Canada's Animals need you

[EmilyB]

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

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

[Pan]

Originally Posted by EmilyB

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

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

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.

[G1GY]

Originally Posted by EmilyB

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

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

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.

[EmilyB]

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

Ottawa waffles on animal cruelty bill
Vote delayed on legislation that would give punishments more teeth
MATTHEW JAY, Canwest News Service
Published: 5 hours ago
The House of Commons moved to delay a vote on contentious new animal cruelty legislation yesterday after a week that saw two provincial governments make significant strides on the issue.
Bill S-203, a private member's bill that originated in the Senate, would increase jail time and fines for animal cruelty offenders, but avoids making changes that would broaden the scope of the law. A vote on the bill was deferred to Wednesday.
In the House, passing an amendment by the NDP led to a deferred vote on S-203. The NDP supports a separate private member's bill, C-373, which goes beyond S-203 and updates the language of the law enacted in 1892. Critics claim under the current law only one per cent of cases lead to conviction.
Paul Dewar, NDP MP for Ottawa Centre, said Canadians should not settle for half-measures when it comes to animal cruelty laws.
"This issue has been languishing since the 1800s. It puts Canada at the bottom of the list in terms of progress on animal welfare globally," Dewar said. "If we adopt
S-203, it says 'aRating 2 , you know, it's as good as we could get'."
Supporters of S-203, proposed by Liberal Senator John Bryden, countered that agreeing to stiffer penalties today doesn't mean the language of the law can't be addressed tomorrow.
"I hope that the House, as a whole, would agree that we need to have changes in animal cruelty legislation," said Liberal MP Paul Szabo. "This bill should in fact be the catalyst to get the government to propose (further) legislation."
Szabo said the process for a private member's bill doesn't provide enough time to properly debate a piece of extensive legislation like C-373 and called on the Conservative government to introduce a comprehensive animal cruelty bill. Five previous reform attempts on the current law have failed since 1999.
This week, B.C. and Ontario announced significant changes to their own animal cruelty laws.
B.C. made amendments Monday to its Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which will see first-time offenders receive up to six months in jail and a $5,000 fine, and six months and a $10,000 fine for a repeat offender. The amendments also provide a refined definition of an animal being distressed, and broader authority to enforce the law.
"We've put some real teeth behind these amendments and I think people are going to think twice before they start behaving inappropriately toward animals," said Pat Bell, B.C. minister of agriculture and lands, on Wednesday.
In Ontario, new inspection powers, a broader range of offences and increased penalties were included in a bill introduced Thursday. The bill proposes a maximum fine of $60,000, as well as potential lifetime bans on animal ownership.
"If passed, this legislation would offer the strongest animal protection in Canada," said Rick Bartolucci, Ontario minister of community safety and correctional services, Thursday.
Provincial animal cruelty laws come into play when incidents don't meet criteria to be pursued under the Criminal Code.

Report to moderator Logged