Interference with hunting, trapping fishing or sport shooting - proposed amendment to Criminal Code

[rf2]

You have got some good points. He probably introduced it to drum up political support from anglers and hunters for the upcoming election.

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.

[skypilot]

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.

[onelessarrow]

Is the sport shooter new to the interference charge or has it always been included?
Got to do something about the haters.

[welsh]

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?

[MikePal]

. But is that actually happening anywhere?

Does it have to happen first ? ...shouldn't good laws be proactive

[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.

[Snowwalker]

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.

[onelessarrow]

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.

[trimmer21]

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.

[bassboy19]

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.

I agree that in a broader sense, many of these acts are not criminal.

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.