Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chris gadsden]

http://www.oodmag.com/uncategorized/bill-seeks-criminalize-fishing-hunting/

[swimmingwiththefishes]

Your headline is a little alarmist.Are you getting paid by Rodney for the number of views on this;)

[chris gadsden]

Your headline is a little alarmist.Are you getting paid by Rodney for the number of views on this;)

LOL Just wanted as many people to read this and become aware of the bill, not thinking it would ever happen.

I guess I wrote too many stories for newspapers and filmed some news stories for Global and saw that they always like attention grabbing headlines to draw viewers and readers.

 I once filmed a story where a small airplane hit a flock of ducks and the pilot had to force land in a farmers field because the plane's window was smashed and one duck ended up inside the plane.

When I had the footage filmed I phoned the news director and told what I had. The first question she asked was "Anyone killed?" I said no and felt like saying the poor mallard was. I filed the story but donot think they aired it.

[RalphH]

Your headline is a little alarmist.Are you getting paid by Rodney for the number of views on this;)

I dunno. I have thought for sometime the writing is 'on the wall' for hunting and fishing - more so for hunting. Some of the changes that have happened in Europe plus anti-fishing PR campaigns by groups such as PETA have made me think this way.

It has made me glad neither of my kids took up the sport. Fishing may not go in my lifetime but in their lifetimes, I am not so sure.

I think anglers and the industry share some of the blame for problems we've experienced. Fishing is over crowded and over technological and far removed from the pastoral pursuit of yesteryear. Few things are as vulgar as the Bass Masters and competitive angling.

Mind you we have to think about this proposal. There's been other bills that either didn't pass or were heavily amended. The big fear is how AR groups who oppose angling and hunting may use such laws to harass anglers - as happened in Germany for example.

[milo]

This bill might become law in some pussy states, but not in Canada.
There are just too many good old rednecks who wouldn't take keenly to it. They would probably switch to hunting politicians. 

On a more serious note, the resources required to enforce a non fishing, non hunting, non trapping law in a land as vast as ours would be beyond reasonable, so I believe it is a no-go from the get-go.

[dobrolub]

There are just too many good old rednecks who wouldn't take keenly to it. They would probably switch to hunting politicians. 

LOL, ya... Exactly what I was thinking. It's the tendency to assert control over every mucking little thing that's worrisome. Like closing 'share a cow' farms, limiting natural herb trade, displaying no interest in what populating thinks on issues – that's what's bothering to see. Generally I don't feel that politicians have any interest in what people think. They need a wake up call. Like no one showing up at the polling stations across the country would be a good one.

[typhoon]

The alarmist headlines are missing this clause "(c) kills an animal without lawful excuse;".

If hunting and fishing and slaughterhouses and pest control are legal then the activity is not an offence.

The text of the bill is actually quite good - bans cockfighting, dogfighting, animal cruelty, animal maltreatment, etc.

[bigblockfox]

def a bad article. much more info here. to much fear mongering.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/03/nathaniel-erskine-smith-animal-bill_n_9377286.html

[Walleye76]

Being it's a private members bill I wouldn't be overly concerned at this point. The likely hood of it ever passing is extremely slim

[DanL]

This is a private member's bill which usually go absolutely nowhere. I would agree with the overall spirit of this bill, especially w.r.t specifically banning the practice of sharkfinning etc, but the incredibly vague wording of the other parts potentially opens up a lot of unintended consequences.

The alarmist headlines are missing this clause "(c) kills an animal without lawful excuse;".

If hunting and fishing and slaughterhouses and pest control are legal then the activity is not an offence.

I dont believe that's necessarily true based on the bill's wording.

182.‍1 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, wilfully or recklessly,

• (a) causes or, being the owner, permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal;
  (b) kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed, brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately;
  (c) kills an animal without lawful excuse;
  (d) without lawful excuse, poisons an animal, places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by an animal, administers an injurious drug or substance to an animal or, being the owner, permits anyone to do any of those things;
  (e) in any manner encourages, promotes, arranges, assists at, takes part in or receives money for the fighting or baiting of animals, including breeding, training or transporting an animal to fight another animal;
  (f) makes, maintains, keeps or allows to be made, maintained or kept a cockpit or any other arena for the fighting of animals;
  (g) 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 animals are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot at the moment they are liberated; or
  (h) being the owner, occupier or person in charge of any premises, permits the premises or any part of the premises to be used in the course of an activity referred to in paragraph (e) or (g).

Violating any of these points would make you a criminal. Having a lawful excuse (c), doesnt absolve you of violations (a) through (h). One could argue that killing a fish by ripping out it's gills and letting it bleed out is in violation of 182.1 (1) (a) because you could have bonked it first to limit its suffering. Or argue that bashing a fish's head with a rock ten times because you couldnt be bothered to carry a proper bonker is in gross violation of 182.1 (1) (b)

And the entire concept of C&R fisheries where if not retained for sustenance is basically inflicting unnecessary suffering, because why do we *need* to catch them otherwise?

[milo]

And the entire concept of C&R fisheries where if not retained for sustenance is basically inflicting unnecessary suffering, because why do we *need* to catch them otherwise?

C&R fishing is a cruel and needless activity and some civilized countries have outright banned it already. For years now I haven't been partaking in C&R only fisheries (e.g. sturgeon, dollies, Thompson steelhead and so on).

If there is no species I can target for retention, I won't fish that system. Period.

Your mileage may vary.

[glog]

inmates have taken over the asylum.  Makes you wonder how mp's like this get elected.  What a waste of time and effort.

What's next a new act that makes it illegal to breath regularly in order to stop climate change!!!

If idea is to stop shark finning fine, but not with this wording or language

Just another example of the stupid ideas the liberals come up with.

[bigblockfox]

unfortunately the fear mongering works on a select few.

[clarkii]

inmates have taken over the asylum.  Makes you wonder how mp's like this get elected.  What a waste of time and effort.

What's next a new act that makes it illegal to breath regularly in order to stop climate change!!!

If idea is to stop shark finning fine, but not with this wording or language

Just another example of the stupid ideas the liberals come up with.

Private members bill.  Just pointing that out.

As to the bill, what is defined as unnecessary? Unless it is defined, that is purely subjective.

[typhoon]

Violating any of these points would make you a criminal. Having a lawful excuse (c), doesnt absolve you of violations (a) through (h). One could argue that killing a fish by ripping out it's gills and letting it bleed out is in violation of 182.1 (1) (a) because you could have bonked it first to limit its suffering. Or argue that bashing a fish's head with a rock ten times because you couldnt be bothered to carry a proper bonker is in gross violation of 182.1 (1) (b)

If having lawful excuse does not absolve you of violations (a) through (h) then we will have no more beef, chicken, pork, farmed fish, etc.
They have a much stronger lobby than we do so I'm not worried.