A Canadian resident named Mark Skage says he was dismissed from AFD Petroleum Inc. after rescuing a calf caught in a dangerous bear encounter. The episode drew attention from CBC News and sparked broader questions about wildlife safety and workplace policies.
During a routine drive home in British Columbia, Skage noticed a calf moving slowly along the roadside. The animal appeared distressed and tried to climb into his vehicle as a bear was visible pursuing it from a short distance away, with Skage about 45 meters from the scene. The moment compelled him to step in rather than drive on and pretend nothing was happening, a decision made in real time by a sense of responsibility to act.
Skage described the choice in plain terms: he could not leave the animal in danger. He opened the door and placed the calf across the front passenger seat, then drove toward town to seek help. The split-second decision was driven by concern for the calf and a duty to intervene before harm could come to the animal, according to the account reported by CBC News.
After the calf, later named Misty by locals, was secured, Skage notified his employer and a local wildlife inspector about what he had witnessed and what he had done. The caretaker who arrived to assess Misty arranged for her to enter a wildlife rehabilitation facility, where she would receive care and nourishment until she could be safely reintroduced to the wild, as described in the coverage from CBC News.
Skage later acknowledged that he understood the legal framework surrounding wild animals. He knew that collecting and transporting wildlife is prohibited under Canadian law, a factor that influenced the outcome of the incident at work. He framed the situation as a clash between compassionate action and regulatory compliance, a tension that ultimately led to disciplinary action by the employer, according to the reporting on the case.
Regarding the response from AFD Petroleum, Skage said management viewed his actions through a strict wildlife policy lens, which they asserted placed him in serious conflict with company rules. He described the situation as painful, noting that despite his good intentions, the company took a firm stance against what they considered unsafe or noncompliant conduct, as outlined in the media coverage.
The broader discussion surrounding this case addresses how communities balance animal welfare with workplace policies and legal constraints. While the rescue was widely portrayed as a humane act, it also highlighted the challenges workers face when attempting to help wildlife in distress, especially when such actions intersect with rules designed to protect both animals and people. The incident has sparked conversations about how organizations can support compassionate responses without compromising regulatory obligations, per the discussions reported in CBC News.
In related coverage, there were other instances where workers helped wildlife in trouble, illustrating a common thread of frontline employees stepping in to assist animals in need when danger is imminent. These stories collectively shape a public narrative about judgment calls, risk, and the responsibilities of workers who encounter wildlife alongside their daily duties. The dialogue continues as communities, regulators, and employers evaluate the best paths to safeguard animals while maintaining professional standards and legal compliance, as noted in ongoing reporting.
As Misty enters rehabilitation and recovery, the incident remains a focal point for discussions about wildlife protection and employee accountability. The balance between quick, empathetic action and adherence to rules is a delicate one, especially in rural regions where wildlife encounters are more frequent and training on how to respond consistently varies across workplaces. The evolving conversation invites policymakers, employers, and workers to consider clearer guidelines that honor humane intervention while respecting legal boundaries and organizational policies, ensuring that future acts of bravery can occur without jeopardizing a worker’s livelihood or safety.