got this email form the OFAH
CALL TO ACTION!
To All O.F.A.H. Members/Supporters:
For over ten years, the House of Commons has debated changes to the Criminal Code on Animal Cruelty. The previous government attempted to pass several animal cruelty bills that would have hurt anglers, hunters, trappers, farmers, medical researchers and scientists. Currently, there is a bill in the House of Commons known as Bill S-203 that is at its final stage and will be voted on next Wednesday, (April 9, 2008). If the bill passes, anyone who commits cruelty against animals will face increased fines and penalties, but just as important, the bill does this without hurting anglers, hunters, trappers and others.
The O.F.A.H. has worked with all of the groups named above to pass this bill to protect the interests of our members and all of the outdoor community. The Conservative government is supporting this bill; many Liberal MPs are supporting this bill; even members of the Bloc are supporting this bill but the NDP are not.
Animal rights activists are trying to stop the bill from passing – they want a far more complicated bill that will threaten our ability to hunt and fish.
Before next Wednesday, (April 9, 2008) please use the information in our downloadable letter and the Member of Parliament list to contact your local MP – call them or send an e-mail urging them to support Bill S-203 on behalf of you, one of the people they represent in Parliament.
After ten years, it is time to end this debate and pass legislation that increases the fines and penalties for animal abuse that does not threaten anglers, hunters, farmers and others who are legally involved with animals.
It is critical that after ten years we make sure that this bill is passed or suffer the consequences of a win by animal rights activists who seek to stop hunting and fishing as we know it.
Thank you for your help and support.
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Web: www.ofah.org
E-Mail: [email protected]
Bill S-203
Moderator: Excalibur Marketing Dude
-
warningshot
- Posts: 763
- Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:55 pm
- Location: North bay, ontario
if this bill gets passed we are in for big trouble even bird dogs
Full text of Bill 213 (now numbered 203):
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/Senate/B ... text-e.htm
clause 445.1 :
Causing unnecessary suffering445.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;
(b) in any manner encourages, aids or assists at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds; (c) wilfully, without reasonable excuse, administers a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to a domestic animal or bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is kept in captivity or, being the owner of such an animal or a bird, wilfully permits a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to be administered to it;
(d) promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive birds are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated; or
(e) being the owner, occupier or person in charge of any premises, permits the premises or any part thereof to be used for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (d).
Full text of Bill 213 (now numbered 203):
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/Senate/B ... text-e.htm
clause 445.1 :
Causing unnecessary suffering445.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;
(b) in any manner encourages, aids or assists at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds; (c) wilfully, without reasonable excuse, administers a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to a domestic animal or bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is kept in captivity or, being the owner of such an animal or a bird, wilfully permits a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to be administered to it;
(d) promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive birds are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated; or
(e) being the owner, occupier or person in charge of any premises, permits the premises or any part thereof to be used for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (d).
-
warningshot
- Posts: 763
- Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:55 pm
- Location: North bay, ontario
I believe that there is an unfortunate choice of a word in this bill.
The term "baiting" in part b in this context appears to mean persecute or harass and entice into fighting, as in "baiting a bear".
I don't think it refers to setting out a bait as an attractant. If it did, it wouldn't be in the same clause as the "fighting" prohibition. The bill is to intended to prevent cruelty, and setting out a bait in itself couldn't possibly be interpreted as "cruel". If that had been the intent, the wording would have been something like "setting out a bait as an attractant for an animal or bird for the purpose of being shot".
As for (d) and (e), I have no problem. I don't think it's very sporting to open a box with a pheasant in it and have it fly up and get shot by a guy just waiting there. That's just skeet shooting with live creatures instead of clays.
The term "baiting" in part b in this context appears to mean persecute or harass and entice into fighting, as in "baiting a bear".
I don't think it refers to setting out a bait as an attractant. If it did, it wouldn't be in the same clause as the "fighting" prohibition. The bill is to intended to prevent cruelty, and setting out a bait in itself couldn't possibly be interpreted as "cruel". If that had been the intent, the wording would have been something like "setting out a bait as an attractant for an animal or bird for the purpose of being shot".
As for (d) and (e), I have no problem. I don't think it's very sporting to open a box with a pheasant in it and have it fly up and get shot by a guy just waiting there. That's just skeet shooting with live creatures instead of clays.
(My reply copied from another thread)
WE are the ones who must be diligent. Don't trust politicians to intuitively KNOW about the different kinds of baiting and shooting, nor to stand for what you do.
This bill is spearheaded by animal rights groups. You know who they are. They have been pushing for an animal right bill for decades. And IF they can include an ambiguous word like "baiting" or "inhumane" into the legislation, you can be assured they (those who don't hunt) will interpret it their way and prosecute to the limit.
Read this bill and see what you think the worst case scenario will be. Interpret EVERY word, as it may be in favour of stopping all hunting and fishing, for that is part of the reason it is being pushed. That's what PETA does. ( Have you notice they have changed the meaning of sentience in the media?)
Do you have an MP? You bet you do. Get a copy of the bill and be informed. Give him/her a call, see where they stand on this. If you don't like it, tell them so.
I am in favour of treating animals humanely as I expect you all are. But do be careful we don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
WE are the ones who must be diligent. Don't trust politicians to intuitively KNOW about the different kinds of baiting and shooting, nor to stand for what you do.
This bill is spearheaded by animal rights groups. You know who they are. They have been pushing for an animal right bill for decades. And IF they can include an ambiguous word like "baiting" or "inhumane" into the legislation, you can be assured they (those who don't hunt) will interpret it their way and prosecute to the limit.
Read this bill and see what you think the worst case scenario will be. Interpret EVERY word, as it may be in favour of stopping all hunting and fishing, for that is part of the reason it is being pushed. That's what PETA does. ( Have you notice they have changed the meaning of sentience in the media?)
Do you have an MP? You bet you do. Get a copy of the bill and be informed. Give him/her a call, see where they stand on this. If you don't like it, tell them so.
I am in favour of treating animals humanely as I expect you all are. But do be careful we don't throw out the baby with the bath water.