just was informed today the port hope is amending there bylaws to must be 300 meters from all property lines . that will end hunting in port hope area any one confirm this
Printable View
just was informed today the port hope is amending there bylaws to must be 300 meters from all property lines . that will end hunting in port hope area any one confirm this
Call up the town to.find out if any changes have been made to discharge laws.
Sometimes town like to made.these changes when all is quiet.and people are away on vacation
I did a quick scan on the internet and cannot find anything new.
Yup called town. Min 300 meters from all property lines min fifty acres of farm land. And no target shooting and land to hunt must be farm land
Wow, that has to suck..... Hope it doesn't go through
Are you flippin kidding me? Hope this doesnt affect the shoreline duck hunt....
from what i hear .. the consultation and discussion is over. it goes to a vote on the 21 of july. again there will be no discussion the only hope they have is if the letter campaign is successful
You still have a bit of time to deal with this....
There was talk of a discharge bylaw in Quinte West recently. There was so much vocal support against it, it never even got going.
Make sure the OFAH knows. Let everyone you know, know about this. Everyone get on the horn to their councillors and lots of emails.
Stress to whoever you can that hunting and firearm use is already governed by "careless hunting" under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and "careless use of a firearm" under the Criminal Code. A municipal bylaw is toothless and redundant.
Maybe start a Facebook page as well.
I wonder if MikePal will again think a bylaw like this is ok....
rumor has it that the ofah knew nothing about it .. i find that hard to believe seeing one of the zone E chairs lives in port hope ??
Call OFAH asap. We had this issue a while ago in a township I hunt. The end result was that the bylaw doesn't apply if it is on farm land that is being farmed by a real farmer. So basically fluff for the anti hunting crowd in town to make them feel good, but no real teeth as it doesn't apply on land cultivated by someone with a farm registration number.
The only legit reason for a bylaw is noise. And I don't think that's even a legit reason.
I have a question for you. You live on the edge of town , in a residential community , with many houses ,have kids who play in the back yard, with no fences. Would you want people hunting a field 300 yards from your back door, just asking. Sometimes you need to look at things from a non hunter point of view.
i understand your complaint.. but 300 meters from all property lines make it impossible to hunt at all you need a perfect square 97 acer field to hunt in the center of that .. now here is a question for you .. would you rather have some one hunting close to a property line or from a middle of a field where they are forced to shoot towards property lines
Good fences makes good neighbours
fishermccann
If that was a legitimate concern why would you buy a home backing on to agricultural land or crown land or a private bush lot. If your worried about your kids playing road hockey you wouldn't buy a house on the main drag of town would you ?
as long as they don't start hanging a target on the back side of my fence what is done on there own land is their business . they were probably hunting that land long before street lights were invented and if people want to move to the country then accept what goes on in the country .
Gamemaster, I want it both ways, I want to live in the country and see the trees but the forest keeps getting in the way.
it does make to tough for a lot of guys to hunt that do not have a ton of land and how many carry a tape with them ,,Hey frank what you doing this summer did you get a boat for this year ,,Dutch
An aside, does the by-law specify firearms? Bows and Crossbows are often included under these sorts of by-laws too.
yes it even includes all barreld wepons that shoot a projectile so does that mean a kids dart gun ??? this is a poorly written law
Orillia is like that, no sling shots, bows, crossbows, air guns, or regular firearms. Complete nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark270wsm
I have a hill in my yard that works just fine as a backstop. I put the target block there and fire away with the bow or pellet rifle anyways. All cedars and trees so no one can really see in to say anything, not that they would.
I still don't see where this by-law is needed. Have their been any incidents?
