Printable View
Mr. Breitkreuz has proposed an amendment (Bill C-655) to the Criminal Code of Canada which would appear to make it a criminal offense to interfere with hunting, trapping, fishing or sport shooting:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...7856138&File=4
Apparently, this Bill will not be debated prior to the federal election, but it's a good start anyway.
I would really like to see that go through. I can not count the number of times I have had, have seen, or have heard of people doing things like throwing rocks in rivers/ponds/lakes when people are fishing. Catching a dog that you hunting with. Yup hunting rabbit in a large tract of sage in the states, and had people stop on the highway and chase my dog till they caught her. Then quote a by-law from a city in their home state( not even the state I was in) about dogs being off leash and chasing "deer".Quote:
Originally Posted by rf2
So if someone steals your Trail Cam or Tree Stand (during the hunt season) then would he face two charges (theft and interference) ?? ....nice !!!
edit add: 3 if you can add trespassing :)
I wouldn't hold your breath for that one. Private members bills rarely go through, and there are sound arguments against adding such a provision to the Criminal Code.
1. Is this conduct actually criminal? Many things (speeding, poaching, getting drunk on a public street) are undesirable, but that doesn't make them criminal. Criminal offences are those things that we punish with jail time. Are we proposing that tossing a rock in a pool you're fishing merits jail time?
2. Why do fishing, hunting, and sports shooting deserve special status? Why would it be a criminal offence to interfere with a person who was fishing, but entirely legal to interfere with a person who was birdwatching?
This is being added to the criminal harassment offence in the Criminal Code, which covers stalking and so on: harassing a person in a way that makes them fear for their safety. Tossing a rock in the pool where you're fishing may irritate you, but it won't ordinarily make you fear for your safety. Does irritating an angler really need to be elevated to the same level as deliberately making a person fear for his life?
Of course hunters and anglers love this idea. It recognizes their values and strikes against their opponents. But that doesn't make it good law.
Most times they are not throwing rocks on the other side of the pond. Whipping rocks at a person is not the kind of fun we should encourage.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I agree. But whipping rocks at a person is already a Criminal Code offence, as is stealing equipment, damaging property, or threatening a person.
People whip rocks at fishermen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
This has never happened to me. If it did somebody would be taking a beating. Maybe me..... maybe him but still....
If people are throwing rocks maybe it's time to pull out the slingshot. U are just giving them back there rocks at a higher rate of speed. Lol.
All hunting and fishing in Canada is covered by provincial law which the Feds won't be changing without a Charter amendment. It's already a provincial offense to interfere with hunting ,fishing and trapping. The only problem with that is,like in all provincial offenses,offenders must be caught in the act by the Police or CO (found committing). Nice try for Mr.Breitkruez,but,I'm not sure why he would try to introduce this.
On Graham Lake this year during early Goose season. I had a guy drive his boat right in front of our blind and drop anchor. He was deliberate in his actions and a cottage owner on the Lake. I placed my gun down (smart) and walked out to edge of water and politely ask him move as we were hunting. He went into a rant, about his lake and no one hunting on it, and no one making that entire racket (4 shots at that point) in the years he has been there. I politely said, I understand, that the area (an island) was safe and the closet house was well over 600M away and on the other side of the lake. He said he was staying put. I then pulled out my camera and started to video him, his boat registration, and explain after politely asking; he was interfering with my legal hunt, and read him the regulations (I had them on me, as the park owner said I would have trouble). I also explained I would only engage in shooting once he was well out of my area (and I was willing to wait). He slowly, drifted and motored away over 20 minutes and we resumed hunting. My point is, I was well within my rights, I knew not to antagonize, not to carry a firearm, be polite, and give him no reason to call the police. I chose, the safer legal way despite his absolute horrible behavior, only because I had weapons with me. If this was a fishing incident with no guns, I would have treated him different in my tone and words. The fact I had a camera, I think is the reason he did not call the police. I learned then, to take that camera each time.
