HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO 11-10
City Report To
Executive Committee
PICKERING Report Number: CAO 11-10
8 3 Date: May 10, 2010
From: Andrew Allison
City Solicitor
Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law
File: L-2000-001-10
Recommendation:
1. That the proposed Firearms By-law (Attachment No. 1 to this Report) be adopted.
Executive Summary: On February 8, 2010, Council approved a public consultation
process for the proposed Firearms By-law to allow staff to solicit input from stakeholders
and the general public prior to preparing a final draft for Council's consideration.
Copies of the draft by-law and Report No. CAO 01-10 to Executive Committee were
distributed to the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and
Hunters, the Pickering Rod & Gun Club, the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee,
and 16 individuals who had requested the opportunity to review the draft by-law.
Advertisements were placed on .the local community page on February 24, March 3 and
March 10, 2010 inviting comments from the public until March 31, 2010. Information
was also placed on the City's website, advising of the proposed by-law and the
opportunity to provide comments.
A total of 32 comments were received regarding the proposed by-law. A summary of
the comments is included in this report. Copies of all the comments received are
attached.
Staff reviewed the comments received and prepared a revised draft of the by-law
(Attached No. 1 to this Report) based on the information received.
Financial Implications: No financial implications.
Sustainability Implications: The regulation of the use of firearms and bows reduces
the risk of dangerous unintentional interactions between persons discharging firearms
and members of the community.
Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010
Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 2
$4
Background:
Comments
The public consultation process for the proposed Firearms By-law was intended to
solicit input from.the stakeholders directly affected by the changes to the existing
Firearms By-law, and the general public who may have concerns regarding the use of
firearms and bows.
Of the 32 comments received, 17 were from hunters who were opposed to expanded
regulations which may limit the opportunities for hunting in Pickering. Of the 17 hunters
who commented, seven live in Pickering. Comments received from the hunting
community include:
• bow hunting is necessary to control the deer population and limit damage to
farmers crops and vehicle accidents
• there are no current by-law provisions applicable to bows, and bow hunting can
presently take place anywhere in Pickering
• there are no clear provisions relating to the use of shotguns
• interactions between legitimate hunters and the public are usually the result of
the public trespassing
• statistics do not support the concept that hunting is unsafe or creates a danger
to the public
• what constitutes protection of property from nuisance wildlife, and how would
this relate to Canada Geese
• the restricted and permitted areas are both rural, why can the same rules not
apply
• hunting has taken place in many areas of Pickering for years without incident,
why change the rules
• hunting is an appropriate way to aid in control of the coyote population
• it is the Ministry of Natural Resources' role to regulate hunting and control the
wildlife populations, the City's by-law should not be trying to limit the MNR's
ability to do so
• archery hunting is very safe and should be treated differently than firearms
• hunters work in cooperation with farmers and provide a necessary service
• legitimate hunters follow the rules, and have permission to be on the property,
increasing by-law restrictions will only impact the people who have followed the
rules. Issues are clearly with the hunters who do not follow the rules and no
changes to a by-law will resolve
• hunting is part of Canada's cultural heritage
One comment was received from a hunter who supported the draft by-law, and one
comment was received from an area resident who wished to be permitted target
.shooting with an air rifle on his own property.
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010
Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 3
85
The agricultural community also provided comments regarding the proposed by-law
(two farmers, Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee, York Region Federation of
Agriculture, and Ontario Federation of Agriculture). Their comments were as follows:
• the two farmers requested revisions to the map attached to the by-law, to allow
for the agricultural preserve areas between the CP Rail lines and Taunton Road
to be incorporated in the Restricted Area, rather than the Urban Area
• the restricted area exemptions be expanded to allow the use of bows to hunt
deer, as the MNR regulations only permit the hunting of deer with bows south of
the Pickering/Uxbridge Townline. Deer cause significant damage to crops and
farmers require the ability to permit hunters to control the deer population in their
fields
• the Ontario Federation of Agriculture expressed similar concerns regarding the
control of the deer population and the need to permit the use of bows in the
Restricted Area under the exemptions outlined in Section 13
• the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee suggested changing section 13 (ii)
from "the property is classified under the Assessment Act in the Farm Property
Class", to "the property has a Farm Business Registration number"
• the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee also suggested changing section 13
(v) from "the firearm's caliber is not greater than .275." to "the firearm is regulated
through the Wildlife Management Unit of the Ministry of Natural Resources"
• the York Federation of Agriculture ("YFA") provided statistics indicating the
estimated 2008 impact of wildlife damage on farmers was $51 million
• YFA also indicated crop damage in the GTA adjacent to urban areas appears to
be more severe and bow hunting to help manage the wildlife population was a
necessary requirement
• YFA also commented that farmed areas in the City of Pickering are integral to
food production and need to be recognized by the urban population
There were also five responses received from members of the public, indicating
concerns with the proposed Firearms By-law in the form of the following comments:
• the maps provided were difficult to read
• there was a concern that those consulted had a vested interest in hunting, yet
naturalist groups were not included
• desired a public meeting to discuss issue
• how can the public be assured hunters know where the boundary line is for the
property they have permission to hunt on
• why can a farmer determine what a "pest" is? Ministry of Natural Resources
should be responsible for issuing a "cull" if there is a problem
• by-law does little to address illegal hunting going on in prohibited areas
• who has the ability to determine if the hunter possesses a letter of permission,
and how can there be any assurance it is legitimate
• why can tenants as well as owners grant permission to hunt and how would
situations be handled where the two conflict
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010
Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 4
• agricultural land owners should be held accountable for the animals they kill as
pests
• suggest "Pest Management Request Form" for each request and a review
process
• ensure use of firearms is prohibited around hamlets and Seaton Natural Heritage
System
• how can you distinguish whether the hunter is there to control nuisance wildlife or
hunting for sport
• enforcement by MNR is inadequate
• there should be a complete ban of any kind of firearm discharge or hunting on
any land in the Restricted Area
• agree farmers need a way to control nuisance wildlife
• believe it is the MNR's role to manage wildlife conservation
In addition to the above comments, the Pickering Rod and Gun Club, the Ontario
Federation of Anglers & Hunters and the Ministry of Natural Resources provided
recommendations. Their comments are summarized individually below:
Pickering Rod & Gun Club:
• the by-law is trying to address a perceived clash between user groups and
trespass issues by imposing expanded firearms regulations on most of the rural
lands
• there must be a clear difference between public open space versus private lands.
There is a broad misconception that if the government owns the land, anyone
can enter without permission. This is wrong, there are no "crown lands" in
Pickering which permit access to all. Provincially and federally owned lands are
still subject to the same requirements for permission to enter onto the property as
all privately owned lands
• if there are conflicts between hunters with written permission to be on the land
and the public using private property without consent, it is the public who are
trespassing
• adjusting'the boundaries to simplify the area, or prohibit firearms use adjacent to
Taunton Rd cannot be justified on the basis of safety concerns
• the existing by-law permits archery equipment and if the hunter has permission
from the land owner, the hunting is legal. Do the people entering onto these
properties have permission to be there? Are they aware that interfering with a
person legally hunting is a contravention of the Fish & Wildlife Act
• with all of the recent complaints regarding increased wildlife, the City should be
considering expanding the legal hunting areas
• the Rod & Gun Club would like to see all lands zoned agricultural in Pickering,
including Federal and Provincial lands, and the Agricultural Preserve to be
unrestricted by the firearms by-law. Allow the Trespass to Property Act,
Occupiers' Liability Act, the Ministry of Natural Resources Hunting Regulations
and the land owners/tenants to control the issues that have been brought to
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010
Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 5
87
Council about illegal hunting. There is sufficient legislation in place to deal with
these issues. MNR regulations already prohibit the possession of a loaded
firearm, including archery equipment, within 8 m from the travelled portion of a
road or fence line and no discharge of a firearm from or across a right of way for
passage of vehicles
• the Rod & Gun Club understands the need to stop poaching and would be willing
to sit down with Council to discuss implementing a "Report a Poacher" program
in Pickering, particularly along the boundary of the Rouge Park
Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters:
• the OFAH members and the vast majority of legal, law-abiding, licensed and
trained hunters are dedicated to safe hunting practices and the full enforcement
of laws designed to ensure public safety and the sustainable use and
conservation of wildlife
• since the introduction of a mandatory Hunter Safety Education Program in the
1960's, the rate of accidents related to hunting has been reduced to virtually zero
• based upon statistics, the suggestion that the regulation of firearms and bows is
necessary to reduce the risk of dangerous interactions between persons
discharging firearms and members of the community is highly inaccurate and
unsubstantiated by fact
• according to Statistics Canada, hunting today is measurably safer than bicycling,
boating, swimming, horseback riding, most recreational field sports, including
baseball and golf
• trained licensed hunters present no risk to the non-hunting public
• while the Municipal Act allows municipalities to introduce no discharge by-laws
In the interest of public safety", any municipality that unduly restricts the
discharge of firearms, including bows, that cannot be justified, or that is not
clearly demonstrated to be necessary to protect the public safety based upon the
frequency and legitimacy of complaints, intrudes upon the provincial jurisdiction
to manage and control wildlife populations and the hunting of wildlife
• there are already a number of Federal and Provincial laws in place that are
enforced with respect to the use of firearms by hunters and other legitimate users
• unnecessary restrictions can impact the Province's ability to manage wildlife
populations
• by restricting hunting a larger public safety hazard may be created since the
number of collisions between cars and deer can be anticipated to increase.
• deer/car collisions in Ontario have increased by 86% over the last decade
• OFAH would be pleased to participate in any working group established by
Council to create a firearms by-law all could support
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010
Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 6
8
Ministry of Natural Resources:
• two of MNR's most serious concerns are the proposed vast areas of no
discharge within rural lands and the missed opportunity to retain archery-only
areas
• regardless of how rural properties are zoned or their ownership, the safety
concerns are the same as those zoned agricultural
• the proposed by-law severely restricts discharge of archery firearms and long
gun firearms throughout most of Pickering, even in areas MNR believes there
would be no safety concerns
• the Municipal Act empowers municipalities to enact by-laws that regulate
firearms for the purpose of public safety. These by-laws are for public safety only
and should not be used to inhibit or restrict legal activities such as hunting where
there is no public safety concern
• MNR recognizes the need for no discharge of firearms by-laws in urban areas for
the purpose of public safety but encourages municipalities to recognize that MNR
is responsible for managing wildlife populations and the most effective means we
have of doing that is through regulated hunting and trapping
• hunting regulations take into consideration both the safety of hunters and the
general public by prescribing such things as permitted types of firearms and
ammunition that can be used to hunt various species of wildlife
• all hunters must take a Hunter Safety course and pass a written and practical test
before they are eligible to purchase a hunting licence in Ontario
• the proposed by-law would also impact private landowners' ability to utilize
licenced trappers and hunters as agents to effectively help control human-wildlife
conflicts such as crop depredation and livestock predation
• the MNR urges the City of Pickering to take into account the separate safety
concerns regarding the discharge of archery firearms (bows and crossbows) and
long guns including shotguns and/or rifles. All have varying safety factors to
consider. Shotguns and archery equipment have a limited range and therefore
can be discharged safely in areas where rifles may not. Archery firearms have a
very short range (usually under 30 m) and emit no noise when fired. . Because of
this, archery hunting can safely occur in near urban areas
• the approach of providing areas where archery firearms can only be discharged
and areas where both archery and long guns can be discharged has proven
effective in other municipalities in the GTA, in allowing hunting to occur while
addressing public safety concerns. We would encourage Pickering to consider
this approach, so as not to restrict or eliminate hunting opportunities
unnecessarily
• Ontario hunting regulations do not require a hunter to have written permission to
hunt on private property. However, it is an offence to trespass to hunt. The
requirement to have permission to be on private property to hunt is already in
provincial legislation. MNR does not feel that it is necessary, or possibly even in
the municipality's area of jurisdiction to require this
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report CAO 1140 May 10, 2010
Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 7
89
• MNR's Conservation Officers enforce the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and
Regulations which govern hunting and trapping. They do not enforce municipal
by-laws. We would ask that the reference to "conservation officer" be removed
from the enforcement provisions of the draft by-law
• the proposed by-law seeks to set a discharge distance of 10 m from a roadway.
