|
Post by Dan on Jul 29, 2007 11:42:48 GMT -5
Dan Andrews 820 Grandview Rd Fort Erie, ON L2A 4V7 905 994-7684 wildniagara.com Animal Cruelty Bill C-373 stinks I am extremely concerned when I see animals being used by so called animal sympathizers to forward their alternative agendas. Bill C-373 has a hidden anti hunting agenda. It contains wording that some activist stated they would use to prosecute hunters, the fur trade and the medical research industry. I don’t really believe these animal rights activists sincerely care about “Queen Waldorf” the abused Sheppard or the countless criminals who received a slap on the wrist for beating, fighting and neglecting their animals. If they did really care the would be supporting the Bill S-213. Hunters however are pushing just as hard on a bill that would equally punish people who abuse animals. Bill after bill has been killed or faded away because the anti hunting community , also known as the animal rights movement, has refused to allow some simple rewording that would protect our right to hunt but would still stiffen penalties for animal abuse. Legislation could have been passed years ago if it were not held up by these so called concerned activists. Why is it that even now with a strong bill (S-213) being introduced, the animal rights people choose to back another controversial bill? Here's why. If a Bill gets passed into law then they won’t be able to drag it through the media to forward their agenda any longer. Animals have gone unprotected at these peoples hands long enough! Lets pass bill S-213 and get on with prosecuting and punishing offenders before too many more animals suffer. For more info on an animal cruelty bill that overwhelming supports everyones interest, especially the animals, visit www.ofah.org/News/index.cfm?ID=77Stop raising money for the hidden agendas. Tell them to support Bill S-213 if they really care about animal welfare at all. Dan Andrews
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 1, 2007 13:44:50 GMT -5
Here is a response posted in the Niagara falls feedback section. www.niagarafallsreview.ca/webapp/feedback/feedbackcontent.asp?catmainname=Feedback&catname=Read+FeedbackName: Shelagh MacDonald Comment: Re: Bill C-373 has hidden anti-hunting agenda Letter writer Dan Andrews couldnt be more wrong and uninformed about proposed amendments to the animal cruelty sections of the Criminal Code. On top of that, he has a very cynical view of animal protection organizations. First of all, how dare he suggest that humane societies, SPCAs and other animal protection groups dont actually care about animals but are merely seeking media attention! And secondly, there is nothing progressive or strong about Bill S-213. It only increases penalties, leaving the offences unchanged. The current animal cruelty offences were written in 1892 and are full of loopholes that prevent certain types of animal abuse from being prosecuted. Thirdly, Mr Andrews makes the mistake of lumping all animal protection groups together. The CFHS is NOT an animal rights group. It is an animal welfare organization representing over 100 humane societies and SPCAs across the country. The CFHS has no hidden agenda; it does not oppose hunting, fishing, scientific research or raising animals for food. Mr. Andrews suggestion that Bill C-373 has a hidden anti-hunting agenda is absurd. He obviously is unaware that a virtually identical predecessor to Bill C-373, was passed repeatedly and unanimously in the House of Commons in 2003 but was held up by the Senate. That bill was supported by dozens of farming, trapping and research groups, as well as veterinarians, law enforcement agencies and the vast majority of Canadians. Bill C-373 would modernize our federal animal cruelty law and close the gaping loopholes, but would have NO impact on any currently lawful activities involving animals, such as farming, hunting, trapping and medial research. Bill C-373 would make it an offence to kill an animal without lawful excuse. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) is wrongly claiming that this offence would somehow make angling and hunting illegal. This is simply absurd. Numerous Supreme Court and provincial Appeal Court cases explain that lawful excuse is one that is lawful under the law of the land. This permits animals to be killed by anglers and hunters, just as it permits animals to be killed by farmers, trappers, medical researchers and humane societies. Mr. Andrews claimed that legislation could have been passed years ago if it were not held up by these so-called concerned activists. In fact, proposed legislation was held up by animal use industries during the early 2000s, until 2003 when a few amendments were made that satisfied the concerns of most of those industries. Unfortunately, a few of those animal use industries have now withdrawn their support for the very same wording (Bill C-373) that they had actively supported in 2003 and 2004. In 2003 and 2004 when more than 30 animal use industries collectively wrote to the Justice Minister asking him to pass Bill C-373s predecessor, the OFAH wrote to suggest that angling and hunting should be exempt from the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code. The only people who need an exemption are those who are cruel to animals. Unless they are being cruel to animals why do anglers and hunters feel they need an exemption? The CFHS has been a leader in fighting for effective, long-overdue changes to Canadas animal cruelty law for decades. Bill S-213 simply does not do the job. Even Senator Bryden, who tabled this bill, agrees that it is only half a loaf and does not fix all the problems with todays law. Lets kill Bill S-213 and do the right thing by passing Bill C-373. For more information, visit www.cfhs.ca. Shelagh MacDonald Program Director Canadian Federation of Humane Societies Ottawa, ON E-mail: shelaghm@cfhs.ca Date: 7/31/2007
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 1, 2007 20:23:22 GMT -5
Dear Miss Shelagh MacDonald,
I assure you I appreciate the Program Director of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies addressing my concerns. However you have made several mistakes and omissions I wish to point out.
