Canada's Animals need you
 

CANADIANS FOR EFFECTIVE ANIMAL CRUELTY LEGISLATION

Pan Canadian rallies are now confirmed Sunday March 30th, 1:00 PM in 5 cities: Montreal, Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa!

We have one week to pull off a miracle. Our mission is the communicate and educate why politicians need to SAY NO to Conservative Bill S-203. Canadians want strong animal protection legislation and S-203 is not it. Our first task is to ensure Canadian politicians and the Canadian public understand S-203 needs to be defeated BEFORE we can hope to bring in C-373 or any iteration thereof.S-203 is weak, flawed and ineffective: what good are increased penalties for animal abuse if SPCAs can't successfully prosecute animal abuse under the Criminal Code? According to SPCAs, less than 1% of animal abuse complaints lead to cruelty convictions and S-203 does nothing to address the loopholes and weaknesses in the Criminal Code that make it an ineffective tool for prosecuting animal crimes. We are therefore asking politicians to vote down S-203 and commit to bringing in effective and meaningful legislation. (thank you again WSPA). There is no point in banging our drums about C-373 until S-203 is defeated.

http://www.e-activist.com/ea-campaign/clientcampaign.do?ea.client.id=23&ea.campaign.id=2 56

When you send this email, you will receive a message with the letter that you can sign and mail as well.

Better still, CALL your MP - they don't understand what the big deal is - everyone thinks S-203 is better than nothing. Again, if this goes through, animals will be no better off than they are today, an it'll take another twenty years for changes to it. This is no time to get comfortable on the subject - we must raise attention to the seriousness of the timing on this issue. March 31st, everyone's back In-House, and S-203 is scheduled for fast tracking! come one, come all, for the animals.

Deb

OK you've sent out a form letter about something I'm sort of interested in. I'm too lazy to research the subject. How about you explain to me what this bill does to further animal welfare causes. How many extra employees the government will be able to employ to put it into effect. How many tax dollars it will soak up? Why a lobby group based outside Canada is being allowed to have input into our legislative system? How vague is the language in the bill? Does it allow charges to be laid against farmers with a sick chicken or cow? Does it consider altering the animals as cruelty (dehorning)? Does a coral dying in a tank due to neglect mean charges can be laid? Please provide some more info if you want me to call my MP. I'm a typical Canadian too lazy to research, I like to just jump on the soap box.

Thanks

You can find out more about the bills here, there are several good links.

http://www.calgaryhumane.ca/

Actually, this is a more direct link to the info on the two bills:

http://cfhs.ca/law/differences_betwe...e_legislation/

Thanks for the links EmilyB

Canadian Federation of Humane Societies wants to ban "ALL" exotic species imported into Canada. That's just a start. Better start getting rid of your tanks and animals now. I don't think I'll be calling to lend support to your group.

I've been doing more reading and I still can't support your group. They are trying to equate animals to humans in one section. I'm sorry I don't agree. Animals are not humans and they never will be.

Link please ?

Hillbilly, this isn't about supporting a group, this is about a law that allows people to get away with dragging dogs behind their car. It certainly isn't only supported by this one group of people.

Side note here...Ever read Peter Singer?

http://cfhs.ca/info/companion_animals/
Position statement
CFHS is opposed to the trade or keeping of wild or exotic animals as pets.

Definitions
A wild or exotic animal is any animal, native or non-native to Canada, that has not been subject to domestication through many generations of selective and controlled breeding and thereby adapted to living in close association with humans.

According to the documents on the website it's already illegal to drag dogs behind a car.
Maybe the authorities should be more diligent with their investigations and they'd win more. Passing rules just for the sake of having more of the same rules makes little sense to me.

That's the whole point, they are NOT the same rules. Please view the PDF file "Animal Cruelty Amendments at a Glance" at the link I provided which outlines this.

Peter Singer is WAAAAAYYY over my head I'm afraid.

I just wanted to make people aware of the bill. What they do beyond that is none of my concern.

Took a quick look at Singer. Needs a much longer look on a rainy day. I saw some things I agree with and some I disagree with. All that I read seems to be food for thought and discussion.

Thanks for bringing that up Ol' Nobodaddy.

