A handful of frustrated South Okanagan residents — and their horses — can’t stop a neighbouring vineyard from using bird cannons. It’s a frustration many residents can appreciate, but in this case they revealed different motivations for involving a provincial farm regulator in a lengthy hearing.

Mark and Kathy McMillan, Erica Schreiber, Gary Champagne, and Ruth Champagne filed a complaint against Osoyoos landowner Robin Bonnett, arguing the bird cannons limited their ability to go outside, open their windows, or entertain guests at certain times of the year because of the noise.

Bonnett’s the owner of the land but has shared the neighbourhood friction for numerous years with Sukhi Dhaliwal, who rents the land and has farmed it since 1999.

In 2023, those neighbours tried to engage Dhaliwal in a formal agreement to some conditions on use of the cannons, threatening to complain to the BC Farm Industry Review Board if he didn’t. They filed the complaint later that year.

Dhaliwal explained succinctly why he couldn’t agree to curtail hours of use.

“Starlings come when they are hungry,” he said. Starlings are a voracious fruit-eating invasive pest in the Okanagan.

According to a July 31 review board decision, the vineyard used the cannons roughly every eight to 15 minutes, to a maximum of 33 shots an hour, from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. during September and October.

That’s within the rules, which the neighbours admitted and knew for some time.

They said they felt disrespected.

Schreiber said she’d lived at her property for 35 years and “respect” was the “central issue” of her complaint.

“She believes that she is owed more respect from (Bonnett),” the decision reads.

One neighbour was a former rancher who said they appreciated why the cannons were used, but it was causing grief for five people.

“(The Champagnes) said that they do not dispute the… right to use the cannon, but that he fails to acknowledge how it impacts them in many ways,” the decision said.

The vineyard testified it lost approximately one ton of grapes per year to avian predation and did everything it could to mitigate the issue.

Dhaliwal said he tries to respect his neighbours.

“He noted that he could legally place eight propane cannons on the 40 acres of vineyard he leases… but he is in fact only using one,” the decision reads.

“There was no evidence presented that demonstrated the use of a propane cannon on the… property differed from the use of propane cannons as recommended in the published industry guidelines or in other vineyards in comparable situations,” one report read.

The Farm Board said it wouldn’t comment on the assumptions and conclusions drawn by the parties, or the criticisms they have of each other, but had no difficulty drawing a conclusion.

“The (neighbours) have… submitted written statements, photographs and videos to demonstrate how their lives have been negatively impacted by the use of the propane cannon… while the (Board) appreciates that the use of the propane cannon can be disruptive to neighbouring property owners, the test is not whether a disruption is caused but whether that disruption is in accordance with normal farm practice,” the Board ruled. “(The) use of the propane cannon as part of its bird predation management practices is consistent with normal farm practice.”

Ultimately, the Board dismissed the case.