Please be advised that this matter is already addressed in Ontario Regulation
665/98 (hunting regulations) under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act
Revisions to the Proposed Firearms By-law
Based on the comments received, staff have revised the proposed by-law as follows:
1. Section 1 - The definition of firearm was revised by removing the specification
regarding ammunition types and types of firearms included. This eliminates the
contradiction in the previous definition as air and pellet guns.do not use rimfire or
centrefire ammunition, but should be regulated. See additional provision added
under Section 15 (d), exempted activities, regarding air or pellet guns.
2. Section 1 - The definition of "park" has been changed from "City owned
greenspace" to "publicly owned greenspace". This clarification will ensure the
Natural Heritage System in the Seaton Lands, the Seaton Hiking Trail and any
other properties owned by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, as well as
all provincially and federally owned greenspace areas are included in this
definition.
.3. Section 1 - A definition has been added for "Prohibited Areas" to represent the
areas added to the attached map, (Schedule A) prohibiting the use of firearms and
bows in the hamlets and the Seaton Hiking Trail.
4. Section 1 - The definition of "Urban Area" has been changed to "the portion of the
City south of the Canada Pacific Rail Line" to accommodate the agricultural lands
between the CP Rail line and Taunton Road. There are no urban areas between
the CP Rail line and Taunton Road.
5. Former Sections 11 and 12 - Both sections (which prohibited the discharge of
bows in the Restricted Area) have been removed as bows will be included in
agricultural exemption (new Section 11).
6. Section 11 - Revised to include bows in exemptions for agricultural purposes as
follows: "No person shall discharge a firearm or bow in the Restricted Area unless
all of the following conditions have been met:" This revision allows the use of
bows on farm properties for the control of deer that are damaging crops.
7. Section 11 (ii) - (formerly Section 13 (ii)) Revised from "the property is classified
under the Assessment Act in the Farm Property Class" to "a valid Farm Business
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010
Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page..8
90
Registration Number exists for the farm business operating on the property" per
the recommendation of the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee.
8. Former Section 13 (iii) removed. This change was made to recognize that not all
farm operations meeting the criteria for a Farm Business Registration Number
have a minimum of 10 acres.
9. Former Section 13 (v)) - removed. This change has been made in accordance
with MNR recommendations advising firearms are already regulated under O. Reg
665/98 and there is no need for the by-law to specify acceptable types of firearms.
10. Section 12 (former Section 14) - Amended to read "No owner of a property in the
Restricted Area shall permit the discharge of a firearm or bow on such property.
unless all of the conditions set out in Section 11 have been met". This amendment
includes bows in the exemptions as previously outlined.
11. Former Section 15 (d) and former Section 16 (c) (discharges within 10 metres of
any highway) have been removed in accordance with MNR's comments advising
this is already regulated through O. Reg 665/98.
12. Section 15 (previously Section 17) - An exemption has been added to permit the
use of air guns and pellet guns in the Restricted Area, provided the same
restrictions regarding City property, proximity to specific types of properties, and
property owner permission as outlined in Section 13 are complied with.
13. Section 15 (previously Section 17) -At the suggestion of Councillor Littley at the
Executive Committee Meeting of February 8, 2010, an addition has been made to
the Exempted Activities section as follows:
15. (e) where the discharge is for the purposes of humanely euthanizing livestock
where circumstances require."
14. Section 17 (previously Section 19) - The reference to "conservation officer" has
been removed at the request of MNR.
The Ministry of Natural Resources has recommended that the by-law contain less
restrictive provisions relating to the use of bows so as not to restrict or eliminate this
type of hunting unnecessarily. If Council wishes to take a less restrictive approach to
the use of bows, the following three sections could be substituted into the "Restricted
Area" section of the proposed by-law in place of sections 11 and 12 of (with
consequential section numbering changes):
11. No person shall discharge a bow in the Restricted Area,
(a) on any property owned by the City;
CORP0227-07/01 revised
I
Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010
Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 9
91
(b) within 100 m of any school, place of worship, day nursery,
community recreation centre, conservation area or park;
(c) within 100 m of any dwelling, other than a dwelling owned by the
person discharging the bow,
(d) unless he or she is the owner or occupier of the property, or
(e) unless he or she has received written permission from the owner of
the property and carries such permission on his or her person at all
times while on that property.
12. No person shall discharge a firearm in the Restricted Area unless all of the
following conditions have been met.
(i) the person discharging the firearm is the owner of the property, or a
licensed hunter of trapper with the written permission of such
owner,
(ii) a valid Farm Business Registration Number exists for the farm
business operating on the property,
(iii) the discharge is for the purpose of protection of property from
nuisance wildlife that may be killed or harassed in accordance with
applicable provincial and federal legislation; and
13. No owner of a property in the Restricted Area shall permit the discharge of
a firearm on such property unless all of the conditions set out in section 12
have been met.
The effect of these changes would be to permit the use of bows in the Restricted Area
in accordance with the Ministry of Natural Resources Hunting Regulations as set out by
0. Reg. 665/98, in support of the MNR's position that regulated hunting and trapping
remains the most effective means for managing wildlife populations. The use of bows
would not be required to be in relation to the protection of farm property, however, the
requirements for written permission from the property owner, and prohibitions relating to
City property and proximity to specific types of properties would remain.
Summary
The proposed Firearms By-law is intended to ensure public safety while recognizing the
rights of members of the public to discharge firearms and bows for a variety of
legitimate purposes.
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010
Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 10
Attachments:
1. Proposed Firearms By-law
2. Copies of all comments received
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
imber Thompson CMM L, CPSO Debbie Shields
anager, By-law Enforcement Services City Clerk
Andrew C. Allison
City Solicitor
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City nct
WWII-
I . Quinn, R R, d~fi III f
Chief Administrative Officer
CORP0227-07/01 revised
9 3 ATTACHMENT NO.1
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO. /10
Being a by-law to regulate the discharge of
firearms and bows
WHEREAS pursuant to section 119 of the Municipal Act, 2001, a local municipality may,
for the purpose of public safety, prohibit or regulate the discharge of guns or other
firearms, air-guns, spring-guns, cross-bows, long-bows or any other weapon.
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
PART I - INTERPRETATION
Definitions
1. In this by-law,
"bow" means a long-bow, compound bow, re-curve bow, cross-bow, or any other
class of bow;
"City" means The Corporation of the City of Pickering or the geographical area of
Pickering, as the context requires;
"community recreation centre" means a facility owned by the City used by the
general public for recreational or other community activities;
"dwelling" means a residential unit that is capable of being occupied on a
permanent, seasonal or part-time basis;
"firearm" means any barreled weapon from which any shot, bullet, or other
projectile can be discharged;
"highway" has the same meaning as in subsection 1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act
and includes all roads, streets, lanes, unopened and assumed road allowances;
"owner" means the person identified in the most recent tax roll as the owner of a
property, or a lessee, tenant, mortgagee in possession or any other person who
has care and control of a property;
"park" means a recreational area for use by the general public and includes a
sports field, passive park area, playground, or any other publicly owned
greenspace;
"Permitted Area" means the area identified as such in Schedule "A";
Firearms By-law Page 2
94
"person" includes an individual, a corporation and the heirs, executors,
administrators or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can
apply according to law;
"Prohibited Area" means the area identified as such in Schedule "A";
"property" means a parcel of land and any buildings or structures on the land,
and includes.a portion of the property;
"Restricted Area" means the area identified as such in Schedule "A";
"school" includes an elementary school, a secondary school, a community
college or university, and any private school; and
"Urban Area" means the portion of the City south of the Canadian Pacific Railway
Line.
References
2. In this by-law, reference to any Act, regulation or by-law is reference to that Act,
regulation or by-law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to time.
3. References in this by-law to a Part, section or schedule are to a Part, section and
schedule in this by-law.
Word Usage
4. This by-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context
may require.
5. A grammatical variation of a word or expression defined has a corresponding
meaning.
Schedule
6. Schedule "A" (DEFINED AREAS) is attached to and forms part of this by-law.
Conflicts
7. If a provision of this by-law conflicts with a provision of any applicable Act,
regulation or by-law, the provision that establishes the higher or more restrictive
standard to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public shall
prevail.
Firearms By-law Page 3
9
Severability
8. Each section of this by-law is an independent section, and the holding of any
section or part of any section of this by-law to be void or ineffective for any
reason shall not be deemed to affect the validity of any other section or parts of
sections of this by-law.
PART II - REGULATIONS
General Prohibitions
9. No person shall discharge a firearm or a bow in the Urban Area or a Prohibited
Area.
10. No owner of a property in the Urban Area or the Prohibited Area shall permit the.
discharge of a firearm or a bow on such property.
Restricted Area
11'.. No person shall discharge a firearm or bow in the Restricted Area unless all of
the following conditions have been met:
(i) the person discharging the firearm is the owner of the property, or a
licensed hunter or trapper with the written permission of such owner;
(ii) a valid Farm Business Registration Number exists for the farm business
operating on the property; and
(iii) the discharge is for the purposes of protection of property from nuisance
wildlife that may be killed or harassed in accordance with applicable
provincial and federal legislation.
12. No owner of a property in the Restricted Area shall permit the discharge of a
firearm or bow on such property unless all of the conditions set out in section 11
have been met.
Permitted Area
13. No person shall discharge a firearm or a bow in the Permitted Area,
(a) on any property owned by the City;
(b) within 100 metres of any school, place of worship, day nursery, community
recreation centre, conservation area or park;
(c) within 100 metres of any dwelling, other than a dwelling owned by the
person discharging the firearm;
Firearms By-law Page 4
96
(d) unless the person is the owner of the property; or
(e) unless the person has received written permission from the owner of the
property and carries such permission on his or her person at all times while
on the property.
