Memorandum submitted by Mr I Munford
Part (1) of the first clause sets out the parameters
for committing an offence and as long as the punctuation remains
the same, ie commas not full stops at the end of the sub sections
(a) and (b) and that the "and" remains at the
end of sub section (c) then the Bill only applies to "Protected
Animals" as defined under clause 54.
My main concern was that the Bill may have inadvertently
given ammunition to the anti fishing lobby to bring actions to
declare fishing illegal. Unfortunately there may be an opportunity
to challenge the legality of fishing in commercial fisheries.
Playing the Devils advocate it could be argued
that the stocked fish once purchased and introduced into the lake
is a "Protected Animal" as defined under Clause 54,
(2), (i) "is being kept by man". By fishing for the
fish it could then be argued that by hooking, playing and then
removing them from the water to be retained in a keep net to be
weighed at the end of a fishing match constitutes "unnecessary
suffering" as defined in Clause 1, (1), (d).
One other aspect of the Bill caught my attention.
Game birds reared by the gamekeepers are to be defined as "Protected
Animals". To my mind it could be easily argued that to then
set them loose to be shot, and especially if not shot cleanly
that they are being caused "unnecessary suffering".
I can clearly remember the photograph of the Queen wringing the
neck of a pheasant that had not been shot cleanly. Imagine what
the Anti brigade would make of that.
I would make a recommendation that licensed
Hunting, Shooting and Fishing be specifically excluded from this
Bill, with a rider that individual legislation may be enacted
to govern specific elements of each of the former should it prove
necessary.
19 August 2004
| 
