goodbye Hunting in Hamilton

[M_P]

Lads,

Please consider dressing in an appropriate manner. We need to look as respectable and professional as possible. Collared shirts if you got em. Our greatest enemy in this meeting will be battling the "Elmer Fudd" image that many people have.

Keep in mind this spot will has limited parking. If you can, try to come with a buddy (or buddies) so there can be spots for everyone. This is right downtown Ancaster so keep that in mind for vehicle size too (if you have an option).

See everyone there,

Dyth

Just left the meeting and have to say that at times I was a little embarrased to be part of this "fraternity". Things to consider for the meeting in May at council chambers

- Like Dyth said above, leave the camo and kenora dinner jackets at home. We do not need to project the redneck image that many associate with hunting and firearms.
- Keep it civil. Shouting out of turn will not endear you to anyone on councel.Think how the woman from the Trap Shooting Associations conducted herself. She was well spoken, polite and stood patiently with her hand raised waiting to be called on. She had the attention of the counsellors.
- The proposed changes are to discharge zones in areas where urban sprawl has grown. Councellors Pasuta and Ferguson have both stated tonight that they are not in favour of any changes to the discharge zones in their wards because there has been no growth in their wards that has encroached on the existing discharge zones. I believe them. Have met them both and they are stand up guys and in my opinion are the only two on city council that have any common sense. Drop them an email and let them know you appreciate their support.
Look forward to the May meeting.

[pbonura]

Just left the meeting and have to say that at times I was a little embarrased to be part of this "fraternity". Things to consider for the meeting in May at council chambers

- Like Dyth said above, leave the camo and kenora dinner jackets at home. We do not need to project the redneck image that many associate with hunting and firearms.
- Keep it civil. Shouting out of turn will not endear you to anyone on councel.Think how the woman from the Trap Shooting Associations conducted herself. She was well spoken, polite and stood patiently with her hand raised waiting to be called on. She had the attention of the counsellors.
- The proposed changes are to discharge zones in areas where urban sprawl has grown. Councellors Pasuta and Ferguson have both stated tonight that they are not in favour of any changes to the discharge zones in their wards because there has been no growth in their wards that has encroached on the existing discharge zones. I believe them. Have met them both and they are stand up guys and in my opinion are the only two on city council that have any common sense. Drop them an email and let them know you appreciate their support.
Look forward to the May meeting.

Once there and have to agree but nice to see the turn out.

[Mattones]

I heard it was packed? The next and final meeting is next month from what I hear ?

[Dythbringer]

Just left the meeting and have to say that at times I was a little embarrased to be part of this "fraternity". Things to consider for the meeting in May at council chambers

- Like Dyth said above, leave the camo and kenora dinner jackets at home. We do not need to project the redneck image that many associate with hunting and firearms.
- Keep it civil. Shouting out of turn will not endear you to anyone on councel.Think how the woman from the Trap Shooting Associations conducted herself. She was well spoken, polite and stood patiently with her hand raised waiting to be called on. She had the attention of the counsellors.
- The proposed changes are to discharge zones in areas where urban sprawl has grown. Councellors Pasuta and Ferguson have both stated tonight that they are not in favour of any changes to the discharge zones in their wards because there has been no growth in their wards that has encroached on the existing discharge zones. I believe them. Have met them both and they are stand up guys and in my opinion are the only two on city council that have any common sense. Drop them an email and let them know you appreciate their support.
Look forward to the May meeting.

M_P,

I was at the meeting as well. I agree with your first two points. There was a lot of interruptions and shouting down of both the councilors and the bylaw officer which was at minimum rude. Trying to get your point across in this manner is counter-productive as people have a tendency to tune out what you are saying.

One thing which really concerns me is the ambiguity of this meeting. I was speaking to a few people who attended the Binbrook meeting. They said they were told which incident sparked this and they were allowed an open discourse with the city. They said the councilor who attended was well informed about this (Pasuta and Ferguson claimed they found out about this meeting that day which I find hard to believe as I had found out about it two weeks ago). It was also stated this meeting was piggy backed on Ferguson's other meeting so who booked the room first the bylaw officer for the information meeting or Councilor Ferguson and if it was the city (as indicated to me two weeks ago both in an email format from the city and this thread), why did we have to clear to room so quickly (the information meeting lasted an hour or so) so Ferguson could have his meeting?

I have to say the bylaw officer was not really well spoken. He fumbled through his presentation and I can attribute that to not speaking well in public but fumbling through talking points and mixing up who he has spoken to (there is no MNR anymore or the Ontario Federal Hunting Association) speaks of being unprepared. Coupled with the fact he admitted neither he nor anyone else from city staff had gone out to the areas they are proposing change is nothing short of irresponsible.

Lastly, the change from firearm and bow discharge distinction to weapon discharge. Total ambiguity. Right now the bylaw has a bow only in an area in Stoney Creek with rough boundaries of Ridge Road, First Road East, Regional Road #20/Rymal Road & East Town Line Road. Under the proposed changes from firearm and bow discharge to weapon discharge, that entire area disappears for bow hunters/archery practicitioners. Actually anything which can be deemed a weapon (a weapon is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems) so a paintball marker or air rifle would be classed under this distinction.

I have much apprehension about these changes as the City of Hamilton has not been a friend to hunters in the past. The City has been approached twice about sunday gun hunting and refused, the mayor has publically stated he wants to ban guns in Hamilton and has stated he can't think of any reason anyone in the city would need a gun, we have areas in "city" (Flamborough) which allows gun hunting but not target shooting and believe it or not, a police over-reaction to a man with a paintball gun at the Limeridge Mall, the city has tried to do similar things in the past (I was talking to 3blackdogs at the meeting and about 10 years ago they tried to do something similar and "told" the public about the meetings by putting a very small notice in a local newspaper with very limited readership) and from what I have been told they had enacted a hunting ban about 20 years ago and had to about face because of the massive backlash from hunters. History has shown the city doesn't treat hunters/shooters well and I think a lot of people are tired of it.

Dyth

[GooseHound82]

M_P,

I was at the meeting as well. I agree with your first two points. There was a lot of interruptions and shouting down of both the councilors and the bylaw officer which was at minimum rude. Trying to get your point across in this manner is counter-productive as people have a tendency to tune out what you are saying.

One thing which really concerns me is the ambiguity of this meeting. I was speaking to a few people who attended the Binbrook meeting. They said they were told which incident sparked this and they were allowed an open discourse with the city. They said the councilor who attended was well informed about this (Pasuta and Ferguson claimed they found out about this meeting that day which I find hard to believe as I had found out about it two weeks ago). It was also stated this meeting was piggy backed on Ferguson's other meeting so who booked the room first the bylaw officer for the information meeting or Councilor Ferguson and if it was the city (as indicated to me two weeks ago both in an email format from the city and this thread), why did we have to clear to room so quickly (the information meeting lasted an hour or so) so Ferguson could have his meeting?

I have to say the bylaw officer was not really well spoken. He fumbled through his presentation and I can attribute that to not speaking well in public but fumbling through talking points and mixing up who he has spoken to (there is no MNR anymore or the Ontario Federal Hunting Association) speaks of being unprepared. Coupled with the fact he admitted neither he nor anyone else from city staff had gone out to the areas they are proposing change is nothing short of irresponsible.

Lastly, the change from firearm and bow discharge distinction to weapon discharge. Total ambiguity. Right now the bylaw has a bow only in an area in Stoney Creek with rough boundaries of Ridge Road, First Road East, Regional Road #20/Rymal Road & East Town Line Road. Under the proposed changes from firearm and bow discharge to weapon discharge, that entire area disappears for bow hunters/archery practicitioners. Actually anything which can be deemed a weapon (a weapon is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems) so a paintball marker or air rifle would be classed under this distinction.

I have much apprehension about these changes as the City of Hamilton has not been a friend to hunters in the past. The City has been approached twice about sunday gun hunting and refused, the mayor has publically stated he wants to ban guns in Hamilton and has stated he can't think of any reason anyone in the city would need a gun, we have areas in "city" (Flamborough) which allows gun hunting but not target shooting and believe it or not, a police over-reaction to a man with a paintball gun at the Limeridge Mall, the city has tried to do similar things in the past (I was talking to 3blackdogs at the meeting and about 10 years ago they tried to do something similar and "told" the public about the meetings by putting a very small notice in a local newspaper with very limited readership) and from what I have been told they had enacted a hunting ban about 20 years ago and had to about face because of the massive backlash from hunters. History has shown the city doesn't treat hunters/shooters well and I think a lot of people are tired of it.