14. No owner of a property in the Permitted Area shall permit the discharge of a
firearm or a bow on such property within,
(a) 100 metres of any school, place of worship, day nursery, community
recreation centre, conservation area, or park; or
(b) 100 metres of any dwelling, other than a dwelling owned by them.
Exempted Activities
15. None of the prohibitions or restrictions in this Part apply,
(a) where the discharge is blank ammunition fired for the purpose of a
ceremonial event, historical display or education program, theatrical, film
or television production, sporting event, or the training of animals;
(b) where the discharge is within an indoor paint ball facility operating in
accordance with approved zoning and site plan regulations; .
(c) where the discharge is within a shooting range or a firearms business, the
use and location of which is in compliance with applicable zoning and
building requirements and any other applicable federal, provincial and
municipal laws;
(d) to the discharge of an air gun or pellet gun in the Restricted Area in
compliance with the same restrictions set out in Section 13; or
(e) where the discharge is for the purposes of humanely euthanizing livestock
where circumstances require.
Exempted Individuals
16. None of the prohibitions or restrictions in this Part apply to the following persons
in the performance of their duties:
(a) a police officer;
(b) an animal control officer, conservation officer, or an inspector or agent of
the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; or
(c) any officer appointed to enforce federal or provincial legislation.
. Firearms By-law Page 5
97
PART III - ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
Enforcement
17. In this Part, "officer" means a police officer, municipal law enforcement officer, or
any other officer appointed to enforce provincial or federal legislation.
18. This by-law may be enforced by any officer.
19. An officer may, at any reasonable time, enter upon any property for the purpose
of determining whether or not the provisions of this by-law have been complied
with.
20. No person shall prevent, hinder or interfere or attempt to prevent, hinder or
interfere with an officer.
Offences and Penalties
21. No person permitted under this by-law to discharge a firearm or bow shall permit
the projectile discharged to leave the property from where the discharge took
place.
22. Every person who contravenes any provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence
and upon conviction is liable to a fine pursuant to the provisions of the Provincial
Offences Act.
PART IV - GENERAL
Other Applicable Laws
23. Nothing in this by-law shall in any way derogate from any person's responsibility
to obtain approvals from any other government authority having jurisdiction over
the use of firearms or bows.
Short Title
24. This by-law may be referred to as the "Firearms By-law".
Repeal
25. By-law No. 247/75, as amended, is repealed.
Firearms By-law Page 6
98
Effective Date
26. This by-law comes into effect on the date of its passing.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of ,
2010.
David Ryan, Mayor
Debbie Shields, City Clerk
Firearms By-law Page 7
'9'9
"Schedule A"
lOWfGHIP OF W[liwppE
d4i Ill 1 U!
I NJIV-71 .1 "k 11.
F-I
o
Al 1.
, o
I W ¢
W { pp
A Y
Nuf
j -
Tr. -6
Pn7hd711Md ■Ew
AMUNOd A1Nd
diMMULE 5 TO MY LAW
PAEBEo TId6
OMIYCr Mto
hbnratim Quad w of Fek 1, WIM
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Thompson, Kim D.
From: 100
Sent: March 24,2010 05 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Re: Draft Firearms By-taw for Comment
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft bylaw:
My name is I am a lawyer at the Whitby firm of L lived in
Pickering until 2005, when I moved to Ajax near Rossland and Audley. I still f requentlyhunt in
Pickering. In 2009 I hunted de.er,.ducks and geese in Pickering.
I am presently representing a group of approximately 50 Pickering hunters in relation to this
draft bylaw:
of hunting in Pickering, when compared to
The draft bylaw represents a dram aticrestriction
the'1975 bylaw (with it's numerous amendments since 1975). My comparison of the present
bylaw, with the draft bylaw, brings to light (based on what I can see), the following additional
restrictions that will be placed on hunters if this new bylaw passes;
BOWS
There are presently a lot of bowhunters in Pickering, because of the abundant deer population.
Under the present bylaw; there are no restrictions o.n bowhunting in Pickering, In other words,
bowhunters can hunt anywhere in Pickering. Of course, Provincial hunting laws and landowner
rights always apply. Under the proposed bylaw, there is no bowhunting allowed under any
circumstances in the Restricted Area, or the Urban Area. This is somewhat bizarre. Hunters
will be allowed to usesmall caliber rifles in the Restricted Area if they comply with a
restrictive list of conditions ( i.e only for the purpose of nuisance wildlife, on a 'Farm Property'
under the Assessment Act, that is at least 10 acres in size etc...). But, hunters will not be
allowed to use bows in the Restricted area in any circumstances. This obviously needs
fixing. Bowhunting is a farmer's best defense against deer, and is certainly.safer than small
caliber rifles.
Bowhunting is only allowed in the Permitted Area under a limited set of. circumstances. The
Permitted Area is only east of Brock Road, and north of Hwy 7. Of course, as I understand it,
much of this is, Federal land„where hunting is presently not, permitted by the landowner (ie the
Federal Government). In addition, if hunters are able to find areas in the Permitted.Area that
are not Federally controlled, under the new bylaw hunters still cannot hunt on any property in
the Permitted Area owned by the City, or within 100 meters of any dwelling, conservation
area or park (as well as some other less onerous locations.). "Park" is defined in the draft bylaw
as ....a recreational area for use by the general public and includes a ...passive park area ...or any
other City owned greenspace. If (along with some other less onerous locations). This broad
definition of "Park" will further limit hunting w;fhin the "Permitted Area". Translation ?The
proposed.bylaw pretty much stops bowhunting in Pickering.
SHOTGUNS
1
101
Because of theabundant waterfowl population, many farmers are happy to allow Pickering
-hunters to hunt ducks and geese on their properties. Of course, for numerous legal and
1practi a ileasons, hunters cannot hunt waterfowl with a rif le, they have to use a shotgun. Under
the present bylaw, as I read it, hunters are allowed to use a shotgun in almost half of Pickering,
with landowner permission. Under the proposed bylaw, there are no shotguns allowed in the
Urban Area, which seems pretty reasonable, and no real change from the previous bylaw. Under
the proposed bylaw, it is not clear whether shotguns are allowed in the Restricted Area.
Clearly, under the proposed bylaw, anyone using any firearm in the Restricted Area must comply
with a restrictive. list of conditions (see above); but proposed clause 13(v) also indicates
that "the firearm's caliber (cannot be) greater than .275". Shotguns are not measured in
caliber's. This really needs clarif ication. Are shotguns to be allowed in the Restricted area if
the restrictive list of conditions are otherwise met ?
Even if this uncertain wording of the proposed bylaw is resolved in favor of shotgun use in the
Restricted Area; the proposed bylaw still severely limits shotgun use in Pickering. Shotgun use
would.then only be allowed in the Permitted Area', unless the restrictive list of conditions were
met in the-Restricted Area. As indicated in the above section on bows, much of the Permitted
Area, as I understand, is Federally controlled, and hunting is not -permitted by the Feds. The
big problem here is that the Federal lands are north of hwy 7. Under the present'bylow, this
left most of the good shotgun.hunting land south of hwy 7. Under the proposed bylaw, shotgun
hunting south of hwy 7 is now prohibited. In addition, please read the above section on bows
regarding other the problems with finding huntable property under the proposed bylaw, in the.
Permitted Area. . At best; the proposed bylaw will make hunting with a shotgun in Pickering very
.difficult. At worst, it will essentially stop shotgun hunting in Pickering.
RIFLES
Under the present bylaw, a hunter is allowed to use a rifle of "no greater caliber than .275" in
about half of Pickering, with the landowner's consent. Under the proposed bylaw, hunters are
allowed to use the same size of rif le( no greater than .275) in the Restricted Area, if the
restrictive list of conditions are met (see the above section on bows). As I read the proposed
bylaw, this does allow hunting with the some size of rifle in a large area of Pickering (le a large
portion of the proposed Restricted area), where rifles were previously. prohibited. Of course,
such hunting would only be allowed.where the restrictive list of conditions are met. Under the
proposed bylaw, hunters are allowed to use the some size of rifle in the Permitted Area. Of
course, all of the same problems-outlined in the above sections on bows and shotguns apply to
hunting with rif les in the Permitted area (le above hwy 7). Under -the.present bylaw, rifle
hunting was allowed in about half of Pickering. Under the proposed bylaw rifle hunting will
potentially be allowed in a larger area of Pickering, but only where the restrictive list of
conditions are met. Open hunting, with landowner permission, will only be allowed north of hwy 7
and east of Brock Road., where we have the Federal land problem outlined above.
SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISION
2.
I have outlined some of my suggestions for revision above. My primary suggestion would be to
make no revision to the existing bylaw. Hunters are presently only hunting on private
1
ropertY. "Unintentional interactions" between a legal .Pickering hunter and a non hunter 2
P
essentially only occur-when the non hunter is trespassing.. The legal hunter will have landowner
permission to be on the private property, The non hunter invariably does not. If the hunter is
not legal, then he/she should be charged. Perhaps the same should apply to the trespasser. In
any case, I doubt that changing the Pickering hunting Taws will dramatically effect the behavior
of hunters that are already hunting illegally. The change in bylaw will only effect the legal
hunter. I find it a little bewildering that-these bylaws are being changed to essentially protect
the illegal trespasser, to the detriment of the legal hunter.
The Report to the.Executive Committee.seems to indicate,thatthe reason behind this proposed
change is that it "reduces the risk of unintentional interactions between persons discharging
firearms and members of the community..." Setting aside the issue of trespasser vs legol
hunter, I have still heard of no such dangerous interactions, I am not convinced that there have
been any dangerous or potentially dangerous interactions, I may be wrong in this, but I
understand that the population in north Pickering is not growing, and may actually begetting
smaller, given the lack of development in the Airport lands. This should actually limit the
chances of such "unintentional interactions". So, why the need for a bylaw change ?
A bow is only dangerous within about 50 yards, and the person using the bow is always very -
intent on the target area. The potential for dangerous interactions is extremely minimal. Bow
hunting in urban areas is quite common in the U.S. and I have never heard of a citizen being hit
.accidentally by a bowhunter. Similarly, the force of a shotgun dissipates very.quickly, and
presents a minimal danger to any member of the public who is not directly in front of, and close
to; the shooter.. Waterfowl hunting in Pickering takes place in fields, in front of
decoys. The prospect of citizen walking out in front of a hunter in these circumstances, without
the hunter spotting the citizen, is hard to imagine. Why is the City of Pickering now intent on
changing a bylaw that seems to be working well ?