You have got some good points. He probably introduced it to drum up political support from anglers and hunters for the upcoming election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Many will harass, especially if well funded and it costs little to disturb the legal enjoyment of others.
Jail time/criminal charges and all that that entails does change the risk/reward dynamics.
Is the sport shooter new to the interference charge or has it always been included?
Got to do something about the haters.
Ontario's law only addresses hunting and fishing. Not sure if it even addresses trapping. Sports shooting is outside the scope of the FWCA and so it is not included.
You could make a legitimate case to criminalize interference with sports shooting, at least for certain forms of interference, on public safety grounds. Obviously, interfering with shooters by running onto the range is irresponsible and because it creates a hazard to life it is arguably criminal. But is that actually happening anywhere?
Does it have to happen first ? ...shouldn't good laws be proactive :)Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Arguably, it should be proactive. But let's ask the question another way: how many activists are likely to run onto shooting ranges to stop people from shooting? Only the suicidal ones.
Anti hunting nuts get peppered with shot more then you think. Not from being shot at but by being down range and/or between shooters and game. They don't help them selfs because they are "hiding" from the hunters till the time is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I've had a few altercations and they've all started out innocent enough but quickly go south when you stand your ground. The optics are, well you're the guy with the gun. You simply need to have that avenue to call for help or the threat of a charge.
There isn't anything about a sport shooter now under current legislation is there?
I had a neighbour last fall going around trying to bust people stones (getting right in their face) for sport shooting in a farming zone.
He caught me one day in my driveway and inquired whether I would support him trying to get a bi-law enacted to stop the shooting.
He didn't like what I had to say obviously as I had a bi-law officer show up within a couple of days.
The neighbours ignorance was just too overwhelming.
Good for you. The neighbor was simply a bully and you stood up to him,as everyone who finds they are dealing with a bully should do. I certainly wouldn't have been as civil.Quote:
Originally Posted by onelessarrow
I agree that in a broader sense, many of these acts are not criminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
What I would argue is that, in general terms, hunters in particular are specifically targeted by individuals with an agenda to stop what we are legally taking part in. A rock in a pool is one thing, but the blatant and consistent cases of harassment that have been heard over the years are another.
In addition, I would argue that in general, bird watchers, hikers and the like are not subject to systematic harassment by groups or individuals looking to stop or otherwise interfere with their activities. It is hunters, trappers, and fishermen to an extent that are faced with these issues.
So I would agree, it's not necessarily good law. But it also brings to light the fact there is a need for better protection from people looking to interfere with our activities.
[QUOTE=welsh;879377 But let's ask the question another way: how many activists are likely to run onto shooting ranges to stop people from shooting?[/QUOTE]
Well, we already know that many of them aren't dealing with a full deck of cards, so it wouldn't surprise me.
Cheers
Thanks welsh, I missed the answer in your post.
Sport shooter would be nice to see added.
I hear ya, this turned out costing me permission on a farm across the road. He'd been around to all the neighbors and persuaded this one farmer to stop any shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
unfortunately I have permission all around said property and it's put me in a bit of a dilemma with the farmer.
One of the last things I said to the neighbor was if you get in my face like you are right now while I'm hunting out back, I could have a charge laid against you for interferring in a hunt. That was in an effort to explain how legal it was to shoot around here.
I basically wouldn't let him leave until I filled him with as much propaganda as I could muster.
I left him with, I certainly won't support you and don't effect the number of birds I put in my freezer.
The irony was, he already had, I just didnt know it.
I know of a range where the kids would wander through the woods to the range, You get six to ten guys popping away with rifles for a few minutes and then turn to see kids standing behind them. The real problem is that they had to walk through the 3-D bow range to get to the rifle/pistol/black powder ranges. You got people shooting arrows down lanes that have limited visibility between the archer and the target, with thick brush behind the target. Ya there are dirt backstops for the arrows butt they have bushes in front. The 3-D range is behind the normal Archery range, and arrows from that range can go into the woods. They use one or the other archery range at a time. Most times it's the front range with the butts, so if the kids are walking in the trees they are out of sight.Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty55
The cops have been called a couple times but since they are kids no trespass charges, I don't think the parents care or understand why the members are so worked up.