The Port Hope municipality is quite large so this by-law will have a pretty big effect on people. What about land owners taking care of pests?
from my limited conversations with the guy that is fighting (second hand information ) it is that farmers will be allowed to protect there property for pest but hunting season could be issue shooting pest because that what hunting season is for hunting controls the animals .. so the mnr would not issue permits for pest animals .. and if you are not a farmer then you would have to call the police if your land was smaller than 50 acers and you were within 300 meters of all property lines ? to date i see nothing posted on the zone e website so something smells
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Welcome to my world. Had a nosey neighbour move in to the neighbourhood a few years ago and since than uses every bylaw in the book to piss off the neighbours. Don't know why someone would move into a community to impose their own wishes as opposed to adapting to the local customsQuote:
Originally Posted by Cintax
The Municipality of Port Hope is quite large. It's borders are Chalice Line on the North, Highway 28 on the East, Lake Ontario on the South and East Townline Road on the West. The majority of that area is rural.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Because some people are just no fun at all. It's like the people who buy next to a gun club and then complain about noise.Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
Yup got them too however its the train. Last meeting noise complaints was filed by the house along the rail line. Had to ask them when purchasing their house and looking out the bedroom window did the thought what's them long lines of steel rails used for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cintax
Ridiculous. Maybe they thought that the city would move the tracks. Man, some peoples kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
This is not an issue....there are laws that already cover this.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
A bylaw is for nothing more than noise...
Non hunters need to be more educated, not hunters being more regulated.
This was my thought exactly when I read the post ... if a hunter is raining down pellets on the subdivision, this is already an offence legally, but if the complaint is about the shooting when the shooting is done in a safe manner, then it becomes a noise by-law. There are way too many redundant laws that are made solely to prevent an existing law from being broken, this leads to multiple charges laid to a person who did one wrong thing where one law would have covered it ... paperwork to confuse the public and justify jobs of lawmakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by brent
They already do that hence new sound barriers put up along the 401 when new houses go up in an area, or sound proof dirt berms for houses placed along railway tracks. Some airports are forced to use only certain runways past midnight. By the way I was not agreeing with the port hope amendments only posting a different point of view, the devils advocate.Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
Sounds to me that you want to be free to break the law instead of following the laws already on the books and in place. What is wrong with someone wanting others living around them to be law abiding? I notice you said local customs not local laws. Is it customary for people in your community to break the law? If so you have more problems than nosey neighbours.Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
There seems to be a persistent misconception on this board about the restrictive use of Firearm bylaws and the Township no hunting (noise) issue.
The Sunday “No Hunting’ restrictions date back to when townships Bylaws were drafted to abide by the Lords Day Act and secular Sunday Observance laws. Hunting as well as any activity that caused ‘noise’ on Sunday was prohibited.
For example see: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/etobic...s/0833_233.pdf
The efforts in Ontario to remove the ‘Sunday Hunting’ restrictions have been successful in most townships because it’s easy to argue as most of the other restrictions (sunday shopping, truck traffic ect.) that were based in the ‘Sunday Observance’ by-laws have long since been rescinded or ignored.
I can’t recall ever seeing a redrafting of a township bylaw that has reintroduced a ‘noise’ restriction specific to Firearm discharge. Especially since in most Bylaws, Firearm definitions include bows, air rifles, etc, so ‘noise’ is not the issue.
Hey If I been keeping a couple of chickens for 35 years and yes I've been breaking the law oh bad me yet this community originally was founded on the shoulders of farming back round people the respected each other now if you move in and don't like the fact that I've got them and you use the local bylaws to get your way guess your well with in your rights. I've always felt live and let live. As a neighbour to an area that is legal to hunt in if you don't like hunting than its your responsibility to avoid its effects. You can first off put up a fence to coral your kids and if that's not enough put up a sound barrier. Just saying not your right to dictate what goes on your neighbours property which has been customary and in this case legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
So in your words.." following the laws already on the books and in place. What is wrong with someone wanting others living around them to be law abiding?"
Do as you say.
It is everyones right, that if you do like something to use every legal means to change them. If you get enough support from other voters , then things will change and that is how it should be, because then one upset nut ,cannot change the rules . I have no property in port hope and I hunt and like to shoot guns and bows, I was just trying to see it from the other side of the fence. If you do not like something get enough voters to agree and change them, it is called democracy and we live in a democratic country. If you find yourself breaking multiple laws maybe it is not the laws maybe it is you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
So what's your position follow the laws as written already or change the laws to suit your own views? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Try to get enough people to agree with you to change laws you do not agree with and follow them as written till then.
