From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V7 #157 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, May 18 2004 Volume 07 : Number 157 In this issue: Environmental groups demand ban on B.C. grizzly hunting trophies Aboriginal hunter's treaty rights upheld in elk hunting case Column: Research is flawed, suspect and thin FW: RELEASE - Conservatives Respond to Liberal Attack Site Supreme Court of Canada upholds spending curbs on lobby groups Supreme Court upholds election spending law Western Standard: Criminalizing fishing tackle is a 'looney' idea Re: Supreme Court of Canada upholds spending curbs on lobby groups Re: Gun Registry Poll RE: Supreme Court of Canada upholds spending curbs on lobby groups Re: Supreme Court of Canada upholds spending curbs on lobby groups ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:58:57 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Environmental groups demand ban on B.C. grizzly hunting trophies PUBLICATION: Times Colonist (Victoria) DATE: 2004.05.18 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: A4 BYLINE: Judith Lavoie SOURCE: Times Colonist - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Environmental groups demand ban on B.C. grizzly hunting trophies - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- International environmental groups are calling on the Canadian and U.S. governments to ban the export and import of grizzly bear hunting trophies from B.C. The provincial government is refusing to implement recommendations made by its science panel, said Wendy Elliott, bear campaigner with the Environmental Investigation Agency, in an interview from London. Representatives from the EIA and the B.C.-based Raincoast Conservation Society met with Water, Land and Air Protection Minister Bill Barisoff this month, and Elliott said it was clear that he was not willing to implement panel recommendations such as setting up a network of no-hunting grizzly bear sanctuaries and curtailing human access into grizzly habitat. "He couldn't give us any guarantee that anything will be done," she said. The European Union has already suspended imports of grizzly hunting trophies and the U.S. should do the same, Elliott said. Under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, bear parts can be exported only if the federal government can produce adequate scientific evidence that hunting is not causing a decline of the species. "In the next couple of weeks, we will be sending a formal petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Canadian federal government to ban the import and export of grizzly bear parts," Elliott said. As U.S. hunters take most of the hunted bears in B.C., a ban could make a real difference, she said. If someone spends $10,000 on a licence to hunt a grizzly and then can't take the trophy home it would put a crimp in the business, she said. Chris Genovali of the Raincoast Conservation Society said the government spent $250,000 on the grizzly bear study and is now ignoring the recommendations. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:59:17 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Aboriginal hunter's treaty rights upheld in elk hunting case DATE: 2004.05.17 CATEGORY: Quebec-Ontario regional general news PUBLICATION: cpw - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aboriginal hunter's treaty rights upheld in elk hunting case - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUDBURY, Ont. (CP) _ A judge has rejected the Ontario government's appeal of an aboriginal hunter's acquittal on an illegal hunting charge. A justice of the peace ruled correctly last spring in acquitting Francis Ozawagosh of illegally hunting elk, Ontario Court Justice William Fitzgerald said Monday. Ozawagosh, a member of the Whitefish Lake First Nation, was charged by the Ministry of Natural Resources after he shot an elk on the reserve several years ago. There is a ban on elk hunting to protect the fledgling area population. When he was charged, Ozawagosh said he had mistakenly shot the elk, believing it was a moose. At a trial in April 2003, Ozawagosh's lawyer Paul Williams successfully argued his client has treaty rights, as an aboriginal, to hunt to provide for his family. The same argument was made Monday by Williams. Williams also cited Indian Act provisions stating that ``Indian hunting rights when protected by treaty cannot be encroached on by provincial game laws.'' Crown prosecutor Brian Wilkie argued the province is exercising its rights and responsibilities by protecting an endangered elk herd. In fact, Wilkie told the judge, aboriginal leaders from Ozawagosh's own community supported the hunting ban. Williams agreed that aboriginal people support restrictions on hunting elk. However, ``we disagree (with) prosecuting an individual who shot an elk by mistake,'' he added. ``I would hope that what this does is create a willingness in the MNR to sit down with the chiefs and talk about working together on elk protection, because it's necessary,'' Williams said outside the courtroom following Monday's ruling. (Sudbury Star) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:59:54 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Column: Research is flawed, suspect and thin PUBLICATION: The Leader-Post (Regina) DATE: 2004.05.12 EDITION: Final SECTION: Sports PAGE: C5 COLUMN: Outdoor Life BYLINE: Michael Snook SOURCE: The Leader-Post - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Research is flawed, suspect and thin - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For generations anglers have used lead sinkers and jigs. But the federal government has plans to put an end to that. Environment Minister David Anderson has indicated that in the near future, legislation will be introduced to ban the importing, manufacturing and sale of these traditional products. It does not include, as some rumours have it, the requirement that anglers would have to dispose of all the lead tackle they currently own. That's not on. We've known for years that lead is not good for us -- if it gets into our bodies it causes a particularly nasty form of heavy metal poisoning. The major reason given for the ban is not risk to humans, but to loons. The position of the government is that sinkers and jigs that anglers lose each year are ingested by loons, and they die of lead poisoning. And, in fact, a half dozen or so of these wonderful birds have been confirmed as perishing from lead poisoning across Canada in the recent past. For more detailed information on this research you can visit this Web site (www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/) and follow the bouncing ball. It may be under review, since my last attempt to check it failed, but give it a try. The problems with the information used as a basis for banning lead sinkers and jigs are significant. First, the numbers are very, very small. Second, the government's own research indicates that the loon population has been stable or increasing throughout most of Canada for a number of years. In addition, other research indicates that the most critical issue for loon survival (or that of most wild species for that matter) is habitat loss or disturbance by human activity. No new legislation is planned to deal with that problem. Federal officials state that anglers dump 500 metric tons of lead per year into our waterways in the form of lost lures. The basis for this statement is apparently the quantity of jigs and sinkers that we anglers purchase every year, and assumes that all of those purchases are to replace lost tackle. Hmmmm. Don't know about you, but I lost maybe eight or 10 jigs last year to snags and broken line. I bought way more than that, not to replace lost tackle, but to add new colours and styles and sizes of jigs to my tackle box. I have hundreds of jigs in my growing collection, some of which I have fished with for more than a decade, and never lost. The assumption that any tackle we do lose will inevitably end up in the craw of a loon, or other waterfowl, is also suspect. I can't imagine a loon ingesting a quarter ounce jig with a three-centimetre hook attached, and if it did, the hook would do it in long before lead poisoning ever became an issue. How much more unlikely is it that any bird would ingest a lead downrigger ball the size of a lemon? A small split shot perhaps. The research is flawed, suspect, and thin. In addition, the federal environment minister had promised the angling community that consultations would be held about any legislation regarding the banning of lead fishing tackle. Instead, it appears that the decision to go ahead with the legislation has been made, and any consultations will involve only its manner of application. In spite of all this, I'm not a big fan of lead. It is nasty stuff, in forms not usually associated with angling. Lead dust can be inhaled or ingested, so can lead vapour caused by melting the metal at high temperatures. Either can kill you. Neither is associated with the manufacturing or use of lead fishing tackle. But still, a less harmful alternative would be worth looking at, and there are some alternatives out there. The most likely is bismuth, a material that is used in the common patent medicine for upset tummies -- Pepto Bismol. It's pretty harmless stuff, and about 70 per cent of the weight of lead. Problem is, no one is making it available in commercial quantities sufficient to replace the widespread demand for lead sinkers -- at least not yet. This is a case of legislators and bureaucrats rushing to make a change that is difficult to justify, for reasons not clear, without a plan for any orderly transition from the present circumstances to a new way of doing things. And all of this without real consultation with those who know most about the problem -- anglers, their organizations, and the companies that make the fishing tackle we use. It's a sobering indication of how little influence those of us who love the outdoors have on those who claim to manage it on our behalf. If you want to change that, let your member of parliament know how you feel. (Outdoor Life appears Wednesdays; Michael Snook can be reached at sagecommunications@sasktel.net) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:01:04 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: FW: RELEASE - Conservatives Respond to Liberal Attack Site - -----Original Message----- From: Conservative Party / Parti Conservateur [mailto:mediainbox@conservative.ca] Sent: May 18, 2004 11:13 AM Subject: RELEASE - Conservatives Respond to Liberal Attack Site FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 18, 2004 Conservatives Respond to Liberal Attack Site OTTAWA - The Conservative Party of Canada today responded to Paul Martin's attack ads and website that attempt to smear Opposition Leader Stephen Harper. We're not surprised by the tactic, because Paul Martin's advisors made it clear that the Liberal election strategy would be to "demonize" Stephen Harper. Paul Martin has obviously given up trying to earn Canadians' votes. Instead, he's trying to scare them with personal attacks and innuendo. Paul Martin's decision to go down the road of negative campaigning is a sad commentary on him and on the state of the once-proud Liberal Party. Paul Martin can't seem to find anything to run for, so he is desperately trying to find something to run against. It has given us a greater appreciation for what Jean Chretien had to put up with for ten years. Paul Martin's attempt at misinformation will ultimately fail because Canadians want to be governed by inspiration, not intimidation and because "Team Martin" has their own series of statements on the same issues they identify. The Conservative response site can be viewed at www.TeamMartinSaid.ca or http://www.conservative.ca/teammartinsaid/ We can play "tit-for-tat" all campaign if Paul Martin really wants, but we would encourage his high-priced team of strategists and lobbyists to aim higher. Canadians deserve better and they will demand better on election day. - -30- For further information, please contact: Conservative Party Communications: (613) 364-6040 John Reynolds, National Campaign Co-Chair (613) 552-0020 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:06:20 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Supreme Court of Canada upholds spending curbs on lobby groups http://www.canada.com/victoria/story.asp?id=5C690A3B-6B2B-49A1-8B9D-C44AB40DF05F Supreme Court of Canada upholds spending curbs on lobby groups Canadian Press Tuesday, May 18, 2004 OTTAWA (CP) - The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld government-imposed limits on campaign spending by lobby groups during federal elections. In a 6-3 judgment Tuesday, the court said the caps on expenditures can be legally justified under the Charter of Rights. The decision comes just as Prime Minister Paul Martin is pondering an election call that will likely send voters to the polls June 28. It means lobby groups that want to run ads supporting or opposing specific parties and candidates will face strict ceilings on how much they can spend. At issue before the high court were provisions of the Canada Elections Act passed by the Liberal government just before the 2000 election in an effort to level the financial playing field in campaigns. The rules limited lobby groups to spending $150,000 nationally and $3,000 in any one riding. The aim was to protect local candidates with limited resources from being swamped by free-spending national organizations. The legislation was challenged by the National Citizens' Coalition, a right-wing lobby group then headed by Stephen Harper, whose name remained on court documents throughout the four-year legal battle. The Conservative leader played no personal role in the court case after his return to active politics, but he has continued to publicly advocate an end to the spending caps - the only federal party chief to do so. Opponents of the spending limits said they violated the principle of free speech, as well as other sections of the Charter of Rights dealing with freedom of association and voting rights. Defenders of the law said it was necessary to keep Canada from following the United States down the path to wide-open campaign spending that would give the upper hand to wealthy private interests. Canadian political parties have long been subject to spending limits. Legal reforms enacted last year under Jean Chretien further curbed the money they can raise from corporations and well-heeled individuals. Supporters of those reforms argued that if the limits came off lobby groups, wealthy donors would make an end run around the party rules and set up their own front organizations to influence elections. The National Citizens' Coalition won its initial challenge before Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, which overturned the lobby group limits in 2001. The provincial court of appeal agreed with that ruling the following year. Elections Canada stopped enforcing the law in subsequent byelections, pending a decision by the Supreme Court. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:06:47 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Supreme Court upholds election spending law http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/18/canada/scoc_election040518 Supreme Court upholds election spending law Last Updated Tue, 18 May 2004 11:50:54 OTTAWA - The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a law limiting how much money special interest groups can spend during elections. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled the law can be justified under the Charter of Rights. The decision means lobby groups that want to support a specific candidate or highlight an issue – such as the Kyoto Accord or same-sex marriage – are limited in how much they can spend. Third parties include those other than registered parties and candidates. Under provisions in the Canada Elections Act, third-party spending is limited to $3,000 per riding and up to $150,000 nationally; lobby groups must register with Elections Canada; and all contributors who donate more than $200 must be reported. Justice Michel Bastarache, author of the majority decision, wrote: "Without the limits, a few wealthy groups could drown out others in debates on important political issues." The decision acknowledged the law is a violation of freedom of expression, but said the spending limits meet the overarching goal of promoting fair elections. The three dissenting judges called the law a serious incursion on free speech that cannot be justified under the Charter of Rights. There is no evidence that without limits, wealthy Canadians could dominate political debate during a campaign, they wrote. The law was passed by the Jean Chrétien Liberals prior to the 2000 federal election. Stephen Harper launched a challenge against the law when he was head of the National Citizen's Coalition in Alberta. The conservative think-tank had argued the law infringes free speech, suppresses independent voices and limits election campaigning to established political parties. In December 2002, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled the law was unconstitutional. That court upheld a 2001 decision by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. The government appealed the decision, arguing the spending limits equal the playing field, meaning rich interest groups don't have an advantage over smaller, less wealthy groups. Supporters of the law argue it prevents Canada from straying down U.S. election-style campaigning, where wealthy special interest groups have a strong influence. Written by CBC News Online staff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:31:32 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Western Standard: Criminalizing fishing tackle is a 'looney' idea WESTERN STANDARD Monday, 3 May 2004 Criminalizing fishing tackle is a 'looney' idea By Cyril Doll http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=88 Fishing is getting to be an expensive hobby. There's the licences, which seem to get pricier each year, all the gear and of course the necessary beer rations. Soon, more stringent regulations will add to the bill by forcing all of Canada's five million or so fishing enthusiasts to throw away perfectly good fishing tackle and replace it with governmentapproved stuff. That's because any of the sinkers or jig heads they may have that contain lead will soon be verboten under some new pending regulations, and the cost to anglers and retailers will be enormous. Environment Canada and Canadian Wildlife Services (CWS) is behind the new laws. They say that lead is destroying Canada's waterfowl, and is especially harming the loon population. According to CWS, when loons dive beneath the water to swallow gravel, which they use to aid their digestion, they can end up swallowing fishing tackle accidentally dropped by fishermen on the bottom of lakes and rivers. The birds often get lead poisoning and sometimes die. But with all the birds in Canada, how serious could these occasionally lost bits of lead really be? According to the government's research, as much as 30 per cent of deaths in the country's waterfowl population is because of birds swallowing the tiny pieces of lead dropped in lakes and streams by fishermen. That's a lot of dead birds. Too many, in fact, for the CWS to have possibly counted. So how did the federal agency come up with the figure? It's a rough estimate, they say, based on the number of dead loons being brought in for autopsy by concerned nature lovers. The sample size was about 20 or 30 birds. "We don't have great numbers, and that is a bit of a problem," says Bob Milko a conservation biologist with CWS. Getting a more accurate figure, he says, would require a large and intensive study. "You'd have to have a radio transmitter on a large number of birds and then follow them," he says. "Because the chance of a bird ingesting something and you getting to it before it's scavenged [its body is eaten by animals] is pretty slight." Even among the few loons that were examined, CWS has been able to show only that they swallowed the lead fishing tackle at some point, not that it was the cause of death. That may have been something else entirely. And establishing clear cases of lead poisoning in living bird populations is tough, says David Brown, fisheries biologist with the Peterborough, Ont.-based Federation of Anglers and Hunters. The symptoms--headaches, dizziness, confusion and vision problems--are pretty hard to diagnose in animals. This wouldn't be the first time that Ottawa has raided the tackle boxes of Canadian anglers under the auspices of saving waterfowl. Back in 1997 lead fishing tackle weighing less than 50 grams was banned from Canada's national wildlife areas and national parks. CWS said that anything heavier than that would be too heavy for a loon to swallow easily. Now they're saying that all the lead sinkers and jig heads, whatever their weight, are hazardous. But there are studies that have more accurately measured the extent of lead on waterfowl. In 1999, the U.S. National Wildlife Health Research Center in Wisconsin sampled 2,749 individual birds from 30 species, but found that only 3.5 per cent of loons had ingested lead fishing tackle and only .007 per cent of other waterfowl swallowed the tackle. Still, that hasn't stood in the way of the federal government's drive to ban the sinkers and jig heads. Legislators are preparing a discussion paper on the issue and expect that the new prohibitions will be in place by 2005. "We don't want to make criminals out of people like a grandfather who is fishing with his grandsons because he has lead sinkers and jigs in his tackle box," says Brown. While critics note that the law is almost completely unenforceable, the fact is that law-abiding fishermen will have to spend somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50 to $100 to stay on the right side of the law. What's more, retailers now have to trash their entire inventory of lead-based products and eat the cost themselves. But in Ottawa, apparently that's preferable than actually taking the time and effort to write laws based on properly researched scientific data. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:08:59 -0600 (CST) From: Boris Gimbarzevsky Subject: Re: Supreme Court of Canada upholds spending curbs on lobby groups Another absolutely BS decision from the supreme kangaroo court of Soviet Canuckistan. Funny that the court doesn't seem to mind rich friends of the lieberals using their TV stations and newspapers to spread their propaganda. In order to mark the occasion of decision, I've crossed out the word "Canada" on all the bills in my wallet and replaced it with "Soviet Canuckistan". Seeing as it is now ciminal to spend money to oppose the government one other option would be to go to the polls wearing either a gag or duct tape over ones mouth. Just make sure you get the really cheap kind so you don't get arrested for violating national spending limits. Boris Gimbarzevsky ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:09:47 -0600 (CST) From: "Edward B. Hudson" Subject: Re: Gun Registry Poll > The poll, commissioned by Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz, found 61.6 per cent > of Canadians who responded in a national telephone survey "strongly agree" the > government should spend the money elsewhere. Thanks, Dennis. You guys are keeping us in the fight. Sincerely, Eduardo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:25:12 -0600 (CST) From: "RFOCBC" Subject: RE: Supreme Court of Canada upholds spending curbs on lobby groups True North strong and what? RFOCBC trial is scheduled for October. Time to order tee shirts? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:35:54 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Supreme Court of Canada upholds spending curbs on lobby groups Boris Gimbarzevsky wrote: > In order to mark the occasion of decision, I've crossed out the word > "Canada" on all the bills in my wallet and replaced it with "Soviet > Canuckistan". Seeing as it is now ciminal to spend money to oppose the > government one other option would be to go to the polls wearing either a > gag or duct tape over ones mouth. Just make sure you get the really cheap > kind so you don't get arrested for violating national spending limits. You could also draw a gag on the pictures of former Prime Ministers, etc, on our bills, and write "gag law" or "free speech" on them... Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V7 #157 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:moderator@hitchen.org List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.