You wouldn't be able to stick those kids with a criminal charge, though.
No same story as the trespass, but now think how the parents would react to the interference offence that carries a jail term.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Kids are not getting charged, but not mommy is looking at little johnny different when she gets told the if it happens again the parents will be help responsible.
No, it's not the same story as the trespass.
You couldn't stick the kids with the interference charge because they would not be guilty of interference. Any criminal charge that carries a jail sentence requires the crown to show an element of intent. The kids would have to be intentionally interfering with the range.
By same story I mean look at the same events. Kids repeatedly walk through the woods to get to the rifle range. IF they enter the property knowing that it creates a danger to themselves, then they know that they are interfering with the range. First time they did it...I think we should let it slide, tell them why not to do it, and leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
As for the kids not being charged. I am pretty sure that 12 to 15 year old kids CAN be charged with trespass.
How old do I have to be to be charged with a crime?
You must be at least 12 years of age.
If you do something while you are under 12 that would be a crime if you were older, you cannot be charged. Child Protection or other services might become involved. This is based on an assumption that the few youth under 12 who do engage in serious crimes can be dealt with more effectively by child welfare or mental health agencies.
If you break a law after you turn 12 but you are under 18, you may be charged with a crime in the youth criminal justice system. You will be governed by the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).
Here is the Link.
http://www.law-faqs.org/wiki/index.p...berta/Criminal
Was this occurring at a certified range? Ranges are supposed to be securely fenced off so something like that can't happen by accident. Wouldn't you be absolutely devastated if some kid walking through the woods caught a bullet or an arrow? Under law,the onus is always on the firearm user to use it in a safe manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
They were climbing over the six foot fence...A fence with signage on it. I don't know how it would look if that club turned to topping the fence with razor wire to stop people from climbing over, but maybe that has to be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
It seems you're missing my point, because we're not being clear what a "crime" is. Breaking the law is only a crime if the law you break is in the Criminal Code. Anything else is just an offence. Trespassing is an offence, but it's not a crime.
The reason I say these kids could probably not be charged has nothing to do with their age. The same would hold true if they were 27 years old. All crimes have an element of intent, which is usually spelled out in the law.
In the case of this bill, Breitkreuz seems to have done a pretty good job of spelling that out:
Everyone commits an offence who intentionally interferes with lawful hunting, trapping, fishing or sport shooting....
"Intentionally interferes" has a clear meaning. It would not be enough simply to do something that you knew could cause interference; you would have to intend the interference. This is aimed at people who set out to sabotage hunts, interfere with traps, and so on. So these kids could not be charged with the criminal offence, because they lack criminal intent.
Since you say that one has to have intent. I will put it this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
If you wander down on to the back side of my place, and get told it is private property the first time is fine.
After you have been caught there for the third and fourth time, there is INTENT.
That's intent, but it's intent to trespass -- which doesn't matter because trespassing doesn't require intent -- i.e., the first time actually isn't fine if you don't want it to be. But the criminal charge would require the specific intent to interfere, which is not proven by the fact they know they're trespassing. You have to establish the specific elements of the charge.
If they were told that trespassing had the effect of interfering, then you'd have intent.
The point is that this bill, if it passes, won't allow you to slam criminal charges on anyone who happens to disrupt your activities. It will only apply to people who mean to cause trouble.
Welsh you just made me point. The kids trespass the first time and get taken home in a cruser. Mom gets told whats wheres and why. So next time they trespass charges would be layed for trespass at least, if they are repeat offenders the interference charge could be added. If there was one that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Only if the kids had specifically been told the first time that their trespassing was interfering with shooting, and only if case law had established that disregarding the consequences of the act establishes intent for this offence. That's not what the letter of the bill actually says, and "intentionally interferes" implies a wilful act rather than recklessness. You're looking hard for something that isn't really there.
