For those who have not yet seen the story (Hope you’ve eaten lunch already):
Wildlife group takes aim at coyote contest
By SCOTT TAYLOR, Ottawa Sun
Last Updated: January 12, 2011 9:24am
OTTAWA – – A contest to kill coyotes might seem like fun to some, but a wily lawyer and three organizations are declaring open season on anyone who goes through with it.
The Ottawa-Carleton Wildlife Centre (OCWC), Canadian chapter of Born Free USA, and Animal Alliance of Canada recite chapter and verse a section of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, which states: ” … it is an offence to hunt for gain or to induce another person to hunt for gain.”
Offering prizes in upcoming contests Ñ including a first prize of a Mossberg 535 shotgun Ñ is illegal, they say, and they have a lawyer loaded for bear on the payroll.
“There is a clear admission on the part of the mInistry of natural resources that these coyote killing contests are illegal,” said OCWC president Donna Debreuil.
Animal Alliance director Liz White said the cold shoulder forced the organization to bring a hired gun of its own on board.
Lawyer Peter Copeland wrote to Natural Resources Minister Linda Jeffrey recommending the contests, and not the coyotes, be killed.
This is the second year the Osgoode Township Fish, Game and Conservation Club has held the contest. A shotgun was awarded after a draw last year as well. Contestants’ names were entered in a draw every time they came through the door of The Old Co-Op in North Gower with a coyote carcass. The ministry has deemed the contest legal.
jeff i posted this last week on your other blog topic ….. it is going to be intresting
Ontario government can break its own laws – Winter 2011
In October 2010, Peaceful Parks discovered the Legislation Act.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut … e.htm#BK83
It outlines the proper procedure and requirements when writing new legislation. It came into force in 2006 under the McGuinty government and was last amended in 2009.
Hidden deep within its pages in section 71, is a short clause entitled “Crown not bound, exception”.
It reads as follows:
“71. No Act or regulation binds Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty’s rights or prerogatives unless it expressly states an intention to do so. 2006, c. 21, Sched. F, s. 71.”
At first reading, the meaning of the clause was difficult to comprehend. It seemed impossible that a government would exempt itself, and all federal agencies, from its own laws. But that is exactly the purpose of section 71.
We made a simple enquiry to Minister of Natural Resources Linda Jeffery asking whether the minister had given authorization to the Hamilton Port Authority to destroy Double-crested Cormorant eggs and nests in Hamilton Harbour.
It is illegal under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act – section 7. (1) to (3) – to destroy nests and eggs of a wild bird, including cormorants, without prior ministerial authorization.
Minister Jeffery confirmed that she issued no such authorization but provided no explanation. Upon further questioning, the minister’s office quoted section 71 of the Legislation Act as the rationale for issuing no authorization to the Hamilton Port Authority.
We attempted to confirm our interpretation of section 71 of the ‘Act” with the minister’s office but they provided no comment.
Section 71 was applied to override the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. It is unknown how section 71 of the Legislation Act is applied in other areas of the law or civil society.
Coyote Killing Contests
Last winter several sport hunting outfitters organized coyote killing contests across Ontario. These hunting contests were defacto coyote bounties and are illegal under Ontario’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.
Section 11 (1) of the Act reads:
11. (1) Except with the authorization of the Minister, a person shall not,
(a) hunt for hire, gain or the expectation of gain;
(b) hire, employ or induce another person to hunt for gain;
(c) trap for hire, gain or the expectation of gain;
(d) hire, employ or induce another person to trap for gain; or
(e) pay or accept a bounty.
Despite the public rhetoric by the McGuinty government defending coyotes and standing firm against a formal coyote bounty, it quietly approved coyote killing contests by choosing not to enforce section 11(1) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. No charges were laid against organizers even though the killing contests were well advertised.
Report this comment
well is it illegal or is it not, we should endeavour to get the MNR’s opinion
I believe they have the last word because they would be the ones to lay a charge….no?
that is the problem with the fish and game act .. it is all up to interpretation of the officer, that is where the mnr has a big problem . i think the coyote problem need to be resolved and if have a compatition then so be it, there is lots of others that can be hit as well there are lots of big buck compatitions and there is even one bigger held by a group of people as they own there own mag that has a compatiion will these people go after them as well . the mnr laws leave a lot to be desired mabey this will make them re do there laws and make them black and white
Why do these animal rights people have to constantly get involved in things like this? Don’t they have better things to do, like watch paint dry? And now there is a lawyer involved to scare everyone. He’s probably just in it for the money like most other lawyers out there.
@sure-shot dave, no they do not have anything better to do because this is a business to these folks. they need exposure so that they can continue to generate money to keep the salaries coming in. they find topics like this and make a big splash and voila its all over the press and then it generates more zombie followers to fork over there hard earned money. they can afford expensive lawer!
