It should not shock or…

It should not shock or horrify me that this government would put forward such a proposal for these Circuses of Cruelty, yet it does.

That there are currently 24 of such "facilities" licensed and operating, and that there are so-called "trialing competitions" is shocking enough, thanks. Let's permit those aging license holders to pass into history and bid them a not-so-fond adieu. Have we not moved beyond such barbaric practices? This falls squarely into all the other cruel and exploitive ways in which humans abuse both domestic animals and wildlife. "Canned hunting," anyone? That humans indulge their taste for animal cruelty in countless ways is not news; that this government would facilitate expanding those ways—for money—should not be either.

DO NOT expand or permit more of these licenses. This activity is positively mediaeval, the 21st-century equivalent of bear-baiting. Is this who we are?

The fact that your "Proposal details" section includes such statements as "certain wildlife (i.e. cottontail, snowshoe hare, red fox or coyote) are kept captive for the purposes of teaching dogs hunting skills such as picking up scent trails, tracking, and pursuing game at a safe distance," ["safe distance"! Safe for whom?] or "These species have sustainable populations and there are no concerns with limited take of small numbers" [i.e., there are lots of rabbits, so it's perfectly O.K. if a few of them get torn apart for fun and profit?] or "Coyote and red fox may be obtained through lawful trapping activity" [so first they have to survive the terror and suffering of being "lawfully trapped," after which they are pursued—hopefully just once—by hunting dogs?] says it all.

And how about those "strict regulatory standards" that require: "standards of care for wildlife" ["care"!!] and "minimum standards for facility size and areas of wildlife refuge." Again, do they see no irony in using the term "refuge"??? How do the managers ensure that every prey animal makes it to an "escape unit"? What of the animals that do, but die of the terror and stress of the chase?

I note that there is no mention of what happens to the wildlife at the end of these competition hunts. Perhaps they are returned to their pen for another day of torture tomorrow?

Other telling quotes: "The proposal would support the continued operation of licensed dog train and trial areas and offer benefits to persons who use dogs to hunt or track wildlife, or who run their dogs in trialing competitions, as they would continue to have access to dedicated space for dog training and trialing to avoid conflicts with other land and resource users" [yes, "benefits to persons," indeed; this is seriously regressive thinking] and most ludicrous of all, "provide a dedicated space for training where dogs and wildlife are contained and safe"—"safe"!!!—reveals that this whole enterprise is just a variation on canned hunting. It subjects captured wildlife to the ultimate cruelty: being hunted down and killed for the sick enjoyment of those with no need to feed their families—or even their dogs!—who pay for this "entertainment."

Let's ask Marineland how that's working out for them.

If the 24 existing establishments don't want animal-cruelty activists camped at their gates protesting the "trialing competitions" and the "off-season exercises," I would strongly suggest you not pass this outrageously archaic bill. Those of us who actually care for the environment and respect wildlife are watching.

Thank you.