I WAS FOOLED PLEASE READ

chessy · Post by **chessy** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:14 pm

THE MESSAGE I POSTED EARLIER WAS WRONG
this animal crulity bill cannot pass i have no ideal why the ofah want to get it passed here are some peices out of this bill i am shaking my head ..

any bear or deer hunters that bait will not be permitted to do so or any one who shoot birds that have been trapped for compatiton ect ect please read .. we are being bushwacked

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).

Pydpiper · Post by **Pydpiper** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:20 pm

Does that mean I have to go untie all those cats in the corn field? Thats too bad, they bring in yotes for miles..

Stash · Post by **Stash** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:42 am

I believe that there is an unfortunate choice of a word in this bill.

The term "baiting" in this context clearly is meant to mean persecute or harass and entice into fighting, as in "baiting a bear".

It does NOT mean to set out a bait as an attractant.

I'm sure that if the bill is passes as-is then there will have to be some clarification on this.

I don't have an issue with the c and d sections - releasing captive birds just to "immediately" shoot them is not what I call sporting...and clearly they don't mean releasing birds into the wild and hunting them sometime later.

Keep them cats out there, as long as you don't tease them...

Rage_A_Holic · Post by **Rage_A_Holic** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:01 am

Stash wrote:I believe that there is an unfortunate choice of a word in this bill.

The term "baiting" in this context clearly is meant to mean persecute or harass and entice into fighting, as in "baiting a bear".

It does NOT mean to set out a bait as an attractant.

I'm sure that if the bill is passes as-is then there will have to be some clarification on this.

I don't have an issue with the c and d sections - releasing captive birds just to "immediately" shoot them is not what I call sporting...and clearly they don't mean releasing birds into the wild and hunting them sometime later.

I got the same drift from reading your quote of bill 203, and feel the same way. Poor choice of words. In passing, this bill shouldn't make a dent in general hunting practices.

Rick Teal · Post by **Rick Teal** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:29 am

Although I'm personally opposed to using bait to attract animals in order to kill them, I agree with Stash that the "baiting" referred to in this bill is the practice of baiting animals to fight one another.

BigTiny · Post by **BigTiny** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:55 am

Look to see where the law will be placed in your code. In that section there should be a list of definitions for critical terms in that section. Baiting could mean one thing in one section, and be completely different in another.

Pydpiper is right about the cats.

Big John · Post by **Big John** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:49 am

One must be very careful about the "wording" on such matters. Much time is spent by some to totally confuse everyone who reads some of these things. One word can change the entire way of doing things. Or give a whole new meaning to the enterpretation of a paragraph. Company's do this all the time when it comes to contract negotiations. I would hope that whoever is in charge of interpreting this will be extremely diligent.

John

maple · Post by **maple** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:36 am

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.