Almost everyone in Durham knows someone who has hit a deer with a car. The deer population in
Durham is out of control and growing. That is why the Ministry of Natural Resources allows
Pickering hunters. to shoot up to 7 deer each year. The Ministry is strongly in favor of keeping
the bylaw the way it is. They indicate that hunting is their only deer management tool in
Durham. There is a very substantial deer population south of Taunton Road, in the area that.will
become the Urban Area under the proposed bylaw. Bowhunting should continue to be allowed in.
this area. One of my tree stands is 200 yards south of Taunton Road and I see deer every time
I sit in it. I once saw 17 deer at once sitting in that stand (I was doing the sitting, the deer
were, walking). What will happen to this deer population once the hunters have gone ? How will
Pickering council respond if deer/vehicle collisions increase or result in fatalities ? Once the
hunters are gone, what.will happen to the coyote problem ? What if the coyote population
increases What if coyotes continue to become more aggressive ? Also, How will the farmers
feel if the hunters are gone and the devastation of their crops (presently a serious problem) by
deer and waterfowl increases (which is likely) ?
3
103
Many of the men and women I represent have been hunting in Pickering for decades. There has
t1o be a good reason before their rights are restricted. in the manner set out in the proposed
bylaw. I do not think that a hypothetical risk of "dangerous unintentional interactions" without
some evidence of a recent, increase in that risk, is enough of a basis to make the bylaw changes
suggested. This is tiarticularly true in light of the above evidence, which supports no change to
the bylaw. -
I look forward to making further submissions at a future council meeting.
Unlimited Disk, Data Transfer, PHP/MySQL Domain Hosting
http://www.doteasy.coin
4
Thompson, Kim D.
From:
Sent: February 18, 2010 12:12 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D, 04
Subject: RE: Draft Firearms By-law for Comment
Thank you Kim.
My address Ems
I am responding as a hunter.
KNOWS
From: "Thom son Kim D." <kthompson@cityofpickering.com>
To:
Date: 02/18/2010
Subject: RE: Draft Firearms By-law for Comment
Mr your comments regarding the proposed firearms by-law have been received and will be
reviewed by.staff and included in the report to Council with the final by-law draft.
Could you please provide your residential address to confirm whether you are providing comments as
a resident of Pickering, or a person who hunts in the municipality.
Thank you
Kimberly Thompson
Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services
Clerk's Office
City of Pickering
Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2187
Toll Free: 1.877.420.466.6
Fax- 905.420.9685
TTY: 905.420.1739
kthompson(d.)cityofpickering.com
www.cityofpickering.com.
SAPlease consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print!
www.sustainablepickering.com
105
From:
Sent:.February 18, 2010 11:5.3 AM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Re: Draft Firearms By-law for Comment
Kim,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft by-law. Please consider this email my submission to the Council
on this issue.
I have two major areas of concern,, both of which relate to the 'restricted area' set out in the draft by-law.
My first concern is in respect of.subparagraph 13(iv) which states that a discharge must be for purposes of protection of
property from nuisance wildlife that may be killed or harassed in accordance with applicable provincial or federal
legislation. I question what sorts of legislation is contemplated in the draft. For example, we currently have large .
numbers of Canada Geese that use the restricted area. There is, under federal legislation, a 'late season' to harvest
some of these resident birds, but I do not believe that the federal legislation officially terms the season as being a
nuisance' season. I would appreciate clarification as to the federal or provincial legislation that the Council has in mind. .
Also, what constitutes protection of property? I would assume that would include geese that are eating planted winter
wheat crops. Would it also include geese eating hay or other crops? Clarification should be made on this point.
My second concern is with respect to the distinction between the restricted area and the permitted area. From the.
extensive travelling I have done through both areas I do not see how they are different in any substantive way. Both
areas seem to be equally 'rural', i.e. generally unpopulated with much of the land being used for agricultural purposes.
Why is there a need to draw a.distinction between the two? I would suggest that the restricted area be wholly considered
as being permitted area. Clearly safety is the issue with respect to discharge of firearms. The control. mechanism to
achieve safety is in respect of the written permission that a hunter must have together with the minimum distance from
residences et al.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to provide input.
Please feel free to contact me at the below phone number should you wish to discuss my comments.
Regards,
soma
2
Thompson, Kim D.
From: Sent: March 3, 2010 10:07 AM 1 06.
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Re: proposed by-law change
I would prefer not to give my address, however I do live in ajax and I hunt in the area frequently
From: "Thompson, Kim D." <kthompson@cityofpickering.com>
Date: Wed, .3 Mar 2010 09:01:38 -0500
To:
Subject: RE: proposed by-law change
MINIM your comments have been received and will be incorporated into the follow up Report to
Council. Could you please provide your residential address to allow comments to be categorized as
residents and non-residents?
Thank you
Kimberly Thompson
Manager, Municipal Law.Enforcement Services
Clerk's Office
City of Pickering
Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2.187
Toll 'Free: 1.877.420.4666
Fax: 905.420.9685
TTY: 905.420.1739
kthompson(a~cityofpickering. com
www.citvofpickering.com
APlease consider your environmental responsibility - think before you printi
www.sustainablepickering.com
Fro
Sent: March 2, 2010 5:54 PM
To: Thompson, Kim. D.
Subject: proposed by-law change
I
am a member of the O.F.A.H. and was recently contacted with information regarding the proposed Discharge by-law .
changes. 1 have. numerous concerns regarding this.
Under the proposed by-law, no person may discharge a bow within the restricted area, but you will be allowed
to discharge a firearm under certain circumstances? 10 acres is more than sufficient to ensure that a responsible
hunter may discharge a firearm safely. That being said, a .22 long rifle is potentially deadly, if discharged, up to
lkm away; I think that one would be hard pressed to explain how bow is somehow more dangerous.
Responsible owners, be they either hunters or target shooters, are required to find a clear shot (and be 100%0
1
sure of what they are shooting at), and to find an appropriate backstop. This ensures the safety of everyone
involved in any type of outdoor activity and allows us all to enjoy the outdoors in the way which we choose
individually
107
If a person is the owner of an. appropriately sized portion of property, what difference does it make if they are
the only ones shooting on it? And by that same note, can someone please explain to me how 10 acres of .
farmland is different than 10 acres of non-farmland? A safe shooting area is a safe shooting area and a licensed
shooter is a licensed shooter. Inventing classifications is pointless and unfairly restricts the access to legitimate
hunting and target shooting areas.
The section about being 100 metres away from a dwelling, unless you own it is again pointless and I will point
back to my second bullet
The old by-law was more than sufficient and I personally take offence to the proposed amendments due to the
lack of research and understanding of responsible shooting practices. If the town is going to make changes to a
by-law such as this, I believe that they have to consider all of the residents of the community, not just people
who are against firearms for the sake of being against them. Knowledge is the key.
Thanks for taking the time to review my concerns; I hope to hear back from you soon.
Concerned resident
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
As regulated by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000 C5,
this electronic transmission, including all attachments, is directed in confidence to the person(s) to
which it is addressed or an authorized recipient, and may not otherwise be distributed, copied,
printed or disclosed. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by return transmission and then immediately delete this transmission, including
all attachments, without copying, printing, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you
2
Thompson, Kim D.
From: 0 8
Sent: March 4, 2010 6: M
To:, Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: RE: comments on proposed firearms by-law
I am aware :that hunting takes place on private land, but since that is private land, if it does not infringe on others, it
should not be regulated by the government. That is why my previous comment asked that the by-law be restricted to
crown land. I am also aware that the older by-law had many of these restrictions in place already. It was my
understanding that part of the review and update of by-laws is to consider the previous regulations and if any changes are
warranted. Since this by-law is under review and open for public comment, I felt this was the right time. to bring the
problems with the by-law to the attention. of council. Also, just because most municipalities have such by-laws does not
mean that Pickering should. Let us be a model to other municipalities that we value the rights of our residents.
appreciate the. report that you sent me, it clarified the changes well. For the reasons I have previously stated, I strongly
oppose the expansion of the prohibited area as well as the additional restrictions it seeks to add. In addition, I strongly
urge council to approach this by-law from a blank slate perspective and review its goals, if those goals are fair and just,
and if this by-law is likely to achieve those goals.
Thanks again,
From: Thompson, Kim D. [mailto:kthompson@cityofpickering.com]
Sent: March 4, 2010 10:08 .
Tdl~
Subject: RE: comments on proposed firearms by-law
Ms. JORIM
Hunting takes place in many areas other than crown land. The City's existing firearms by-law
prohibits the use of firearms in the urban area and most of the areas west of Brock Rd in the north.
The proposed firearms by-law is intended to replace a by-law that has been in existence since 1975.
The majority of the restrictions remain the same, and are common in most municipalities in Ontario.
In case you have not had the opportunity to review the report to Executive Committee outlining the
reasons for the by-law update, I have attached it for your review.
Please note the public consultation phase for the proposed by-law will run until March 31St. If you
have any further comments. you wish to have incorporated in the report to Council, please forward
them to me by March 31St. You may submit them by e-mail. Please include your residential address.
Thank you
From
Sent: March 4, 2010 9:54 AM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: RE: comments on proposed firearms by-law
Ms. Thompson,
1
While I am aware that there is other legislation involved, the proposed by-law specifically says that I cannot use any type
of barrelled projectile firing. weapon, including rifles, air guns, pellet guns, and paintball guns, unless I am a police officer
or *similar. Yes, other regulations limit my rights; is that reason to pass yet another piece of legislation to further limit
thlem? .109
As I. do not own any type of firearm or bow, I can assure you that I meet all requirements for storage. I see no benefit to
the proposed by-law, only further limits on the rights of law-abiding innocent citizens. If this by-law is truly about hunters
using firearms in the open, then please restrict the areas of enforcement to crown land. For example, the restrictions in
place in the proposed "permitted area" seem to take care of any such concerns. What is the rational for further restrictions
in other area? Why not eliminate those sections of the by-law and have all areas fall under the "permitted area" section?
From: Thompson, Kim D. [mailto:kthompson@cityofpickering.com]
Sent: March 4, 2010 09:11
Subject: RE commends on proposed firearms by-law
Ms e circumstances you are describing are better dealt with under the criminal code. The
City's firearms regulations generally apply to hunters wishing to use firearms out in the open, in
accordance with all other regulatory requirements.
Your concerns regarding firearms in your home are regulated under totally different legislation which
you may wish to discuss with Durham Regional Police to ensure you have met any requirements for
storage, as.well as your legal ability to use in self defence situations.
Thank you for taking the time to express.your concerns.
Kimberly Thompson
Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services
Clerk's_ Office
City of Pickering
Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2187
Toll Free: 1.877.420.4666
Fax: 905.420.9685
TTY: 905.4201739
kthompson(&cityofpickering.com
www.cityofpickeringcom
APlease consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print!
u<nnnv.sustainabiepickerinc.com
Fro
Sent: March 3, 2010 10:05 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: comments on proposed firearms by-law
Dear Kimberly Thompson,
2
am a Pickering resident and property owner. I live in what the proposed by-law describes as the "urban area"..According
to this proposal, should someone break into my home, it would be illegal for me to defend my person and my prope y
using a firearm. I take great offense to this. Studies have shown guns to be the safest and most effective means of 110
defence. Using a gun for protection results in fewer injuries to the defender than using any other means of defence and is.
safer than not resisting at all (Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.). The myth that 'guns
are dangerous when used for protection" disappears when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myth persists
because it is repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to question it by examining the mountains of data
available.