If someone continually disrupts something you're doing and interferes with your enjoyment of your property, that's a civil matter. You could deal with the kids in a heartbeat with the threat of civil action. It tends to have a powerful effect on people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
It takes money to file and sue or file a restraining order, but yes civil action is possible. If the interference law comes in to effect, the teens could be one of many trial cases.
You don't have to sue anyone. You just have to get a lawyer to send a letter pointing out that interfering with the club's enjoyment of its property could lead to civil action. And I'm well aware that this costs money, but I take the view that if you're not willing to pay a couple hundred bucks for it, then this issue isn't really worth very much to you, is it?
You need to think this through. If you set the bar for intent where you want it, I get priority access to any water I want to fish, regardless of who is boating, swimming, skipping rocks or whatever on it. I just motor up to your dock, zing my line into the water and say, "I'm fishing here and swimming scares the fish. Get yer kids the $%^& out of my water or I'll have them charged."
Oh, yes, that's exactly the bar you just set. By continuing to swim after I start to fish, your kids would be knowingly interfering with my fishing.
Civil problems belong in the civil realm. We don't criminalize irritants for the sake of people who want the state to step in and take care of their problems for free.
Well you just operated a vessel in a careless manner by motoring into an area with swimmers in the water...Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
The regulations prohibit careless operation of a vessel.
This means no one is allowed to operate a small vessel without due care and attention or reasonable consideration for other people
LOL. Let's say I paddle up in a canoe.
What I'm doing makes no difference here.
Ok so now who's doing the straw grab....:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
By the way a bump on the head from a Canoe can disable a swimmer and cause them to drown, as surely as a prop could cleave flesh and injure or kill.
It has been fun, but I believe we need to find another topic to joust over. Unless you enjoy charging Windmills.
I DO NO fancy looking like
Don Quixote..;)
http://www.mainlesson.com/books/bald...e/zpage080.gif
Well, not in the context of what you have suggested.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
My gun club has had some issues with neighbors in the past. This added provision would lend some legal teeth, should one of them decide to try and interfere or picket our entrance.
Now the club had been there for 40+ years, and it always amazes me how anyone would buy, and not know that you might hear some shooting.....but that's for another time....
My club has the same problem. I think realtors don't disclose that the range is there and then you have annoyed homeowners who were expecting peace and quiet and instead got a Canada Day weekend with the Canadian trap championships running next door.
Whether or not they ought to have known before they moved in, they have democratic rights. It should not be criminal to protest or picket the entrance to the club. I see this bill as nothing more than the flipside of bills proposing to criminalize e-collar use, etc. It's not an appropriate use of the criminal law.
People have a charter right to peacefully protest anything they want. They just can't restrict or interfere with others rights while doing so. That's when The Criminal Code comes into play. In that aspect,a private members bill is redundant because the charges already exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
True,but,please note what I mentioned above. There's a responsibility of "due dilligence" on the prospective buyer to find these things out. IMHO,there's no excuse for someone to buy a property then,later, b**ch about any noise from other properties,much like the folks who buy near an airport then complain about the noise....same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Yes. I just mean they have the right to complain, which is not to say their complaints are valid.
There is not now and has never been a bill to criminalize the use of E-collars. It has ALWAYS BEEN Illegal to operate a transmitter on a frequency for which it is not licensed or certified for.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
If you send me your Collars and a copy of our Amateur radio license I would more then happy to convert them to the 2 meter or 70 cm band. These of course will void your warrenty if you have one and the factory would likely never ever do any repairs even if you paid for them.
There is indeed a bill before Parliament right now to criminalize the use of e-collars. I started a thread on it back in the summer.
Look it up.
Let's hope they have the intelligence to differentiate between "shock" obedience collars and simple "beeper" and GPS locators.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
You mean like condo buyers in TO buying next to a slaughterhouse that had been there for 80+ years and complaining about the smell?Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Yessir,exactly like that.LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Yes , and if they get the #s, = voters , they can make you move.
Thought you were talking about the garmin thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh