Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012

BryanL

The proposed new Bill looks to have been written by Anti's.
http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/animalhealthwelfare/ImportedRevisedstampeddraft18b0211doc.pdf

Gives "Officers" which can be appointed by the local council, who will have the right to enter private property without a warrant if they suspect the welfare of an animal is not up to scratch. This is fine unless you end up with groups apposed to all forms of hunting acting as officers?
It prohibits Tail docking and Dew claw removal except by a Vet.
Bans the use of Terriers in Hunting.
It is very vague in it's language

A person who has in his or her possession or under his or her control a
protected animal shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the animal is -
bred or kept, having regard to the species and the degree of
development, adaptation and domestication of the animal and
to its physiological and behavioural needs,

How are the behavioral needs of Pheasants in a release pen to be addressed?

ferrete

This is a load a **** it effectivly bans terrier work ferreting and lychee work etc it should not be allowed

kemen

so will we be terrier digging now?

fallowbuck

First grade **** what's the world coming to ffs. We won't be loud to look at a fox next , will hurt it's feeling. Anti freaks.

fallowbuck

We'll the rally is in Cork 7 June , All affected should try to attend

meathstevie

Folks, before you get red mist coming down; let's all have a look at page 30out of the 166 in the draft document where it says the following : Nothing in this section applies in relation to anything which occurs in the ordinary course of : (a) fishing (b) lawfully hunting an animal, unless the animal is released in an injured, mutilated or exhausted condition, or (c) coursing a hare, unless the hare is hunted or coursed in a space from which it does not have a reasonable chance of escape.

As far as I can read into this matter it will still be perfectly lawful to embark upon hunting activities involving the use of dogs, ferrets, flacons, hawks etc as long as they're properly looked after as in fed and watered, sufficiently rested and not subjected to unnecessary suffering. Let's say if you're using terriers to make foxes bolt; the moment the fox stands it's ground and refuses to bolt but fights the terrier should be removed from the situation as soon as possible so you can make sure it doesn't suffer any needless suffering. It can take a bit of time to for example dig out the terrier but as long as you work as fast as possible you should be fine. And building on this example; if your terrier has been in a scrap and has tired itself out and picked up a few scrapes it should not be allowed to continue to hunt until fully recovered.

Also the "authorised officer" bit is nothing new, councils appoint dog wardens as it stands today, the Dept. of Agriculture has all sorts of enforcement and inspection staff on it's books, the NPWS has had it's Wildlife Rangers for ages with limited policing powers including a power of arrest in certain cases and what An Gardai Siochana and Customs and Revenue do isn't exactly a big secret either.

Grizzly 45

Badly draughted.
I see they want to make any kind of American style rodeo with bronco busting,bull riding or cattle roping illegal as well in this bill.:rolleyes:

Laughable that it will be ilegal to film or partake in any illegal bloodsport,save for undercover documentary or investigative purposes.
You could just see our intrepid anti undercover reporter filming away in a very select group of pretty nasty people and them allowing it.Next film shot is of said anti being fed to a pack of rabid pitbulls from a proctologists view of things.

Sinister that any appointed offical may bring along any person they see fit to assist in their investigations!! So does that mean they can bring a rabid anti hunter along to inspect your gun dog or terriers??To advise them that the dogs are being kept below standard?
Or the child protection officers to asses wether your children have been "tramautised" by your hunting activites or whatever??
It is way too open to abuse that some busybody might bring in a biased bunch of other busybodies into your life to snoop around on things vaugely related to the first suspicion.

Grizzly 45

fallowbuck wrote: »

We'll the rally is in Cork 7 June , All affected should try to attend

Who is this "we" you speak of?????

meathstevie

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

....

Laughable that it will be ilegal to film or partake in any illegal bloodsport,save for undercover documentary or investigative purposes.
You could just see our intrepid anti undercover reporter filming away in a very select group of pretty nasty people and them allowing it.Next film shot is of said anti being fed to a pack of rabid pitbulls from a proctologists view of things.

