A Haines Junction woodcutter who poured water over a black bear while it was sleeping in its den last spring was fined $2,000 in territorial court Tuesday.

Judge Donald Luther also ordered 57-year-old Romeo Leduc to complete a hunter education and ethics course before he can obtain a new Yukon hunting licence.

The visiting judge accepted the evidence presented by territorial Crown prosecutor Julie Desbrisay in Leduc’s absence.

Leduc had indicated to Desbrisay last month that he would not likely show up for court to face the two charges of harassing wildlife, and Luther agreed with her application to proceed without him.

The judge found Leduc guilty of harassment by pouring water over the sleeping bear last April 15.

He did not accept that by standing around with his dog watching the groggy bruin emerge from the den that Leduc was guilty of a second charge of harassment.

Leduc was given 60 days to pay the fine.

Evidence put before the court indicated Leduc was frustrated by territorial forestry officials who had ordered a 300-metre buffer around the bear den in the middle of his Marshall Creek woodlot after the woodcutter informed them of the den in September 2013.

His attempts to have the officials reduce the buffer to 100 metres were initially unsuccessful, the court heard.

He publicized his frustrations in a local newspaper last January, suggesting that not being able to cut firewood in that area would cost him $50,000, the judge was told.

Luther heard how Leduc’s frustration with the buffer grew through the winter months, and how it was added to by problems with the heavy equipment he used for his firewood business.

Leduc had publicly stated his intention to deal with the bear that had cost him so much money, the judge heard.

Steven Dyck, Leduc’s friend and neighbour at Marshall Creek, testified Leduc asked him to accompany him to the bear den, where he planned to pour water over the bear and shoot it so he could hold up it publicly as the bear that cost him $50,000.

Dyck said he only agreed because he was afraid his friend would get hurt, so he went with Leduc on the morning of April 15 armed with a shotgun and a camera to take pictures.

Leduc brought along two, 20-litre pails of water.

Dyck walked the judge and the Crown prosecutor through 40 pictures submitted as evidence.

Leduc approached the den, and poured the two pails of water into it, Dyck recounted.

The bear appeared groggy as it gradually struck its head out, and remained groggy for a few minutes until it gained its composure and starting running toward Dyck, who fired a shot in front of the bear, which turned and climbed a tree.

After watching the bear for about 20 minutes, Leduc and Dyck left the area, with the bear still alive the tree.

“Picture 16 the bear is almost all the way out of the den,” Dyck told the judge as he flipped through the photographs, noting the time was 9:39 a.m.

“Picture 19 the bear is starting to become more alert. Twenty-one the bear is starting to wake up and become more oriented.

“Twenty-three and 24 are zoomed-in pictures of the bear and you can see water on his forehead and wet fur. Twenty-five the bear is really starting to become more alert and 25 and 26 the bear comes running at me and I fired a shot from my shot gun in front of it and in 26 the bear is climbing the tree.

“I felt bad for a few days after that, that we woke up the bear,” he told the judge.

Dyck said he went bear hunting later that spring to shoot a black bear for its meat and hide. It was when he was reporting his kill to Haines Junction conservation officer Russel Oborne that he mentioned the bear den story in passing, he told the judge.

Oborne testified he began his investigation that very moment, invited Dyck into his office and asked if he was willing to provide a statement, and he agreed.

He also visited the den site, and recovered a spent 12-gauge shotgun shell.

Conservation officer Ryan Hennings, the manager of enforcement for Environment Yukon, said he interviewed Leduc at his invitation in August, when Oborne had to leave town for personal reasons.

It was an opportunity, said Hennings, to provide Leduc with a chance to tell his side of the story.

The woodcutter freely and calmly provided all the details during an interview outside his Marshall Creek home. He told of his frustration with the forestry buffer and took Hennings to the bear den some 700 metres from where he lived, Hennings said.

Hennings said Leduc renewed his hunting licence and purchased a black bear seal on April 14, the day before the incident, and the day before the spring bear hunting season began.

In his conservation with Leduc, said Hennings, he learned Leduc felt he needed to deal with the bear in the way he intended, and indicated he would not do anything different in hindsight, other than pick a different partner to go with.

The judge asked Hennings if he could determine whether the bear was male or female by the pictures, but the conservation officer said it would be very difficult, particularly with black bears.

In her submissions on sentencing, the Crown prosecutor noted the buffer did not prevent Leduc from conducting firewood business, that he had still had 2/3 to 3/4 of woodlot to work with.

His actions, Desbrisay said, were not only hard on the animal at a tough time of the year for bears.

They could have led to human conflict by forcing the bear to find food somewhere at a time there was still snow on the ground, a time of year when the bear should have still been sleeping.

The Wildlife Act, she pointed out, notes that wildlife offences prompted by a commercial agenda are particularly aggravating.

This was such a case, because it was Leduc’s commercial interest in firewood that prompted his actions, she said.

Desbrisay did mention the forestry officials eventually agreed in February with Leduc’s request to shrink the buffer to 100 metres, though nobody communicated the decision to Leduc for at least a month afterwards.

There had been strained relations between Leduc and the forestry staff, to the point where a communication management plan had to be implemented, she explained.

Desbrisay said she did not know if that was the reason for the delay in notifying him of the buffer reduction, because she has also seen direct email correspondence between the forestry office and Leduc.

The judge was critical of the delay by forestry staff in notifying Leduc of its decision to reduce the buffer.

It did not give Leduc an excuse to do what he did, but he was a frustrated and impatient man at the time and prompt notification may have helped simmer down Leduc’s frustration, he indicated.

In dismissing the second count of harassment, the judge noted it was Dyck who fired the shot toward the bear, and he did not agree that standing around watching the bear after it emerged supported a second conviction for harassment.