The Haines Junction man convicted of pouring water over a black bear as it slept in its den has lost his appeal.

Justice Leigh Gower of the Yukon Supreme Court delivered his 12-page decision Monday following the hearing two weeks ago.

Gower upheld the sentence of $2,000 and the requirement that Romeo Leduc must complete a hunter education and ethics course before he’s eligible to renew his hunting licence.

Leduc was convicted of harassing wildlife at a trial last October, a proceeding he chose not to attend because he found the charges to be ridiculous.

But after hearing from witnesses who included a conservation officer and Leduc’s friend who was with him when he poured water into the den, the trial judge found Leduc guilty in his absence.

During the appeal hearing on Feb. 18, Leduc attempted to introduce two sworn statements detailing his version of events and how his frustration with the Yukon government’s forestry branch was a factor, but the territorial Crown objected.

Yukon government lawyer Peter Sandiford told Gower the superior courts have established strict rules regarding the introduction of new evidence at appeal hearings.

Leduc didn’t even come close to meeting the test, he said.

In ruling against the admissibility of the two affidavits, Gower told Leduc if he had wanted to have his version of events told, he should have shown up for the trial.

The judge said without the new evidence, the appeal essentially came down to whether the sentence was appropriate and whether Leduc could apply a section of law that allows for the accidental disturbance of a bear den.

Sandiford told the judge the regulation applies to circumstances when land is being cleared for agricultural purposes, roads or transmission lines and there is no knowledge of the bear den, but the den is accidentally disturbed.

It certainly did not apply in Leduc’s case because he went to the den and bothered the sleeping bear on purpose, he said.

Gower dismissed the appeal.

At the trial last October, evidence indicated Leduc had a sour relationship with the forestry branch.

The relationship was agitated further when the branch imposed a 300-metre buffer around the den, in keeping with policy when officials become aware of a bear den.

But the den was located on Leduc’s commercial woodlot.

Attempts by Leduc beginning in late fall 2013 to have it reduced to 100 metres so that he could access more wood were unsuccessful for three months or so. The branch had reduced the buffer in February, but nobody told Leduc for about a month.

The trial judge was critical of the forestry officials for not making better efforts to notify Leduc of the reduction, as it may of helped simmer down the frustration he was feeling.

Leduc told Gower during the appeal that nobody from the forestry branch had come to his woodlot to inspect the den and confirm the presence of a bear, as was required under the policy used to establish the buffer.

So on April 15, 2014, he and his friend went to the den with two, 20-litre containers of water, which Leduc poured into the den while his friend stood by.

His friend testified at trial the bear eventually emerged, groggy and wet.

When it began running toward the friend, he fired a round from his shotgun in front of the bear, which turned and climbed a tree. He and Leduc then left.

Conservation officers learned of the incident when the friend mentioned it in passing while he was in their Haines Junction office reporting a legally harvested bear he’d shot later that spring.

Leduc said he found the charges to be ridiculous, particularly since he could have shot the bear in the fall of 2013 because he had a valid bear tag, but instead decided to live and let live.