Is this for Hope township?
The Port Hope firearms bylaw review will be on the agenda for the July 21 meeting at 6:30 p.m. Staff from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters will be there in support of law-abiding firearms owners throughout the municipality. We encourage you to do the same and/or contact town council at http://www.porthope.ca/council .
You can also request a copy of the draft bylaw by contacting the municipality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Okay I get it move into a subdivision that's rural adjacent maybe because its cheaper than bully the local farmers into changing their life style to suit your needs. Kinda selfish I would think. Sure its democratic as the numbers go subdivision against a few large land owners...maybe the vote would be fairer based on footage owned.
Quite often by laws are changed against the wishes of the many to suit the views of the few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
So what is the issue??Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Copy of the proposed amendments available at https://porthope.civicweb.net/Portal...Org=Cal&Id=977 (see direct links below).
1.1.1 C. Martinell, Deputy Clerk regarding Discharge of Firearms By-law.
Recommend That a By-law be prepared for presentation to Council on July 21, 2015 to prohibit and regulate the Discharge of Firearms within the Municipality of Port Hope and to repeal By-law 1409 and By-law 2405-62.
1.1.1 Jul 7 15 C Martinell re Discharge of Firearms By-law.pdf
1.1.1 Jul 7 15 By-law xx-2015 - Discharge of Firearms.pdf
The OFAH will be emailing members in the area notifying them of the upcoming meeting.
Just like the rest of the free world , one person one vote. Do you want to go back to when wealthy landowners dictated to the serfs? Yes if 10.000 city slickers moved to let's say to any town of 9,000 yes they could and should be able to change that small town way of life to suit there own needs and wants. That is and should be the way it is.
for those without a pdf reader...
here is gist;
Quote:
2.
GENERAL PROHIBITIONS
No person shall discharge a firearm anywhere within the Municipality of
Port Hope
2.1
Unless lawfully permitted as a Law Enforcement Officer, a Farmer or a Hunter
or while on an approved Range
2.2
Within 30 metres (98 feet) from the edge of the traveled portion of a public road.
2.3
On property that is less than twenty-five (25) acres in size
2.4
On farm property used for agricultural purposes consisting of twenty-five (25) acres or more without consent/permission of the farmer;
2.5
Notwithstanding any other provision of this By-law, on any land on
which any person may lawfully discharge a firearm in compliance
with this By-law each person who discharges a firearm shall so act
as to ensure that no shot, bullet, or projectile may pass over the
boundary of the land from where the discharge took place.
That is the original document that came in front of the commitee of the whole that document has been changed and will not be released on there website till this friday around noon the amendments of this by law are min Fifty acers of farm land (so if its not a farm you can not discharge a firearm on any size of property even if 400 acers if it is not farm land also added is 300 meters from all property linesQuote:
Originally Posted by CalTek
Thanks for the heads up Mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark270wsm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
yup that's what farmers are know as wealthy landowners. Scratch the earth to make a living. Worry what happens on your side of the fence don't dictate whats going on the other side. Research before you move in and if the laws aren't to your liking move to where your more suited. No reason a vest landowner should change a thing they are doing to appease the selfish newbies.
Thanks Mark270wsm.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark270wsm
We just received a confirmation email from the Municipality of Port Hope informing us of that, although they did not specify "what" those changes were going to be. We have asked for a copy of the "new" revised discharge of firearms by-law, but have not received it as of yet.
The minimum of 50 acres, unfortunately, is not new, as that is what is written in their current discharge by-law. Regardless, the OFAH does not agree (with either of those items, among others) and will be including everything in our presentation next Tuesday night.
If anyone would like to discuss this further, of have additional input or comments, please do not hesitate in giving us a call (705-748-6324) or by emailing me directly ([email protected]).
Thanks again for the "heads up".
Brian McRae
OFAH Zone/Member & Club Services Liaison
Great , just bought a place in Hamilton township, right next door to Port Hope.
