameras to wear on-duty. Kneller’s superior stressed that he already uses his phone in his breast pocket as a camera in sensitive situations.

What the government says:

David Karn from the BC Ministry of Environment’s Media Relations department denied all requests for comment from Kneller and his superior officer regarding their email conversation.

What others say:

Conservation officers regularly work with rehabilitation facilities—and some of them support officers having body cameras.

“I think it’s a very good idea to protect the officer because the way (the incident) was described by the couple was very cruel, and I’ve never seen an officer act like this when I’ve worked with them,” Angelika Langen said.

Langen, one of the founders of the Northern Lights Wildlife Society, had been willing to take the cub in question. She said it’s almost impossible to know the details of what really happened without having been there. She also noted that BC government policies put the officer in that situation to begin with, and changing those policies would help as much as cameras.

Officially regulated use of body cameras for conservation officers may not be a reality in British Columbia or any other Canadian province, but it is in some places south of the border.

The state of Pennsylvania passed legislation in 2014 to allow their conservation officers to wear attachable body cameras while on the job. It provides an exception for conservation officers that allows them to have body cameras as long as they have gone through the same training required by police officers.

Dan Moul, the Pennsylvania State Representative that sponsored the legislation, said that having body cameras is a matter of safety for officers—but they can also help keep them out of the courts

“When they have somebody on film, doing something that they shouldn’t be doing, it pretty much seals the case,” Moul said. “They kind of pay for themselves and bring about more professionalism in the industry.”

What’s next:

Although the emails from Kneller to his superior officer seem to imply that the officers have already discussed using body cameras, there has not been legislation passed that allows them to do so.

But as shown by Moul’s legislation in Pennsylvania, the concept seems to be effective in protecting officers and the public—and deserves consideration in Canada.

“Beyond any shadow of any doubt, they should do this,” Moul said. “You can’t give me a list of anything bad about having body cams, but I can give you a dozen reasons why you should do it.”

To see information requests, please click here.