Bill C-232 being revived?

[spinster]

FYI...
A private members bill, C-232 is being revived to amend the Canadian animal abuse law. There was a rally recently in AB in support of the proposed law: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...laws-1.2623711

I looked up Bill C-232 and it appears it was first introduced in 2011 and if the above article is correct, it's being revived: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...5094015&File=4

Included in the definition of cruelty offense is this, anyone who:

(e) 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

(f) 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 (c) or (e).

[Sharon]

I remember that from 2011. It has tremendous implications if passed. I hope the test/trial clubs etc. keep an eye on this.

[trimmer21]

That abomination fell flat the first time around and I'm sure the same thing will happen,this time. Virtually all private members bills meet the same fate,BUT,we can never let our guard down for one second.

[welsh]

Before everyone gets too excited about this, that part of the private members bill changes nothing with respect to those two provisions. Here is the current wording of the law:

445.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who
(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).

And here is the proposed revision:

182.2 (1) Every one commits an offence who, wilfully or recklessly,
(e) 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
(f) 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 (c) or (e).

The main thing that is being changed here is to get rid of section 444 and move it into section 182.1, which has the effect of moving animal cruelty out of offences against property and into offences against public morals.

I haven't looked at this latest iteration of the animal cruelty bill in detail and there may well be some bad stuff in there. But with respect to this particular provision, we actually see an improvement. A small change to the wording here is important: the offence is no longer releasing animals "for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated," but more specifically, releasing animals "for the purpose of being shot at the moment they are liberated."

The intent of this provision was to ban the sport of live pigeon shooting, but the current wording is vague because it isn't clear whether "when they are liberated" means immediately, 10 minutes later, 20 minutes later, etc. This could potentially have been used by someone to go after trialing. "At the moment they are liberated" is clear and supports the original intent of the law. I would suggest that this part of the bill, at least, deserves support.

[relic38]

Welsh, you missed something in the changes. The current wording refers to "captive birds". The new wording refers to "captive animals". That is all-inclusive now, not just pigeons.
The addition of "at the moment they are liberated still allows for 'cage release' hunts, but you would have to wait a still-somewhat-vaguely-defined amount of time before shooting.
I don't really see the point of or interest in these sorts of hunts, but this change could potentially affect that activity on private game preserves.

[welsh]

I don't see anything vague about "at the moment they are liberated." This specifically allows for things like game farm hunts, in which the animal is shot at some time after it is liberated, while banning things like live pigeon shooting, in which the animal is shot immediately on being let out of the trap. I can't think of any currently legal activity that would be banned under the change from "captive birds" to "captive animals," so that's a wash.

I just realized that we are looking at the wrong bill: that's the old one, from 2011. Here is the current Bill C-592, which has been through first reading in the Commons:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...0045&File=24#1

With respect to the section in question, there is no change. However, there is an important clarification:
182.2 (2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) [i.e., the part that bans killing animals without excuse, etc.] does not apply to the following activities:
(a) pest control;
(b) rodeo events;
(c) traditional or sport hunting or fishing; and
(d) livestock raising or slaughter in an agricultural context.

There is still a ban on killing an animal without lawful excuse, but the latest version makes it clear that hunting is a lawful excuse. So the only really difficult question is how that would apply to training and trialing.

[spinster]

Thanks for looking up the latest proposal. I've never been to a pigeon shoot, but I doubt that particpants shoot at the "moment they are released" so if the intent of the law was to prevent this in Canada it would not work. My interpretation, of what is written is that releasing pigeons or chukars or other game birds for dog training purposes or in tests or trials would be prohibited. Perhaps if the proposed law stated (c) tradition or sport hunting-related of fishing; and" it would cover these activities. As written, I don't believe they would be covered.

[welsh]

I've never been to a pigeon shoot, but I doubt that particpants shoot at the "moment they are released" so if the intent of the law was to prevent this in Canada it would not work.

In a live pigeon shoot, the birds are either released from a trap or hand-thrown into the air. If the shot bird falls outside a certain distance, it is counted as lost. So the bird is shot right away.

The aim of that provision of the Criminal Code was originally to ban these shoots -- that's a fact. Changing the wording from "when they are released" to "at the moment they are released" prevents the same provision being used to charge someone who runs an event like a field trial or a game farm hunt, in which the released animal is shot at some indeterminate time after it has been released. Nobody believes that five minutes or ten minutes or twenty minutes later is "at the moment they are released." The ordinary meaning of the wording is clear, and from the standpoint of dog training and trials, it is certainly an improvement.

My interpretation, of what is written is that releasing pigeons or chukars or other game birds for dog training purposes or in tests or trials would be prohibited.

If that's the case, then releasing pigeons or chukars or other game birds for dog training, test, or trlals is already prohibited. Section 445.1 of the Criminal Code, which I quoted above, is already in force with the less precise wording, "when they are released."

[seadog]

Finally , the time of release is defined .

[Sudsee]

Yes what about the use of bird launchers for the purpose of training where your release the bird and in the case of a proper sit to flush or hold of point you shoot the bird as a reward for the dog.?