I've been involved in some very lively discussions centering on Peter Singer. Met him once...interesting chap.

From the quick scan of his FAQ page I can't imagine a discussion about Peter Singer being anything but lively. I've done a bit more reading since you suggested him he is a very interesting fellow. Might not be able to wait for a rainy day.

Wow, I just noticed OlNobo that you are from Didsbury...:puppydog:

It must have been a very sad time for your town. :cry:

Yes there were quite a few upset people in the area..I moved to Olds a little while ago. Back in with family to save for School.

Hi Deb, I love pets as much as many others do. Perhaps not as passionatly as you do, but probably allot more than many and would put myself at risk to prevent any harm from coming to my dog who is a loyal family member. I did have a couple of neighbours chase my dog home when she accidentaly got out.(1 weilding a shovel and the other weilding a rake.) After appologising over and over to my neighbours and trying to reassure them that this wouldn't happen again, one man felt the need to keep on screaming(In front of my now shaken children.) that he was going to kill my dog. I had no choice but to kick him in the nutsack and grab his rake which I used to chase the other fella off of my property. The police wher called and after a short investigation it was determined that I was well within my rights to use the force I did to protect my property. (In the eyes of the law my family friend is property and nothing more.) This was three years ago and my broken nutted neighbour now stops by to chat, bring treats, hug and get free love from my dog.(The other neighbour avoids me like I'm the heavy chick he once dated.)

I am very passionate about the well being of my furry family member and am very sure that she returns that same passion to the rest of the family 10 fold.

Here's my problem with the whole Didsbury gong show and the people that showed up to voice their feelings. When this subject comes up, I still see the woman standing in front of the accused's car and holding a puppy up and screaming something to the effect of "I dare you to hurt this puppy" among other things. She was being cheered on by a large contingent of other "peacefull" demonstrators many of whom travelled great distances to be there and look like complete retards for the media circus. The woman had to be moved because she just kept standing in the roadway in front of a vehicle holding a puppy out in front of her and spewing out her nonsensical and somewhat hypocritical rant. This story made headlines for quite sometime untill people like myself would just go to the next channel when it was on the news yet again.

After seeing the press coverage that was given to this whole incident I am allway's saddened to see how little coverage is given when a person is abused, beaten or even killed and you very rarely see domonstrators outside the courthouse showing the kind of emotion that you see in animal abuse cases. I do realise that the kind of bottom feeders that start out abusing and killing animals eventualy work their way up to people. (This is well a documented fact.)

I just don't get it. If you let your dog roam free, it'll be picked up and you'll pay a fine that helps you to realise that this is not acceptable. If you let your children roam the streets, they'll end up in trouble and it'll be blamed on movies or video games. Poor parenting may never be mentioned.

If you beat a dog, you'll make headlines. If you kick your neighbour in the nuts and try to beat the other with a rake, it won't be noteable.

If I don't feed my children and their health becomes lacking because of it, it'll take longer to be dealt with than what it would take if it was found that I wasn't feeding my dog.

It's a great bill for animal rights, but you may find that's not very high on the list of priorities for many.

Just my 2 cents.

...but since I posted the original thread, I'll update.

Report to moderator http://www.torontogsdrescue.org/Foru.../images/ip.gif Logged

Is this the same bill as they were talking about that will make it a crime for us to fish? :neutral:

At the risk of offending some people my own opinion is that if so, I just can't support it. I am not for animal cruelty by any means. I love my animals and of course I would not stand for them being abused, but it seems like the activists take it too far.

If it keeps heading that way soon we could go to jail if a fish dies in our tanks...we could be charged for using feeder fish or other live foods....we won't be able to go fishing...where does it end? There needs to be a happy medium somewhere and I don't think this is going to help. Not to sound like a jerk, but these days it seems like animals have more rights than people. It is our job to take care of them, of course....does that mean they need more rights than our own sons and daughters? I don't think so.

Here is something posted on Alberta Aquatica (ty williewonka)

I did spend some time reading up on this and the people behind it and do not support this bill at all.:cry:

Lawful excuse being farming, fishing, etc. as outlined in the links I posted, where does it say in this bill what you are talking about here ? Just curious ?

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...Mode=1&File=30