First of all I did not lump all animal "welfare" and animal "rights" groups together. I have never gotten animal rescue and the Animal "rights" mixed up as they are quite different. Animal welfare organizations have only one agenda. To help animals in need. The same can't be said for the animal rights.
Secondly you state that the SPCA does not have an anti hunting agenda. I ask why the Lincoln County Humane Society removed one of its board members because he advertised some hunting dogs for sale. The long time member had to launch a law suit but exhausted his finances before seeing the suit through. Neither the OSPCA nor the CFHS helped correct this injustice.
I ask why the City of Niagara Falls made the unprecedented move of rebidding their animal control contract even after the Niagara falls humane society won the contract. The City received so many complaints that they asked for someone else to please submit a bid.
You totally omitted the reason hunting and research groups didn't approve of Bill C-373. The refusal to remove certain wording specifically "Cruel" is the only reason the bill is being rejected by some. Animal "Rights" groups have said they will argue that hunting is cruel making it a unlawful. Then she asks if I thought hunting and fishing was cruel verifying that it is indeed up to the individual and therefore it must be clarified in the bill.
Then Shelagh MacDonald stated that increasing penalties was not enough. Is this not the whole basis of their campaign, to bring suitable penalties to animal abusers or is their another agenda here? She calls for an end to a animal cruelty bill that has overwhelming support from a broad spectrum of communities and the Government has indicated they will support. Instead she supports another bill that is identical to ones that we have seen time and time again and won't make it through the senate.
Bill C-373 will not pass as is because people like Shelagh MacDonald, (Program Director of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies) will not allow simple amendments. Don't ever confuse animal welfare with the animal "rights". Don't ever let them tell you there's no hidden agenda. Always research a Bill before supporting it or signing a petition. If you have signed the CFHS petition, ask to have your name removed and support S-213. Lets put some realistic penalties in place without placing legal traditions in a position to be questioned.
Dan Andrews wildniagara.com
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 1, 2007 20:36:27 GMT -5
Does the Niagara Falls Humane Society sensationalize abuse cases to draw attention to their cause? What happened to Queen Waldorf the abused Shepherd is unarguably criminal but did the Humane Society jazz up the story? They claimed they found her by the waters edge with 2 dumbbells weighing down the dogs neck. This picture as others taken at the scene clearly shows the weights were tied to the dogs rope not wrapped around her neck. This is a fine example of how the humane society uses a case of abuse to further their cause. I hope the man who did this to "Queen Waldorf" does time in Jail but I would never claim the situation was worse in order to get people to sign a petition. Support Bill S-213 and make animal abusers pay a hefty price for their actions. Dan Andrews
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 13, 2007 19:21:20 GMT -5
Apparently Shelagh MacDonald thinks the following charities and organizations are ignorant and are misled into supporting an archaic bill that won't help stop animal abuse. Does she really think that the SPCA is the only organization that cares about animal welfare or is she trying to hide her alternative agenda?
Alberta Fish & Game Association British Columbia Wildlife Federation Canadian Federation of Biological Societies Canadians for Medical Progress Canadian Psychological Association Canadian Society for Biochemistry, Molecular and Cellular Biology Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association Delta Waterfowl Foundation Manitoba Wildlife Federation Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Quebec Wildlife Federation New Brunswick Wildlife Federation Northwest Territories Wildlife Federation Prince Edward Island Wildlife Federation Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation Yukon Fish & Game Association Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association Ontario Fur Managers Federation National Wild Turkey Federation Ruffed Grouse Society Canadian Outdoor Heritage Alliance
I trust these groups much farther than the scarred reputation of the SPCA.
Dan Andrews
|
|
|
Post by knight1ranger on Aug 13, 2007 21:14:20 GMT -5
Excellent letters Dan. It's disgusting how some people will alter the truth for their own means. While many of the sheeple out there may be influenced by her spew, with the many groups out there including yours, the truth will get out there. When the truth is pushed forward enough, it cuts through all the alterations and lies.