Dyth

well put!

[pbonura]

M_P,

I was at the meeting as well. I agree with your first two points. There was a lot of interruptions and shouting down of both the councilors and the bylaw officer which was at minimum rude. Trying to get your point across in this manner is counter-productive as people have a tendency to tune out what you are saying.

One thing which really concerns me is the ambiguity of this meeting. I was speaking to a few people who attended the Binbrook meeting. They said they were told which incident sparked this and they were allowed an open discourse with the city. They said the councilor who attended was well informed about this (Pasuta and Ferguson claimed they found out about this meeting that day which I find hard to believe as I had found out about it two weeks ago). It was also stated this meeting was piggy backed on Ferguson's other meeting so who booked the room first the bylaw officer for the information meeting or Councilor Ferguson and if it was the city (as indicated to me two weeks ago both in an email format from the city and this thread), why did we have to clear to room so quickly (the information meeting lasted an hour or so) so Ferguson could have his meeting?

I have to say the bylaw officer was not really well spoken. He fumbled through his presentation and I can attribute that to not speaking well in public but fumbling through talking points and mixing up who he has spoken to (there is no MNR anymore or the Ontario Federal Hunting Association) speaks of being unprepared. Coupled with the fact he admitted neither he nor anyone else from city staff had gone out to the areas they are proposing change is nothing short of irresponsible.

Lastly, the change from firearm and bow discharge distinction to weapon discharge. Total ambiguity. Right now the bylaw has a bow only in an area in Stoney Creek with rough boundaries of Ridge Road, First Road East, Regional Road #20/Rymal Road & East Town Line Road. Under the proposed changes from firearm and bow discharge to weapon discharge, that entire area disappears for bow hunters/archery practicitioners. Actually anything which can be deemed a weapon (a weapon is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems) so a paintball marker or air rifle would be classed under this distinction.

I have much apprehension about these changes as the City of Hamilton has not been a friend to hunters in the past. The City has been approached twice about sunday gun hunting and refused, the mayor has publically stated he wants to ban guns in Hamilton and has stated he can't think of any reason anyone in the city would need a gun, we have areas in "city" (Flamborough) which allows gun hunting but not target shooting and believe it or not, a police over-reaction to a man with a paintball gun at the Limeridge Mall, the city has tried to do similar things in the past (I was talking to 3blackdogs at the meeting and about 10 years ago they tried to do something similar and "told" the public about the meetings by putting a very small notice in a local newspaper with very limited readership) and from what I have been told they had enacted a hunting ban about 20 years ago and had to about face because of the massive backlash from hunters. History has shown the city doesn't treat hunters/shooters well and I think a lot of people are tired of it.

Dyth

Excellent post. I have to agree 100 percent about these comments. The concept on weapons made no sense. I will attending the meeting in May and also believe that bow hunters are getting screwed by these changes.

[Hunter John]

Not just bowhunters. The Tamahawk club , and HAHA would be finished as well.

[pbonura]

Not just bowhunters. The Tamahawk club , and HAHA would be finished as well.

Did not know that. Wow.

[Dythbringer]

Not just bowhunters. The Tamahawk club , and HAHA would be finished as well.

Hunter John,

This is untrue. In the bylaw, under the exemptions part (Part 5), there is a stipulation for gun ranges (Section 1c), which states:

(1) Subsections 3.(1) and 3.(2) [which are the first two general prohibitions for discharging a firearm in the city] of this by-law do not apply to:

(c) a federally regulated and licensed rifle range, gun shop, firearms dealer or gun club, the use and location of which is lawful with applicable zoning and building requirements and any other applicable federal, provincial and municipal laws

This is why the Hamilton Gun Club can operate within the bows only zone of the current by-law.

Dyth

[Hunter John]

I may be mistaken Dyth but I thought that's why the lady from the trap and shooting association was present , Otherwise why would she be there ?