In fact, the people who would benefit most from this by-law are criminals. It would make their jobs much safer, The
brilliant criminologist Cesare Beccaria says "Laws that forbid the carrying. of arms disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants-,
they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence
than an armed man.".
Instead of gun control why not focus on firearms safety education?
I hope you will pass my comments onto the rest of council and reconsider this by-law. Let's work to protect the innocent,
not the criminals.
_Sincerely,
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY. NOTICE
As regulated by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000 C5,
this electronic transmission, including all attachments, is directed in confidence to the person(s) to.
which it is addressed, or an authorized recipient, and may not otherwise be distributed; copied,
printed or disclosed. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify.the
sender immediately by return transmission and then immediately delete this transmission, including
all attachments, without copying, printing, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
As regulated by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000 C5,
this electronic transmission, including all attachments, is directed in confidence to the person(s) to
which it is addressed, or an authorized recipient, and may not otherwise be distributed, copied,
printed or disclosed. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by return transmission and then immediately delete this transmission, including
all attachments, without copying, printing, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you
3
Thompson,.Kim D.
From.: Thompson, Kim D.
Sent: March 10 201.0 11:08 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Another attempt to screw up Pickering!!
Mr. the process approved by Council to solicit public input is outlined in the previous e-mail
Upon receiving the comments provided, staff will review and prepare a final draft of the proposed by-
law in a report for Council's consideration. The comments provided by the public will be included in.
this final draft.
Councii will then determine if the proposed by-law is passed.
If you have any further comments to add, please e-mail them to me prior to March 31, 2010..
Thank you for your interest in the proposed Firearms By-law.
Kimberly Thompson
Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services
Clerk's Office
City of Pickering
Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2187
Toll Free: 1.877.420.4666.
Fax: 905.420.9685
TTY: 905.420.1739
kthompson(a-)_cityofpickering.com
www.cityofpickering.com
MAPlea,se. consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print!
www.sustainablepickering.com
Fro
Sent: March 10, 2010 10:50 AM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: RE: Another attempt to screw. up Pickering!!
Hello Kim
Please put me on, the committee for input on the final draft proposal.Keep me posted by E mail. .
Thank you
On Wed, 2/17/10, Thompson, Kim D. <kthompson@cityofpickering.com> wrote:
From: Thompson, Kim D. <kthompson@cityofpickering.com>
i
Subject: RE: Another attempt to screw up Pickering!!
To:
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 12:15 PIv 1 12
Mr. s we discussed this morning by telephone, City of Pickering Council has approved the
request to solicit input from stakeholders and the public regarding the draft firearms by-law, prior to
presenting a final recommended draft to Council.
Please find attached the Report to Executive Committee which outlines the rationale for the revisions
made in the draft firearms by-law. The report also contains the proposed draft of the firearms by-law
for your review and comment. Please note the final page of the report is the map associated with the
current by-law to provide the opportunity for comparison. The existing firearms by-law may be viewed
in its entirety by clicking this link:
http://www.cityofpickering com/standard/cityhalUbylaws/images/fireatms.pdf
Please provide any comments in writing by March 31st, 2010. Please. ensure you include your address in any
comments submitted for review.. You may send via e-mail or mail to the contact information below. If you
have any questions or require clarification of the interpretation of the proposed by-law, please contact me by e-
mail or telephone as outlined below.
Thank you for participating in the consultation process for the firearms by-law. Any comments received will
be included in the report to Council with the final proposed firearms by-law.
Kimberly Thompson
Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services
Clerk's Office
City of Pickering
Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2187
Toll Free: 1.877.420.4666
Fax: 905.420.9685
-TTY: 905.420.1739
kthompsonna,cityofpickerin com
2
www.6tvofpickering.com
i
113 ,
,Please consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print!
www.sustainablepickering.com
From: _
Sent: February 16, 2010 10:31 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Another attempt to screw up Pickering!!
This proposal to (Lets face it) end hunting in Pickering is totally misguided.I don't see why I as a law abiding citizen of Pickering
cannot bow hunt in places where I have been hunting with permision and without incident for 15 years.I also speek for a countless
numbers of fellow Bow hunters in the.area who have an impecable-safety record.
Sitting in a tree, not making noise being quiet as a church mouse,trying to put a little meat in the freezer in which we pay dearly
for.Did you ever calculate how much money is generated to the city of Pickering through deer,turkey and small game licences.The
money that is generated from bunting is in the.hundreds of thousands. Not to mention the huge coyote problem which we as hunters
are your only hope to corral this infes tati on. There will be stong ramifications with such a short sighted proposal.Who is this proposal
serving ? Let me guess, is it a very few relentless individuals with a chip on there shoulder towards hunting and hunters in general. .
This witch hunt is wrong and must be thrown to the way side.lt is a one sided proposal to stop honest law. abiding, tax paying people
who have been hunting in Pickering before any by-law even existed. .
Please stop this big mistake and tell these anti-hunters to take a long look at themselves because one day it might be their children
who are attacked by the uncontolable population of coyotes! Like I've been saying we have a right to hunt in our beautiful township
! !
let's not screw it up because of a 'prejudice minority
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
As regulated by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S. C. 2000 C51
this electronic transmission, including all attachments, is directed in confidence to the person(s) to
which it is addressed, or an authorized recipient, and may not otherwise be distributed, copied,.
printed or disclosed. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by return transmission and then immediately delete this transmission, including
all attachments, without copying,' printing, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you
3
Thompson, Kim D.
From:
Sent: March 15, 2010 11:49 AM 1 4
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: RE: Commentary on Draft By-law
From: kthompson@cityofpickering.com
To:
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:23:53 -0400
Subject: RE: Commentary on Draft, By-law
thank you for providing your comments below. Could you please provide your residential address so that your
comments can be.incorporated into the follow up report to Council?
Thank you
Kimberly Thompson
Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services
Clerk's Office,
City of Pickering
Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2187
Toll Free: 1:877.420.4666
Fax: 905.420.9685
TTY: 905.420.1739
kthompson6Dcityofpickerinq.com
www.cityofpickering..com
APlease consider your environmental responsibility = think before you print! www.sustainablegickering.com
Fro
Sent: March 14, 2010 12:32 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Commentary on Draft By-law
Mrs. Thompson,
My name i nd I am a. hunter that hunts deer, turkey, ducks and geese in the.
pickering area. During t e last few.years the howling of coyotes being heard during any time.of a hunt
was not a ,common sight. The coyote population is increasing in great numbers and are moving into urban
areas. We know from recent news stories that there has been a chocolate lab that was mauled from a pair
of coyotes while it was being walked.. Another more recent event where a smaller breed of dog, not sure,
what it was, was attacked and kill.ed by a coyote while on leash and being walked by its owner. This
shows that coyotes have no fear of `humans, especially when they are hungry, and have to move into
urban areas for food. I also have witnessed this sprawl into urban areas when I was coming off,. the
offramp from the 407 onto Markham road and a coyote the size of a german shepherd walked infront of
my truck. This very year,-maybe 10 to 15 minutes after my father had shot a deer he followed the blood
trail to find where the deer had died and two or three coyotes ran out from under some pine trees and
scattered. This was right by the spot where the deer had layed down to rest for the first time after being
shot. This is an example of one species that has become a nusance and that requires hunters to control
their populations.
The proposed by-law suggests that in order for one to use a firearm is if the property is at least 10 acres
1
115
in size and only for protection of property from wildlife. What would be the case if the property was 9 or
even 8 acres in size? Would this restrict people from protecting their own property because their lot is too
small? The concern for firearms being discharged within certain areas of HIGHLY populated areas is .
understandable, but too increase boundaries of a restricted area because a certain road has become a
commuter corridor is highly illogical. It is a known fact that one is to shoot away from roads and home
and into an area with a backdrop that would stop the projectile, bullet or arrow. Also, eliminating the
discharge of firearms would eliminate hunting in turn which would allow deer populations to increase.
These increases in deer population increases not only the amount of damages to farmer's crops, but to
the amount of collisions that could occur cm this 'major commuter corridor.'
The proposed by-law seems to be suggested by people who have a negative notion of hunting or the use
of firearms and who are trying to find a reason to eliminate it. The problems. that would follow the
restriction of firearm use stated io this by-law, would be larger in scale and more. probable-than the
possibilities that hikers, who do not look like deer or any other type of wildlife, could be harmed by
firearms.
rl
Since
Stay in touch. Get Messenger onyour phone now.
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
.As, regulated by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S. C. 2000 C5,
this.electronic transmission, including all attachments, is directed in confidence to the.person(s) to
which it is addressed, or an authorized recipient, and may not otherwise be distributed, copied,
printed or disclosed. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by return transmission and then immediately delete this transmission, including
all attachments; Without copying, printing, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you
IM on the go with Messenger on your phone. Try now.
Thompson, Kim D. 1 6
From:
Sent: March 2 0 2:43 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Re: Draft Firearms By-law Comment
wrote:
> Attention Kimberly Thompson
> I'am concerned that there is some thought being given to
? changing the bye- law for firearms in Pickering:
I 'am a cross- bow hunter for deer and have been hunting deer
> in the Claremount area in Pickering for over fifteen years. We have
> always had and still have a wonderful relationship with the local
>'residents and farmers whose properties we hunt:
> They are quite pleased to have us harvest deer that are
> continually damaging crops, running into, and damaging vehicles at
thousands of dollars a pop and causing safety concerns for drivers.
>
> I have not heard of cross-bow hunters causing problems or
> damage to the residents or farmers in Pickering, and see no practical
> reason why this.bye law should be changed.
>
> Please contact me should you require futher information that
> could supply.
>
>
1
Thompson, Kim D.
From:- 117
Sent: March 29,2010 4:59 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Draft Firearms By-law for Comment
I understand that the purpose behind this bylaw "reduces the risk of unintentional interactions
between persons discharging firearms and members of the community:.." As this could be
serious I would like to know the circumstances where this has occurred and the number of
incidents you are basing the implementation of this bylaw upon. I am sure there is documented.
evidence demonstrating this risk to be statistically significant if not this is nothing more than a
waste.of taxpayers money. Meddlesome urbanites unfounded fears being jammed down the
throats of a rural population. What about.automobile deer collisions? Do you care nothing for
the lives of those injured or killed as result of these collisions. These incidents will increase
commensurate with the increased deer population. What about the wasting diseases? The
encephalopathy's that. follow ungulate overpopulations. More commonly known.as "Mad Cow
Disease" the farmers are going to love the town when these show up, as they have in the
Midwest of the USA. If ignorance and fear are what you are basing this bylaw and not
rational, statistical evidence, please STOP WASTING MY MONEY.