Sinister that any appointed offical may bring along any person they see fit to assist in their investigations!! So does that mean they can bring a rabid anti hunter along to inspect your gun dog or terriers?....

Grizzly, it indeed is a bit unnecessary stating that it is illegal to partake in illegal activities..as for the filming bit: you know as much about evidence gathering as I do and how essential it is to bring successful prosecutions when the chances of other means of evidence gathering are virtually impossible because no participant or spectator is going to make a witness statement. As for the documentary bit, the legislation should state accredited journalists or people working with or for an accredited journalist (as in cameraman or electronics specialist making a concealed camera setup for a journalist etc etc).

As for the official being able to bring any person they see fit; I can only expect this to be there to allow expert witnesses to be brought to a scene without too much red tape. Let's say a dog warden to call a contracted vet without having to jump through too many hoops to get expert evidence and opinion in particular cases. But again as you said, probably poorly phrased.

BryanL

MeathStevie,

the first big change with this bill is that it gives animals rights. That's a big, big change. It basically the same bill that has gone through in Scotland and Northern Ireland all pushing an animal rights agenda.

An authourised officer can stop and search your car, your house without a warrant if they suspect you've breach an animals rights, again this is a big change in the law.

The RSPCA have risen to the level of a police force in the UK. I wouldn't like to see a similar situation in Ireland???

Yes hunting, coursing and fishing are excluded, but no mention of Shooting?????????
And with Stag hunting, Hare hunting extension we've seen how quickly any exemption can be amended?
The minister for Agriculture in response to questions in the Seand said
" only if there is undue cruelty such as the digging out of animals when they have gone to ground, which is unacceptable."

The Bill will allow for an open interpretation of what's acceptable????????? It's not strictly define in the act. How or by Whom will it be interpreted in years to come?

It's vagueness is it's strength if you oppose hunting, shooting and fishing. Are long range shots acceptable? Shooting Foxes in Spring? Allowing a Spaniel to work heavy cover etc. etc.

BryanL

meathstevie wrote: »

Folks, before you get red mist coming down; let's all have a look at page 30out of the 166 in the draft document (c) coursing a hare, unless the hare is hunted or coursed in a space from which it does not have a reasonable chance of escape.

What's reasonable?
Reasonable to John Fitznutter , or a hunting person?

Grizzly 45

meathstevie wrote: »

Grizzly, it indeed is a bit unnecessary stating that it is illegal to partake in illegal activities..as for the filming bit: you know as much about evidence gathering as I do and how essential it is to bring successful prosecutions when the chances of other means of evidence gathering are virtually impossible because no participant or spectator is going to make a witness statement.

True,however you then are also giving a quasi legal status to the so called Hunt monitors...Pain in the backsides who folow hunts around with their cameras hoping for somthing illegal to happen..They have caused enough trouble in the UK this lot.So much so that the Home office and Assoc of Police Cheifs issued a statement that the hunt monitors evidence is unwarrented and being dismissed as it is falling foul of the Regulatory Investigative Powers [RIP]Act 2001

As you can see from the ICABS site how much footage there is there and how unsupported it is by not one person willling and able to come forward and testify that it is genuine in a court of law,not to mind it is ancient as well.....That is mandatory for anyone who films somthing as evidence.The "dying Hare" film of the snared hare in Clonmel 2010 is a prize example of what I am on about.
Two "film students" who are in Sweden and wont come back to testify about this???:rolleyes: Yet they are still using this clip as a money and tear jerker..So do we really want to give these kind of people another rod to beat us that they can play as undercover film crew to propagate against us on a semi legal basis??

As for the documentary bit, the legislation should state accredited journalists or people working with or for an accredited journalist (as in cameraman or electronics specialist making a concealed camera setup for a journalist etc etc).

Hmm,well seeing that both John Fitzgerald ,and John Tierney are professing to be "journalists" and getting accreditation isnt the hardest thing either .After all, it doesnt have to be IRISH accreditation now does it??:pNot to mind there are plenty of anti journos out there who would glady put people like that down as assistants..So it is a spiderweb of protection.