Dan Burke
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 15, 2007 6:22:08 GMT -5
One of the things Shelagh MacDonald accuses me of is lumping all animal groups together. This would be a horrible mistake. Watch the 5 1/2 minute video below to see what I mean. Now the local humane societies do adopt out animals. I know this because my Father and I both adopted formerly abused dogs. My Fathers was highly publicized. Had they known I intended to use mine for hunting, they likely would have rejected myself as a care taker for this dog. A great rabbit dog if I've ever seen one. However it is quite apparent we have an anti hunting crowd in the executive of some of our local humane societies. Can this escalate to something bigger like in the video above. Not if we stand up and point them out now for what they really are . Don't allow Shelagh MacDonald's letter go unanswered to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public any longer! 30 days is too long to wait for a response. People are signing a petition because they think it's the best way to help abused pets. The truth is there's already a Bill the Government intends to support that will achieve this. So why is the Lady calling to scrap it?
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 21, 2007 10:35:21 GMT -5
Well even more letters have poured through the St Catharines Standard casting a shadow on Hunters. There were 2 things my letter to the editor intended to do. 1: Raise awareness that there was indeed more than one animal cruelty bill to support. 2: Let people know that one bill is supported by all interested parties except the animal rights people and that the other was once again controversial. Another thing the animal rights crowd leaves out. The wording in Bill C-373 can allow them to challenge other industries! Is animal testing cruel or brutal? Not if it's their kids with a rare type of cancer I assure you. Many of these Hippocrates have donated to the Cancer Foundation. Thank you for the mice and rats. If it were up to the animal right org's the children at sick kids hospital would be sent home because finding a cure means testing animals to death. Affordable food would be a thing of the past. Sorry Seniors but Farmers kill nuisance animals and cage livestock. These anti hunting people just can't seem to separate the hunting issue with the animal cruelty issue. There are already laws in place to protect wildlife. Stiff fines and the loss of your vehicles and hunting and fishing investments (rods and guns etc.) are a serious deterrent. Most anglers and hunters would support even stiffer fines for infractions. The anti hunting community knows dam well what the wording issues are in Bill C-373. They blatantly ignore this in their replies to my letter and not one sportsman has pointed this out. The words Cruel and "Brutal" specifically have a broad meaning left to be determined and challenged by the individual. While everyone of these letter writers denies an anti hunting agenda exists in the bill, everyone of them point out how unethical hunting really is. Is it not obvious that these people are on the ropes right now. It's like they never expected anyone to point out that charities with a good name like the SPCA might not be totally forthcoming with their agenda. Since my letter I have been called a murderer and have been told I have no business acting as though I have compassion for animals. I still to this day have never harvested one animal but because I pointed out the controversy, my Son, Father and myself are cruel killers who shouldn't own animals. Both my Father and myself fell for sob stories and are now proud parents of formerly abused dogs. My Father's dog (a pit bull) was hated by the Government and a sizable portion of society yet he the hunter took the dog in and loves it. The SPCA has earned many enemies in the hunting community. No matter how concerned a hunter is, free of criminal charges and capable of caring for an animal, he is not welcome as a member of the SPCA! If you work at the slaughter house helping to provide food to these fanatics, don't even bother inquiring about membership or adopting a pet from the SPCA. And now for some more examples of the kind of things hunters are called for standing up for the constitution!
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 21, 2007 10:39:11 GMT -5
Animals are better protected by proposed Bill C-373 For: www.stcatharinesstandard.ca- Thursday, August 16, 2007 @ 01:00 Re: There's a better option for ending cruelty to animals, The Standard, Aug. 1. Dan andrews is concerned that bill C-373, "has a hidden anti-hunting agenda" as opposed to Senate bill S-213. Bill C-373 would make it an offence to kill any animal without lawful excuse. Hunting, fishing, trapping, farming and scientific research are all lawful activities. Both bills increase penalties to a jail term of up to five years and unlimited fines for indictable offences. Both also allow bans on keeping an animal and may require payment of restitution. Bill S-213 leaves the term "wilful neglect" in animal cruelty laws, requiring motive to be proven. For example, a Saskatchewan farmer who starved 30 sheep despite warnings was found not guilty because the court couldn't prove he intended them to starve. Bill C-373 uses the term "negligent," defined as "departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use." Bill C-373 makes it an offence to kill an animal without a lawful excuse, including stray or wild animals. Bill S-213 doesn't. Bill C-373 makes it an offence to kill an animal with brutal or vicious intent, even if the animal dies immediately.
Bill S-213 does not. Bill C-373 protects all vertebrates, owned or unowned. S-213 provides different levels of protection for different animals. For example, cattle are in a class of their own and wild or stray animals are unprotected for some offences. Bill C-373 prohibits training animals to fight other animals and betting on such fights. S-213 doesn't. With Bill S-213, crimes against animals are considered property offences. C-373 puts animal cruelty into a new section of the Criminal Code, warranting protection because they are feeling, sentient beings. It's ironic that hunters, who kill animals for sport, also claim to care about the suffering and welfare of animals.Cath Hurwood Gale Crescent St. Catharines
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 21, 2007 10:42:14 GMT -5
....and from the hunting community:...
|
|