The.Ontario- Ministry of Natural Resources monitors deer populations across Ontario. Unless
Pickering possess the knowledge and have access to the deer population data they do, perhaps
you should consult the REAL EXPERTS on this topic and find out what the deal is before you
start PLAYING GOD, with city bylaws.
MEMO
Pickering
ON
1
Thompson, Kim D. 1 8
From: MEOW
Sent: March 29, 2010 5:57 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Firearms discharge bylaw proposed ammendment
To whom it may concern:
Hello my name is .I grew up in Pickering 1964 to 19961 now live in Ajax. I have hunted in
Pickering for close to 30 years on the property the town now wants to restrict, In my opinion I find this
ridiculous. by my observation I see a decline in human population in these areas and a increase in wildlife.I
believe this is being changed by pressure from anti hunting groups and has absolutely nothing to do with public
safety on these lands as reporte.11 find it humorous that a town councillor will enter on land without proper
permission pose for a picture. for the paper when she and the photographer are the only ones breaking the law in
this scenario.My friends and I have worked hard as a user group to gain proper permission from farmers and
land owners to go on these leased properties We seem to be the only ones to have done this. I have been
cheeked many times by Durham Police over the years while hunting and have never had a issue with them or
them with me. Maybe the biggest problem is that people think this is"crownland" and trespass and it is clearly
not.Archery hunting is probably the safest form of hunting in urban settings and should continue on. these lands.
Thank You
1
Thompson, Kim D.
From:- 1 1 9
Sent: March 29, 2010 8:27 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: BYLAW CHANGES-HUNTING IN PICKERING
Hi my name is Ihave the good fortune of li ving and hunting in Pickering. Due to my interest in
.this I am a firm believer in conservation. One of the mechanizims of conservation is.control! I believe.with the
NiNR&OFAH,that opportunities for hunting should be expanded not restricted. The township should be
involved in a controlled hunt of deer and coyotes. Particularily coyotyes with thier expanding population
contributing to the spread of caninne distemper and rabies. The fear the public has of this I'm sure is greater
than the want to see it get out of control. The restricted travel of arrows is a much safer avenue and would-be
less likely to create unnessisary calls for police services. If there is any doubt about the uncontrolled deer
population, I know that the insurance companies would like to not have to pay.out the large sums they do each
year.Asfor the agrculture in Durham every farmer would like.to,have a higher yeild from their fields,andfecl
secure in the fact their livestock is unmolested. I spend a good deal of time teaching my son the.values the land
provides to us and would like to have more chances to do so. I hope that good sense will prevail and that a fine
tradition for young people will endure. Regards
1 ,
Thompson, Kim D.
From: 1 20
Sent: March 29, 2010 11:41 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Firearms By law - proposed changes
i
To The City of Pickering
My name is m `a long time resident and hunter in the Durham Region. Residing in Pickering from 1989-1997,.
I have lived in South Ajax since that time. Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns directly to you via this
email.
Since 1994 1 have possessed landowners permission to hunt two parcels of farmland south and east of the village of .
Claremont. I am an avid , deer, wild turkey, .goose, duck and coyote hunter. The various changes the.existing by law
seems very problematic and unsupportable in my opinion. Council seems to be considering these restrictive changes for
change sake, just to freshen up and replace something that in my opinion is working well. I am in favour of no changes
at all..
Lawful hunters and farmers have always. enjoyed a rich and cooperative, relationship. I personally have a good
relationship with several farmers in the Pickering area, all expressing the same negative sentiments with respect to
these proposed by law changes you are considering.
I am a very concerned stakeholder in the Pickering hunting community and do not feel our interests are being
considered. Please-be advised I plan to support the groundswell of likeminded law abiding hunters. and farmers in
opposing these proposed changes..
Sincerely,
1
Thompson, Kim D.
From: 1 21 _
Sent: March 10.40 A
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Draft Firearms Bylaw for Comment
Kim, it is my intention to respond to the proposed changes in the hunting bylaws in Pickering. My
name i nd I am a hunter. I do not apologize nor do I feel I need to justify this fact to
anyone. I have resided in Whitby for over thirty years. I decided to take up bow hunting approximately
25 years ago and the majority of this pastime was within the boundaries of Pickering. The report that
was given to the executive committee implies that by changing the reguIations of the use of firearms
and bows, the risk of dangerous unintentional interactions will be reduced.
During this time have met many members of the community that were using the green spaces and
the off-road trails that have been mentioned in the report, however not once was there any risk to any
member of the community be it a dog walker or another hunter. In the:majority of these "interactions"
the.community member(s) were on private property without the landowners permission. In almost
every case, community members did not realize that.there was even a deer hunting season in
Pickering with bows or that they were on private property. For the most part, all of my "discussions"
with.the person(s) were cordial and based on facts surrounding bow hunting, provincial hunting laws
and landowner permission.
There has only been a few times in the many years I have bow hunted in Pickering where a
community member has been belligerent and unreasonable to deal with. I suspect that these people
have "-forced" a review of the existing Firearm By-law that has served all members of the community-
well, for over 30 years. I trust that the council will decline to be swayed by the voices of the few that
have proved over and over again that they have a personal agenda to discredit all activities carried
out by hunters in Ontario.
Neither the footer nor anything else in this E-mail is intended to or constitutes an <br>electronic
signature.and/or legally binding agreement in the absence of an <br>express statement or Autoliv
policy and/or procedure to the contrary.<br>This E-mail and any attachments hereto are Autoliv
property and may contain legally <br>privileged, confidential and/or proprietary information.<br>The
recipient of this E-mail is prohibited from distributing, copying, forwarding or in any way
<br>disseminating any material contained within this E-mail without prior written <br>permission from
the author. If you receive this E-mail in error, please <br>immediately notify the author and delete this
E-mail. Autoliv disclaims all <br>responsibility and liability for the consequences of any person who
fails to <br>abide by the terms herein. <br>
1
i
Thompson, Kim D.
From: 1 22
Sent: March 30, 2010 107 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D
Subject: hunting bylaw changes
Hello, my name is 1 have lived in Pickering since 1989 at 851 Miriam Rd. I have been hunting in and
.around Pickering since I have lived here. The opportunities for hunting and fishing so close to home are what I love about
living here. I hunt with a shotgun and a bow. for deer, ducks and geese. As I understand the proposed changes are being
brought forward to address the issue of "unintentional interactions" between hunters and non hunters. If a hunter has
permission to hunt on private property and he has an unintentional interaction with a none hunter, that person would have
to be a trespasser` Perhaps the laws that need to be changed are the trespassing laws. The hunter would be the one
abiding by the laws; the other person would be there unlawfully. Please don't penalize me for following the laws. Hunters
like myself and others go to great lengths to comply with all of the laws and hunting regulation, we take the courses, and
we get the licenses and permits and comply with the registrations. We are likely the most regulated group around. Please
don't make things. anymore difficult than they already are. To this end I give my full support to The Ontario Federation of
Anglers and Hunters and for their work to protect my right to hunt in Pickering. Thank you.
1
Thompson, Kim D.
From:' 123
Sent: March 30, 2010 6:41 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Draft Firearms By-law for Comment
I thank you for allowing me to make this submission. I am 46 years old, a Chartered Accountant and
Chartered Business Valuator working in the Toronto area. I hunt in Pickering and will be affected by
the change in the Bylaw. I am of Metis heritage and hunt to provide healthy, organic, drug free food
for my family.
I am sure there have been arguments put forth regarding the safety of hunting, the lack of any record
of injury or accident from hunting and the benefit it provides the farmer and the conservation of the
animal population in hunting areas. You have no doubt been given the statistics on how urban
sprawl is killing wild life and endangering existing population and how hunters assist Natural
Recourse Ministries to maintain balance. In other words, repealing hunting rights and all the benefits
that it provides will have a detriment effect without any empirical benefit of their repeal. You, really,
then have to ask yourself why is this an issue.
When I tell people I hunt in the professional environment in which I work, I am many times scorned
by people who detest killing of animals. Typically this assault is while they are cutting into a
medium rare steak; their hypocrisy. alludes them. The problem with people against hunting is that
they are too far away from the harvest, they are ill informed of the needed benefits hunting provides
and refuse to accept the negative impact their subdivisions have in destroying environmental habitat.
for animal and bird populations. Yet, these very people who cause huge problems in the.
environment are the .very people who condemn hunting on the basis of the environment. In my
opinion, their voice is rife with ignorance and should lose standing in any debate on. the topic.
Canada was founded on hunting and fishing traditions, they existed before Canada was discovered.
These traditions have survived and are an integral part of our culture; I assume the rural culture is
welcome in the Canadian multicultural mosaic. Farmers and,.the hunters that assist them have no
problem accommodating the increase in population in the traditional hunting areas, there would be
expected a mutual respect. We understand there will be more development encroaching in our
hunting areas, but that must not erode our rights and traditions that have existed for generations.
Hunting has existed, in Pickering since Canada was founded. It is the longest tradition we have.
I would like to appeal to your sense of fairness and reason when you review this bylaw. There is no
need for any change. There is no need to accommodate the intolerant. Hunters and non-hunters can
continue to live side by side in mutual respect, any bylaw change creates an environment of
intolerance toward the hunter.
Sincerely;
1 -
Thompson, Kim D.
124
From:
Sent: March 30, 2010 9:03 PM
To Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Draft Firearms By-Law
Dear Kimberly Thompson
t wish to express my dislike of the proposed Firearms By-law. My wife and myself have been residents of
Pickering for the past 13 years and have been avid bow-hunters for the past 7. The proposed by-law is making hunters
sound like law breaking tresspasser. My wife and I have been hunting in the Whitevale area over the past 7 years and we
have never had any incidents that were dangerous in. nature and we have never come into contact with people walking
dogs or even going out for a stroll in the bush. We have always had written permission for the landowners and have never
caused any damage or scared anyone while hunting. Quite frankly, I'm appauled that my treestand was published in the .
local newspaper and the comments that were made regarding it's location. My treestand was on property that I have
permission from the landowner and the idiot who had taken the picture was actually the one who was trespassing. I have
insurance that I provide the landowner should I fall and provide reasonable assurance that they will not be sued should
anything misfortunate happen to me. I highly doubt that individual that was taking pictures had permission or insurance.
I enjoy harvesting deer with my family and sharing the meat that I harvest with neighbours and friends. As you well know
there is a very high deer population in the Durham area and not to mention the coyote population has exploded,and are
even taking small dogs from residents. Not only do I enjoy hunting with my family but I provide a service to the
landowners. I hunt about 6 properties in the Whitevale area and the landowners and renters are very pleased. that I take
care of the coyotes that are always getting closer and closer to their pets and thankfully not their children. I also hunt all
the properties on Paddock Rd. who were complaining of coyotes getting to close for comfort. I have yet to this day been
denied access to property for the purpose of hunting deer or coyote. I hope those people who are responsible for this
attack on hunters are prepared to face a family and compensate-them for a loss of a pet or heaven forbid an attack ona
child.