As for the official being able to bring any person they see fit; I can only expect this to be there to allow expert witnesses to be brought to a scene without too much red tape. Let's say a dog warden to call a contracted vet without having to jump through too many hoops to get expert evidence and opinion in particular cases. But again as you said, probably poorly phrased.

Proably is a word that should NEVER be used in law or legislation!! We have too much proablys in the firearms laws ...why add anymore to the pile?It should,and must specify who an authorised person is.

Sparks

BryanL wrote: »

the first big change with this bill is that it gives animals rights.

Ah, hold on now. You're talking about legislation, so use the right words, no Act could give animals rights, you'd have to modify the Constitution to do that and that would require a referendum.

BryanL

Sparks wrote: »

Ah, hold on now. You're talking about legislation, so use the right words, no Act could give animals rights, you'd have to modify the Constitution to do that and that would require a referendum.

Yes it gives them the right to the "5 Freedoms" that animal rights organisations have been pushing for.

You don't need to modify the Constitution, you get a team or lawyers working on it and then run it past the D.P.P.

It doesn't say "an animal has a right to"
It says " It's owner must ensure"

Beautiful.;)

The Act is one written up by the RSPCA with changes made to use it in Ireland.
the RSPCA had this to say "The RSPCA is raising awareness of the act, which has been dubbed a bill of rights for pets"

"The RSPCA opposes performing animals in circuses and zoos and says that under the Act, further regulations dealing with issues such as circus animals may be introduced in the future"

It's basically the very same act as the
New Zealand Animal Welfare act 1999,
Scottish Animal welfare act 2006,
Animal Welfare Act 2006, England and Wales

Sparks

BryanL wrote: »

Yes it gives them the right to the "5 Freedoms" that animal rights organisations have been pushing for.
You don't need to modify the Constitution, you get a team or lawyers working on it and then run it past the D.P.P.

No, you can't do that like that.
Look, seriously, if you're going to oppose legislation, you have to learn how the legislative process works and you have to be exact in your terminology.
It's law. "erra, 'tis grand, ye know what I mean" does not cut it.
It just makes ICABS and their ilk look more competent and informed than us, and frankly, if someone's going to make us look bad that way, I'd almost prefer if they just went over and "helped" ICABS instead; we'd be better off that way

It doesn't say "an animal has a right to"
It says " It's owner must ensure"

In other words, it's not a right, it's a condition on owning an animal.
If it was a right to (say) be housed in a warm place, then you'd have to house every animal in a warm place. Every pet, every animal on the farm, every animal in the wild, and the state would have to pick up the tab. That's what a "right" implies, that's why the word is a big deal.

It's basically the very same act as the
New Zealand Animal Welfare act 1999,
Scottish Animal welfare act 2006,
Animal Welfare Act 2006, England and Wales

Not saying it's not stupid Bryan; I'm saying opposing it is too important to screw up!

kildare.17hmr

Anyone know if cats were mentioned in the bill and if so whats changed?

Birdnuts

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Anyone know if cata were mentioned in the bill and if so whats changed?

I've been reading through some of it over the last few days and haven't come across any specific reference yet - not to say I haven't missed anything since its rather hard going reading all the legal jargin in these things.

kildare.17hmr

If ya come accross anything let us know lad

Birdnuts

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

If ya come accross anything let us know lad

Will do:)

meathstevie

BryanL wrote: »

What's reasonable?
Reasonable to John Fitznutter , or a hunting person?

The term "reasonable" in any piece of legislation should be read as to be interpreted by the courts based on the facts of the case up for discussion.

Mike87

Anyone go to the Rally?

DavyDee

Pure crap, laws that look good to antis on paper but who exactly is going to police these laws when there arent even enough gardai to police far more serious matters? Has anyone here ever been approached about a dog license? Has anyone here ever tried ringing the dog warden? I have over a mongrel when the bitch was in heat and I was told he might be out in the next week or 2 of course when shed be out of heat again!

gripp

DavyDee i beleive there are going to be officers appointed,who will most likely be anti hunt,and will have more powers than are currently available to spca etc.