Will deffinitly be looking into this further alos attending the meeting . I've found scetchy info at best about Hamilton townships discharge rules.
Thanks form the info.
R
strong rumor has it that this will be deferred back to committee for additional comments from all stakeholders in the community as well there has been a petitions circulating with the people in port hope and there appears to be alot of names on that from what i have been told . the councilors have been getting lots of calls and again rumor is they have had sit down conversations with the petition maker and some councilors want to see it sent back to staff but again this is all second hand information until it is differed defeated or passed i don't believe any politician. apparently the guy has been every where from police to a lot of individual farmers beating on doors
The village of Pickering used to have 1500 residents it now has over 120,000 should those residents have to follow the wishes of those original 1500? Give your head a shake. Those farmers who sold their land for homes and Walmarts are very wealthy. My niece married the former farmers son who used to own the farm where Markville mall now stands his neighbour was- is Angus Glen.Time marches on and unless you want to live in the wilderness you will be affected by progress.Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
Yup now I see why farmers sell out to the wind farms.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Land is money, lots of money if someone wants to put something other than a farm there. More people, less space, restrictive rules will continue to move further and further out into the countryside, you can slow it down but you can't prevent it.
Doesn't always work that way. Sometime city slickers have been know to move beside a farm and then sue because of the smell and win. So what you have stated is not always true and it doesn't work that way in reality.
What part of what I said is wrong?
Not any more, as judges have said ,the smell comes by way of standard farming practice which is a persons lively hood and you can't interfere with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
When you move to the country you get to enjoy the good and bad smells.
The only ones that have been cracked down upon ,are some of the very large "factory farms ".
I know a guy who used to live above a pizza parlour, I used to like to visit him, he moved because he could not stand the smell ,
to each his own.
Can someone explain to me now that this is all over the internet about port hope .. can some one tell me why this is still not posted on the ofah zone e website. what is the point in having them for each zone if its not being updated for zone members
Here's the info I have.....
BY-LAW #XX/2015The voting of this by-law is being brought to the attention of council to repeal old by laws that were set back in 1962 and 1963. If this by-law is voted in it will mean that it is prohibited to discharge a firearm in the Municipality of Port Hope including, air guns, spring guns, cross bows, long bows, rifles, shot guns or any other firearm. They are working to revise the by-law of the Township of Hope 1409 and the Town of Port Hope by-law 2405-62.
To Be Voted for on July 21st 2015
In this new by law the Municipality wishes to restrict the discharge of firearms to the following occupants:
Animal Control Officer: someone who is appointed by the Municipality to provide animal control services.
Municipality Enforcement Officer: the police or a by law enforcement officer appointed by the municipality
Farmer: person, partnerships, couple or similar agreement actively involved with in earning a substantial amount of their income through cultivation of crops, livestock, or poultry production.
Hunters: people who have all said licenses in order to own a firearm or participate in hunting activities
GENERAL OVERVIEW
• No target shooting by farmers, hunters, or law enforcement unless it is done on a approved target range• No discharge within 300 meters (1000 feet)of any property line or travelled portion of the road• No discharge on any property that is less than 50 acres in size and must be used for agricultural purposes and MUST have approval from the farmer
EXCEPTIONS:
• Law enforcement• A farmer as defined in the bylaw• A hunter having all their licenses and permission from a farmer meeting the requirements of this bylaw• Hunting in the GRCA as it is already governed by a government agency• A farmer or hunter defending his or her property from nuisance wildlife that may be killed or harassed in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act or a permit issued under the Canada Migratory Bird Regulations• “Normal Farm Practice”
REPERCUSSIONS of BREAKING BY-LAW:
First Offence: $300 fine
In Simple words:
The Municipality of Port Hope is trying to ban the discharge of a firearm by any individual within the municipality unless they are a police officer, conservation authority, farmers who own more than 50 acres of land and must make a substantial amount of income from their farm, hunters who have permission from these farmers. People who meet the requirements can then discharge their firearm for the purpose of killing wildlife and have to be a minimum of 300 meters (1000 feet) from every property line and 30 meters from travel portion of any road allowance.
http://www.oodmag.com/community/x-ap...7F85482931.png
Plenty of towns have by-laws like this. Enforcement is another thing all together. And honestly, I think it is ridiculous in general but for rural areas everything on that list can be done safely. I get banning discharge inside a city limit where there is a high population density but in rural communities its just complete BS and unnecessary.
The problem is that the rural area is looking a lot less rural now. My road use to only have 4 farms on it, now there are 8 homes. The farm across from me now has 2 homes facing his back yard from the far side of his farm.
Our Hunt camp is in fear that they will soon be putting restrictions on Hunting in this township. Almost every farmers field is surrounded by homes.
Hypothetical question.....
I have permission on two adjoining properties....combined they are 70 acres, one farm is 40 acres the other that is attached to it is 30 acres, can I hunt on either one of the properties....or am I SOL....
In this particular situation, you would be up the creek without a paddle as neither property has the minimum acreage size.Quote:
Originally Posted by fratri
Remembering of course that there is currently a minimum acreage amount in place of 50 acres (listed in their current discharge by-law), so even right now, technically you can't. More the reason to push for the elimination of minimum acreage altogether.
I suspect the same will happen around here in the next decade. It won't be just hunters that are in trouble it will be farms as well.
There have been complaints in the past about the smell of the farms when a citidiot has moved out here. But since they currently have very little support from anyone here they usually move. But if a new subdivision goes in 500 ft down the road there could be trouble brewing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
IMO....your SOL!!! That would be my understanding!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by fratri
I see hunting within Eastern and Southern Ontario coming to an end within the next 2 decades.
Please check that crystal ball for the winning lotto#s.
As we can see in Port Hope it is Happening and will soon happen here where I live. Where I use to hunt even in NB it is all houses. It is just a matter of time. It is quite obvious and not very hard to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
So you are agreeing with what I said in post 50? Everybody see that GW agrees with FM, hell hath frozen over.
Pretty sure that atheists aren't supposed talk about hell. :scream:Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Talk about and believe in are different things. By the way I am agnostic!
But I disagree with the fact you claim the majority rules which in fact is utterly false. Fact is most time it is the minority rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Not blanket-wide - only as suburban sprawl into the countryside makes it too crowded to hunt. And I think you'll see it ending by prohibition of hunting on small parcels - similar to port hope. Not desirable but not entirely unreasonable either.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Agnostics are just atheists that don't have the cajones to admit they don't believe - so they blame it on a lack of knowledge.
Nope I believe we can't know!
That is not what post 50 says!Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Thought I'd change your question to reflect real issues on edge of town subdivisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
The answer is, watch your own daaam children.
Stop using paranoia to justify further restrictions and excusing yourself from teaching your kids respect and responsibility.
What you said changes everything in my question they were in their own backyard not to many cars end up their. If you do not feel safe in your own back yard where should the kids play, in the street? What you said has no relation to my question.
You implied no fence and hunting 300 yards away. You're either showing your ignorance in guns or the kids wandering. Which is it?
These discharge bi-law crusades always start off as a safety concern (paranoia) and ultimately end up as a noise complaint.
Yes Officer.... his arrows are making to much noise...LOL....Quote:
Originally Posted by onelessarrow
Lol ,,,,
300 yard arrow shot , hillarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
For the record Mikepal, Sunday was a day of rest not a day of quiet. You could always target practice on Sundays, just not hunt.
Let the voters in Port Hope decide the issue, it is nobody's bussiness but the taxpayers there to decide what happens in their community.
Section 5 of the Act actually prohibits any shooting of firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by onelessarrow
Most 'No Sunday' discharge by-laws don't make the distinction between discharging while hunting and discharging on a range. When a lot of townships had no firearms discharge on Sunday rules, a local range could still get a township permit to operate a range on Sunday (with local approval).Quote:
Section 5 provides that any worker, required to work by an employer operating on Sunday in conformity with the Act, be given a substitute day of rest; s. 6 prohibits any games or performances where an admission fee is charged; s. 7 prohibits any transportation operated for pleasure where a fee is charged; s. 8 prohibits any advertisement of anything prohibited by the Act; s. 9 prohibits any shooting of firearms; s. 10 prohibits any sale or distribution of a foreign newspaper.
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc...em/43/index.do
That was a reason that so many townships dropped the no 'Hunting on Sunday' by-laws....they became to convoluted.
should add....that since a lot of Townships didn't define a Bow as a firearm, you were open to Bow 'hunt' on Sundays in townships with a "No Discharge of a firearm" rule on Sundays.
I lived by a gun range in my teens and the biggest crowds were on Sundays. They must of had a permit.
I also recall a lot of deer hunters sighting in on Sunday and shooting deer on opening Monday. You could also hunt north of the French River in Ontario on Sunday. If it was on the books in southern Ont. they didn't enforce it very well.
Either way I'll be there Tuesday in Port Hope to show my support for responsible firearm owners. I would encourage anyone that can make it, to come.
And gun hunt on a game bird farm.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
King bylaws changed last year.. or the year before.. they wanted a complete ban on discharge.. ofah came and we can still shoot.. however cal restrictions under 275.. they did get the old required 100acres down to 5 acres however...
It was a packed house last night as the bi-law was withdrawn. Kudos to OFAH and a couple of locals for their outstanding presentations.
They'll have further consultation in late Sept/Oct, but it was clear by counsels response to the presentations that they may have
overreacted. One of the locals referenced that it was a disturbance of the peace complaint and it should and could have been dealt with the current laws we already have.
Counsel made it quite clear that they'll work with the hunters & shooters in their community.
Thanks Mark270wsm for the heads up.
Great to hear!
This has become a real problem whenever cities and towns amalgamate. It's easy to define discharged laws within the old town limits/lines, but when the city expands their boundaries to incorporate rural land, the same rules just don't apply.
Great news and well done to those involved.
from my contact we only have till sept to get our comments in .. and as well it was told by one person that one council member feels after doing much research feels that the shooters are already legislated to death
That's right Mark, they also said they would open up the floor for further comments as well when it's back in front of counsel.
One of the individuals that made a presentation last night reminded counsel that the archery season for deer starts Oct 1st and that they would like to see something done about the current 25 acre restriction by then. Counsel agreed to work with the community to resolve any issues.
Counsel is in recess all of August, hence the rush to get something done in September.
From my understanding there was quite the conversation at the meeting that followed. The guy stood up and questioned why burns the counclir did nothing under noise bylaw and that person urged council to fix noise by law first they said it would take to long. Then it was asked again why pick on firearms bylaw and not noise bylaw. I guess it got a little heated. My burns got a little upset and was waving his pen around. One less arrow did you stay for the whe thing. If so can you confirm. As I was told there was no discussion allows other than the speakers
Quote:
Originally Posted by brent
Quote:
Originally Posted by brent
Hey, it sounds like Brent....maybe he was at the meeting, he seems fixated on it being a noise issue....LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by mark270wsm
As far a I could tell only those on the agenda were given time to speak. The two locals that brought forward presentations were visibly upset by the redundant restrictions but conducted themselves in a very professional manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark270wsm
The whole procedure was very civil as the mayor acknowledged his appreciation for everyone's patience and understanding.
Once counsel moved to the next item, people got up the leave. It was then that the mayor announced that if people wanted to leave now, they could.
Upon getting up to leave is when the one individual reminded counsel of the archery season on Oct 1st and the current 25 acre restriction. The mayor responded by saying that we have some work to do then. Some comments were exchanged as I walk out, but I didn't hear the comments you referenced and I seen no pen waving. It could've happen after I walk out though.
Everything that was brought forward indicated the origin was indeed a simple noise complaint or disturbance of the peace as one person put it. Despite all the added restriction directed at safety, there was no evidence to support it.
I actually felt for counsel as I sensed a certain level of embarrassment.
Oh ok. No this was at the very end of the night around 930. It was a local upset the way they done things. This guy was the guy that started the whole get hunters together and fight this. He wanted one more crack at them to ask why are you picking on us