My family and I are responsible hunters and not trespassers. We hunt with guns and crossbows which are not considered
firearms by any organization in Canada so I don.'t know where thay are getting these facts from. The police has never
been called to any placewhere I've ever hunted and I'm very well know in the areas that I have mentioned. I am very
upset at the fact that they are portraying us as evil.
Development will soon take over the areas that I'm hunting and once this happens you can be rest assured that I will not
put anyone in danger and will not continue hunting in areas that are being developed. I have a family and I know what the
word responsible means. I will not put workers or anyone for that matter at risk for my own enjoyment.
I would like to make some suggestions. Primarily I suggest that the current by-law remain in place and that the primary
issue of landowner permission be at the forefront. If one does not have permission to be somewhere then they should'nt
be there period. Not to walk dogs, not hunt, not ride their ATV, not there period.
I suggest that the areas which are currenity being hunted remain the same and gradually be eliminated as development
spreads.We really have only. about 3 years left in some of the areas so let's just leave it alone and let's us as responsible
hunters go in peace.
The idea of crossbows being firearms is absolutley rediculous and not defined anywhere in Canada as being a firearm so
that really should not even be discussed.
If these members of council are really interested in doing something, why don't they clamp down on AN traffic which is
more dangerous to people than a hunter who climbs in a tree at 5:00 Am and are back home way before any. of these
people who are complaining are even up.
I'll speak my mind the night of the meeting and I'll demand an apology for making us sound like criminals. Let them hide
behind their newspaper articles but they will have to answer that night. I hope that person who took the picture is there
that night. Probably won't be. Coward.
1
Thompson, Kim D.
From: 125
Sent: March 31, 20108:07 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Cc:
Subject: Proposed Firearms By-Law File: L-2000-001-10
Dear: Kim Thompson March 31, 2010
Re: Proposed Firearms By-Law. File: L-2000-001-10
I write this letter in regards to the proposed Firearms By-Law File: L-2000-001-10,- the proposed changes to the hunting
bi-laws in the Pickering area. I'm writing to express my opposition in banning the. hunting activity. Over the past 10 years
that I have resided and hunted in the Pickering area, I have never had any altercations with the-residents of the
community nor have we had any safety issues as we all take the necessary precautions in ensuring that we as well as
those around,us remain out of. harms way. As avid hunters we pride ourselves on the respect we provide both the
farmers, the residents and other fellow sportsman.
We often see.The MNR diligently patrolling the hunting areas to oversee the activity and ensure that the hunting
regulations are abided by. In the 20 years that I have held a valid hunting license, I have never had any hunting
infractions, accidents or confrontations.
In a recent publishing re: hunting in Pickering, it clearly depicts hunters as criminals and lawbreakers. It's disheartening
to read that a law is being implemented to ban the sport and the control of the wildlife population in the community. By .
implementing this by-law; you will lose. control of herd populations that will inevitably cause a high amount of vehicle
accidents.
I truly hope that we can come to an agreement that will be beneficial to all parties.
Sincerely, .
WOMEN WWWN§W=~
1
Thompson, Kim D.
126
From:
Sent: March 31, 2010-T-.29 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Proposed Firearms Bylaw.Amendments
Importance: High
Dear City of Pickering
Attention Ms. Kimberly Thompson
As a long time resident of Pickering and a former Fish and Wildlife Biologist with the Province I object
to this proposed Bylaw amendment. I live in the Duffin-Rouge Agricultural Preserve, Ham very
concerned that the city would even contemplate an amendment to the Firearms Bylaw. I live with
the impacts of wildlife on my life on a daily basis. The land, I rent to a local farmers to cultivate crops
on, is continually devastated by the impacts of White-tailed Deer, Canada Geese, Waterfowl, and
Raccoons. The only management option available to farmers.and land owners is through hunting
and only then during open season and by prescribed methods as defined and controlled by provincial.
regulations. The sport of hunting has been and continues to be a historic traditional recreational
pursuit that is recognized in law and controlled through the vigorous enforcement of those laws. The
encroachment of the urban envelope has altered the methods in which hunters partake in their sport...
The change from rifles to bows and arrows or crossbows for the physically challenged (as .I am) with
their limited range has allowed hunting to continue. The creation of the Agricultural Preserve
restricted the encroachments of all things "Urban". This protection is recognized in provincial laws,
easements and ministerial zoning orders. One of the Agricultural Easements on my property
severely restricts my ability to do many things; right down to the simplest thing like paving my
driveway. The Agricultural Preserve is in place to recognize agriculture and farming as necessary
pursuits required by our society. Yet the implementation of this bylaw would make it more difficult
and. less financially rewarding for those who chose to farm the land to make a living. Hunting is a
necessary part of farming within the preserve because when farming fails to be a viable economic
pursuit then the Agricultural Preserve will cease to exist. The Agricultural Preserve. is privately
owned land the public does not have trails through it. There. is no conflict with people because any
one walking in the preserve has permission or is trespassing which is illegal. The issue of public
health and safety has and continues to be ignored by both the City of Pickering and the Province of
Ontario when both parties opted to continue to have a "Seaton Trail in the valley lands. The current
valley trail is unsafe and accessible to only the few. While it is without a doublet poorly located.
The Province owns lands in Seaton that are ideally suited to an accessible trail that could be used.
year round in safety by all citizens, far from any conflict with the wildlife management activities on
private within the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve.
Please just drop this silly bylaw amendment.that was started by Councillor O'Connell and a resident
of Toronto who if the report in the popular press is correct regularly trespasses on private property in
Pickering. I believe that the interests of the residents of Pickering and the fate of the Agricultural
Preserve are best served by continuing to allow responsible wildlife management through hunting.
Should council pass this new bylaw you should be expecting that I will attend council seeking both
protection from the wildlife I am no longer able to personally manage and compensation for lost
revenue due to crop damage. Council may chose to hire "professional hunters and trappers" to
remove the offending wildlife as the models in Caledon and Hamilton Wentworth in Ontario or many
1
of the. US States & Cities. I addition council my be forced to compensate drivers who hit deer on
Taunton Road as a consequence of your decision. I trust that you will use your best judgment.
127
specifically sections to which I object and why are as follows
Section 1
"dwelling" means a residential unit that is capable of being occupied on a permanent, seasonal
or part-time basis;"
This subsection definition is too vague and could include a simple garden shed as it would-be
capable of being used as a residence.
"highway,' has the same meaning as in subsection 1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and
includes all roads, streets, lanes, unopened and assumed road allowances;"
This subsection definition includes Unopened Road allowances which should not be considered
"Permitted Area means the area identified as such in Schedule A
This subsection definition omits sections of the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve which require
wildlife management activities a.k.a. hunting to control in a legal responsible manor the wildlife
populations that decimate crops. Modify the schedule accordingly.
"Restricted Area means the area identified as such in Schedule A"
This subsection definition includes sections of the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve which require
wildlife management activities a.k.a. hunting to control in a legal responsible manor the wildlife
.populations that decimate crops.. Modify the schedule accordingly.
"Urban Area" means the portion of the City south of and.including Taunton Road
This subsection definition includes sections of the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve which can not
be considered Urban anything.
Section 6
Should revert back to the original Map / schedule with the exceptions of those lands in Seaton which
due to there pending development could be excluded from any management activities on a time line
schedule that. is commensurate with the development of the Seaton lands.. Modify the schedule
accordingly.
Section 9
"No person. shall discharge a firearm or a bow in the Urban Area"
Should revert back to the original Map / schedule with the exceptions of those lands in Seaton which
due to there pending development could be excluded from any management activities on a time line
schedule that is commensurate with the development of the Seaton lands.
Section 9
"No owner of a property in the Urban.Area shall permit the discharge of a firearm
or a bow on such property"
Unenforceable, you can not make a landowner responsible for the actions an other individual, just
delete it!
Section 11
No person shall discharge a bow in the Restricted Area
2
128
This subsection includes sections of the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve which require wildlife
.management activities a.k.a. hunting to control in a legal responsible manor the wildlife populations
that decimate crops. Modify the schedule accordingly and..delete this section.
Section 12
No owner of a property in the Restricted. Area shall permit the discharge of a bow on such property
Unenforceable,.you can not make a landowner responsible for the actions an other individual, just
delete it!
Section 13
"No person shall discharge a firearm in the Restricted Area unless all of the
following conditions have been met:"
This subsection includes sections of the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve which have agricultural
easements .placed on title by the city of Pickering and that are different & contrary to other legislation,
policy and Modify the schedule accordingly and delete this section.
Section 14
.."No owner of a property in the Restricted Area shall.permit the discharge of a
firearm on such.property unless all of the conditions set out in section 13 have .
been met
Unenforceable, you can not make a.landowner responsible for the actions an.other individual, just
delete it!
Section 15b
within 100 metres of any school place of worship day nursery community
recreation centre conservation area or park
All of these Must be Legal and in compliance with a.nd operating in
accordance with approved zoning and site plan regulations,-all provincial and municipal bylaws.
Section 16
No owner of a property in the.Permitted Area shall permit the discharge of a
firearm or a bow on such property within ,
a 100 metres of.any school place of worship day nursery community
recreation centre conservation area or park
b 100 metres of any dwelling other than a dwelling owned by them or
c 10 metres of any highway
Unenforceable, you can not make. a landowner responsible for the actions an other individual, just
delete it!
Section 18c
any officer appointed to enforce federal or provincial legislation
Only Police and Conservation Officers may carry firearms so this is unacceptable.... unbelievable just
delete it!
Section.21
An officer may at any reasonable time enter upon any property for the purpose
of determining whether or not the provisions of this bylaw have been complied
.with
3
129
Contrary to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so it is unenforceable, you can not give an
officer of the law rights which are not give by statute, just delete it! Officers require Reasonable and
probable grounds for search and seizure
Section 22
No person shall prevent hinder.or interfere or attempt to prevent hinder or
interfere with an officer
Contrary to both Provincial and Federal legislation thus it is redundant unbelievable just delete it!
SECTION 23
No person permitted under this bylaw to discharge a firearm or bow shall permit
the projectile discharged to leave-the property from where the discharge took
place
Unenforceable, you can not make a. landowner responsible for the actions an other individual, just
delete it!
i
Thompson, Kim D.
From:
Sent: March 31, 2010 9:40 PM
To: Bylaw Web Email 1 3:0
Cc: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Proposed Firearms By-Law
Attachments: Hansen signature logo.jpg; ATT00001.htm
Dear Kimberly, I read the notice for the proposed by-law in the News Advertiser, dated February 24th, 2010.