The question should be why do we need a contest in order to help get rid of a problem.Your small game hunting or simply target shooting and you see a yote.Knock it down and keep it to yourself. We seem to love bringing attention to ourselves in order to justify what we believe. Just knock em down,end of story. People and organizations like Donna Debreuil are only around because of public donations and the more they can sensationalize an event and bring undue attention the more money they get. And where would they be without the media to blow it up again for $$$$$. I once called the newspapers up to try and bring some attention to the destruction of large tracts of bush and wetlands for no other reason than they had to do it before impending legislation that would have made it allot harder. Was the media interested. No-because it would not have got the $$$ return on there time. Was the OCWC there to worry about the deer or other wildlife that were being displaced. Again “No” so we have to take the matter into our own hands and as long as we do it legally I say Lock,Load, and knock them down.
Paul, you mention Donna Debreuil and public donations which fund these groups…the sad reality is, they have far more wealthy contributors than we conservationists do.
Somehow these groups garner public opinion thru appealing to the public’s ’emotional side’…it is somewhat like the stereotypical small kid in school who’s always spoiling for a fight. Its hard to lose when you’re small…if you fight the big kid and win, you are some sort of hero..and if you lose against them it comes off somehow looking like the big kid was picking on the little kid.
These groups appeal to people’s emotional side, not logical side, and then if they are put in their place by us Conservationists – they try to use the cruelty of our hunting practises against us.
It is a smart tactic, I suppose..for those who aren’t wise enough to realise it…
Outdoorsguy
P.S. And as far as that ‘lawyer’ is concerned, my guess is he was already one of them to begin with!
QUOTE CHESSY: “We attempted to confirm our interpretation of section 71 of the ‘Act” with the minister’s office but they provided no comment.” END QUOTE
Who you refering to when you say “we” Chessy. You almost sound like you’re a member of PETA yourself. As for the Cormorant issue it’s worse than the coyote issue.
As for contests and bounties on coyotes. I’m not in favor of them especially if they are county specific. There’s no way to Police them. I could bring all my coyotes to the check point and reep the benefit.
Having sai d that, I’m not sure what the solution is
it is a cut and paste from a news letter
Congratulations to the The Old Co-Op in North Gower for once again bringing the overpopulation of coyotes to the public’s attention. Whether or not this contest goes ahead, they have already achieved a significant goal.
As for the legal battle that is being drummed-up, it is my opinion that it will never make it to court. It seems like an empty threat. This lawsuit does not carry very much weight. There is no public endangerment, in fact, it is for public safety. If the MNR is not willing to get involved and request the cancelation of the contest, or to press charges, there does not seem to be much the lawsuit can accomplish. They will soon realize that the MNR does bend it’s own rules from time to time (or looks the other way), in the interest of public safety and to limit the legal procedings and costs associated with an outright MNR sponsored coyote cull. The precedant was set the year before, with public knowledge and media coverage and no action taken by the MNR. You can’t pick a fight if there’s no one to fight with. Stick to your guns Old Co-op!
GPG, my feeling is that the OCWC is really more interested in the ‘exposure’ of said lawsuit, as opposed to the actual outcome. As Paul pointed out, if the suit truly was filed in the best interests of God’s creatures, where were the OCWC when all the Bambi’s started getting killed and displaced by coyotes?
No, my guess is the Lawyer himself a member of the same group..perhaps even took on the case pro bono just to be part of it
Their goal, in my opinion, is not necessarily to win..but to somehow expose the cruelty of the conservation-minded folks who really do care about the affects of a burgeoning coyote population.
Outdoorsguy
Are they aware that the hunters involved are just hunting, they are trading their pelts they acquired legally for the ticket. They are not killing animals for money.
its against the law robert to sell barter or trade any animal
trappers do it all the time
and it could be set up that they give them to a trapper
and his thanks is a free tickey
and dogs and cats are sold every day, so are cows but I guess you mean wild game
what about fishing derbies when you you come to think of it
. i know most are catch and release but???
So I guess it’s against the law then for the MNR to be placing a bounty out on specific animal then?
hmmmm sorta contradicting their own Rules & Reg’s ha?.
You know, if these Animal Rights groups were really smart they’d get the CRTC involved…yeah, that’s it….all they would require then is one complaint against a hunter for using a derogatory term for deer or moose.
Ex: “Every year I hunt those damn Bullwinkles, I get skunked!”
You see, I should have said ‘moose’ instead of Bullwinkle….
That strategy worked great to have Dire Straits “Money for Nothing” taken off the air!
Outdoorsguy
faggot moose 🙂
I guess I shouldn’t have said that LOL
Furs & Feathers, etc.
Good stuff for Fly-Tying. Enables to catch (& release) lots of fish. OUPS! Better not pour fuel on the fire.
Always found it very difficult to catch & release big & small game when hunting.
See nothing wasted, except bad breath from PETA.
lol there are alot worse out there being played… look at the N word the rappers use and voilence against police officers in the songs…. if that is not hatred then i must love peta .. the whole world is going to hell.. and i see it every day with lazy ignorant useless people at school… if the school i am attending is anything like the rest of them then our country is . F—–
Chessy, apparently the CRTC wont ban foul words in Hip Hop/Rap until someone complains…as far as I know, we’ve be complaining about that so-called music for years!
Outdoorsguy