--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anglers could face cruelty charges
If Bill C-50 gets approved, catching a fish or baiting a hook may put you in hot water

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How would you like to be charged with cruelty to animals for catching and safely releasing a fish? For clubbing another fish for the dinner table? For shooting a Canada goose? Or even for putting a worm on a hook?

Crazy you say, or maybe columnist sensationalism. Well, believe it or not, it could happen if the latest version of Bill C-50 is passed.

Animal-cruelty legislation isn't new. It dates back decades in different forms and bills, but C-50 -- the latest version -- was only reintroduced for first reading on May 16. And while it has yet to be debated, if it passes as it's worded, it will open the door for the animal-rights community to push for precedent-setting prosecution of anglers, hunters, farmers or others.

Even the Senate believes the bill is full of problems -- ones that could affect anyone who uses animals like anglers, hunters, farmers and even researchers. In fact, a Senate committee concluded that even if anglers and hunters were licensed, Bill C-50 would not exclude them from possible prosecution for traditional practices under its present wording.

Initially, the Senate was successful in making some amendments to the bill, but the document is still rife with ambiguity. In short, the bill contains nothing that gives definitive protection for traditional users of natural resources, except for aboriginals. The latter have a constitutional right to fish and hunt. If you think that I am saying that non-aboriginals don't have a constitutional right to hunt and fish, you're correct and probably a little shocked to boot.

Under the bill's proposed wording, both domestic and wild animals will be taken out of the property section of the Criminal Code and now be seen more as "beings." The bill would also make killing an animal brutally or viciously illegal, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately.

The two words "brutally" and "viciously" are the problem because the government really doesn't define what the words actually mean. And while most people believe that they have a fair and moral understanding of the meaning of the words, many in the animal rights community -- like the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) -- brutal and vicious mean catch and release fishing, hunting, penning animals and the list goes on.

According to PETA, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" and they should all be treated equally because they are indeed equal according to the organization. But as radical as they are, they have deep pockets and, as a result, are effective.

"With an annual budget of over $24 million, PETA pushes its agenda through the power of the media and through endorsements from high-profile celebrities," said Mike Reader, executive director of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

"Their campaigns and emotional rhetoric unlock the pocketbooks of unsuspecting cat and dog lovers, unaware that these groups also claim that pet ownership is the moral equivalent of slavery."

Bill C-50 does call for an increase in fines and penalties for animal cruelty and everyone should back that part of the legislation. However, without the exclusion of legitimate animal-use activities such as hunting and fishing, among others, Bill C-50 will lead to legal nightmares for anglers and hunters as court doors will be open for PETA and other animal-rights fanatics to seek well-funded prosecution.

If you enjoy hunting and fishing, are a farmer or even just own a pet, you should be talking to your MP and making your feelings known.

bthompson@therecord.com