Unfortunately I noticed it a.little late. Having read the proposal on the web site, I noticed that it did not compare.
the proposal to what currently exits. The map is extremely hard to decipher,. leaving me in .a. difficult position
when asked to comment. I am a long time resident of pickering, living on and in the. Petticoat Creek Area. I
would., very much oppose any legislation that would prohibit target shooting with an air rifle on my own
property in a properly set up range. Your announcement of a new bylaw concerns me since I don't have a clear
knowledge of what it truly represents or replaces. I would therefore strongly oppose any change until a much.
clearer picture is presented to myself and the public, and not tried to be passed under the .table. I do regret not -
being made aware. of this notice sooner, but sincerely hope my comments will be expressed at your meeting.
Sincerely Yours, OMEWMMM
Thompson, Kim D.
From:.
Sent: 1 31 February 19, 2010 5:48 AM
To: Thompson, Kim D
Subject: Re: Draft Firearms By-law for Comment
The draft seems reasonable thanks for your email.. NEW
riginal Message
FromO:-Thompson;: Kim D
To.
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:09 AM
Subject: Draft.Firearms By-law for Comment, .
You`have previously expressed an interest in the City of Pickering's review of the current firearms
by-law and requested the opportunity to comment on any proposed firearms by-law.
City of Pickering Council has approved the request to solicit input from stakeholders and the public
regarding the draft firearms by-law, prior to presenting a final recommended draft to Council.
Please find attached the Report to Executive Committee which outlines the rationale.for the revisions
made in the draft firearms by-law. The report also contains the proposed draft of the firearms by-law
for your review and comment. Please note the final page of the report is the map associated with
the current by-law to provide the opportunity for comparison. The existing firearms by-law may be
viewed in its entirety by clicking.this link-
http://www.cityofpickering cbm/standard/cityhall/bylaws/images/firearms.pdf
Please provide any comments in writing by March 31St, 2010.. Please en.sure you include your
address in any comments submitted. for review. You may send via e-mail or mail to the contact
information below. If you have any.questions or require clarification of the interpretation of the
proposed, by-law, please contact me. by e-mail or telephone as outlined below.
Thank you for participating in th.e consultation process'for the firearms by-law. Any comments
received will be included in the report to Council with the final proposed firearms by-law.
Kimberly Thompson
Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services
Clerk's Office
City of Pickering
Telephone: 905.:420.4660 ext 2187
Toll Free: 1:877.420.4666
Fax: 905.420.9685
TTY: 905.420.1739
kthompson(Zr cityofpickering. corn
www.cityofpickerin'q.com
Aplea-se consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print!
www.sustainablepickering.com
1
i
Dear Kimberly Thompson, .
132
After reviewing the proposed Firearms By-Law I received on February, 2010 I would
submit some changes as a farmer trying to make a living within the effective
boundaries. The first change I would propose is including the Ag-preserve area
south of Taunton and"north of the CP railway as a restricted area and not an urban
area. This area is primarily agricultural fields. I would also like to propose allowing
bows in the restricted area as they are the only legal tool allowed to use in the
harvesting of problem deer. The federal fish and wildlife has mandated that farmers
be.allowed to manage problem wildlife that cause crop damage. Firearms are not
allowed to control deer in the effected lands. We farm land from Uxbridge Township
to Scarborough and it is in the above mentioned areas that I experience my heaviest
losses due to wildlife damage. We farm over 300 acres in the affected area. Thank
you for considering my request.
Respectfully Yours,
Thompson, Kim D.
From:
Sent: 1 33 -March 2, 2010 8:58 AM
To: Thompson, Kim D. .
Subject: FW: re bi-law firearms
Dear Kimberly. Thompson;
Please note.the change.I made to the letter submitted on the 17th of Feb. I would like to change the.
boundary I' stated to north of the CP railway line instead of Finch as I realize that in the last couple of
years there are new homes on the north side of Finch Ave.
From:
To: kthompsonCa-ocityofpickerinc.com
Subject: re bi-law firearms
Date.: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:45:06 +0000
Now
low .
Dear Kimberly Thompson,
After reviewing the proposed Firearms By-Law I received on Thursday the 11th of February, 2010 I would
submitt some changes as a farmer trying to make a living within the effective boundaries. The first
change I would propose is including the Ag-preserve area south of Taunton and north of the CP railway. as
a restricted area and not an urban area. Fields north of the landfill as well should be restricted and not
urban. I would also like to propose allowing bows in the restricted area as they are the only legal tool
allowed to use in the harvesting of problem deer. The federal fish and wildlife. has mandated that.farmers
be allowed to manage problem wildlife that cause crop damage. Firearms are not allowed to control deer
in the effected lands. It is the above mentioned areas that I experience my heaviest losses due to wildlife
damage.
Respectfully Yours,
I< -
1
Thompson, Kim D.
From:
Sent: February 17, 2010 10:45 AM 1 34
To Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: re bi-law firearms
INN
Dear Kimberly Thompson,
After reviewing the proposed Firearms By-Law I received on Thursday the llth.of February, 2010 I would
submitt some changes as a farmer trying to make a living within the effective boundaries. The first
change I would propose is including the Ag-preserve area south of Taunton and north of Finch Ave. as a
restricted area and not an urban area. Fields north of the landfill as well should be restricted and not
urban. I would also like to propose allowing bows in the restricted area as they are the only legal tool
allowed to use in the harvesting of problem.deer. The federal fish and wildlife has mandated that farmers.
.be allowed to manage problem wildlife that cause crop damage. Firearms are not allowed to control deer
in. the effected lands. It is the above mentioned areas that I experience my heaviest losses due to wildlife
damage.
Respectfully Yours,
'
,
i now
4
i
1
i
Thompson, Kim D.
From: Thompson; Kim D.
Sent: 1 3 5 February. 17, 2010 10:34 AM
To:
Subject: RE: re- firearms bylaw
Attachments: Firearms By-law Report to Exec Com.pdf
Mr. 0100as per our telephone conversation, I'm attaching a copy of the Report to Executive
Committee regarding the.proposed firearms by-law. As we discussed, your comments regarding
issues with the urban boundary in relation to your farms, and the ability to control deer with the use of
bows rather than firearms to comply with MNR regulations are valid concerns which City staff need to
consider in a final draft of the firearms by-law.
I look forward to receiving your written comments regarding these and any other concerns you have,
to ensure the final by-law.draft addresses as many potential issues as possible.
Thank you for taking the time to provide your input..
Kimberly Thompson
Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services
Clerk's Office
City of Pickering
Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2.187
Toll Freer 1.877.420.4666
Fax: 905.420.9685
TTY: 905.420.1739
kthompson6a~cityofpickering.com
www.cityofpickering.com
APlease consider your environmental responsibility think before you print!
www.sustainablepickering.com
From:
Sent: February 17, 2010 9:53 AM
To: Thompson, Kim D.:
Subject: re- firearms bylaw
Dear Kimberly Thompson
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed new.bi-law changes in Pickering regarding firearms.
My wife Lois and I are partners in Sweet Ridge Farms and we own a large sweet corn retail business as
1
136
well as grow soyabeans, corn and wheat. I have been farming in south-west pickering for 25 years. We
own 111 acres at 170 concession 4 pickering and rent hundreds of other acres in Pickering. I am sure.
you are aware of the economic challenges farmers are faced with in todays marketplace.
I would like to inform the city council about the magnitude of damage Canada Geese and deer can do to
crops. As a farmer and wildlife enthusiast I enjoy seeing the abundance of wildlife in our area. At the
same time, I am in favour of managing them properly.
An example of the damage can be seen now in my planted, fields of winter wheat that will be eaten in the
early spring as the snow (lack of snow) melts off my crop, and devastating' deer damage to my field and
sweet corn near the edges of river valleys and wooded areas. Our small livestock and chickens and pets
are constantly threatened by coyotes.
Changing this bylaw inhibits the right I have as a farmer to protect my crops and livestock as specified in-
the federal fish and wildlife act.
.As a way of controlling wildlife damage, I allow responsible licenced hunters access to my farm fields.
In my experience, all.the hunters I have dealt with are skilled and.very respectful to the environment.
Allowing this to happen has been.a highly successful deterent to wildlife damage.
I also object to your boundaries for. Urban and Restricted areas. Many of my fields lie in the ag-preserve
north of Finch Ave. and south of Taunton, west of Duffins Creek. If you are familiar with this area it is
almost all fields with 2 small subdivisions, in cherrywood east and west: This area is my area of heaviest
losses and I object to any change that will takeaway my right to protect my crops in this. area. Any area
in the Ag-preserve should not be an Urban area and if farmers rights are restricted, why have an Ag-
preserve.
I also object to the restriction of bows as they are quiet, efficient,'and pose no threat to, citizens. They
are a valuable tool in managing wildlife.
I would suggest instead of changing this bilaw that has been effective for many years, why not enforce .
the problem of poaching,and tresspassing of unlicenced hunters with no permission from farmers. These
people are a problem and any bi-law restriction will not stop them.- Poachers disregard trespassing laws
and hunting regulations and they could be stopped if Game Wardens patrolled south west pickering.
I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion on this important bylaw change and hope that you can
respect my opinion as a farmer with lots at stake on your decision.
Sincere)
P.S.. On another angle I would recommend a by-law restricting the abundant damage to my crops due' to
ATV's and dirt bike's, as well as dog walkers with no permission who take liberty to treat my fields. as
a racing track or walking park. The hunters I allow on my fields often confront these riders and walkers
and remind them of the damage they can do to my crops.
2
3
e
13 7April 1, 2010
L ~ I
Ms. D. Shields
® ® Clerk
City of Pickering
1 The Esplanade
Pickering, ON L1 V 6K7
The Regional
Municipality .
of Durham
RE: DAAC RESOLUTION - CITY OF PICKERING PROPOSED
Clerk's Department HUNTING BAN OUR FILE: C00
605 ROSSLAND RD. E.
PO BOX 623 Ms. Shields, the Planning Committee of Regional Council considered
CANADA ON uN 6A3
CANADA the above matter and at a meeting held on March 31, 2010 Council
905-668-7711 adopted the following recommendations of the Committee:
1-800-372-1102
Fax: 905-668-9963
.
E-mail: clerks@durham.ca "THAT the following comments from the Durham Agricultural Advisory
www.durham.ca Committee (DAAC) with respect to the City of Pickering's proposed
Pat M. Madill, A.M.C.T., CMM III firearms by-law currently being circulated for public comment be
Regional Clerk forwarded to the City of.Pickering:
e In Section 13 i) - add the words 'or occupa t' after the word
'owner';
In Section 13 ii) - delete and replace with 'the property has a
Farm Business Registration number'; and
G In Section 13 v) - delete and replace with 'the firearm is
regulated through the Wildlife Management Unit of the Ministry
of Natural Resources'."
P.M. Madill; AMCT, CMM III .
Regional Clerk
PMM%tf
c: A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning
"Sefvice Excellence
for our C lahities"
100% Post Consumes
i
i
c + ?
April 1, 2010 1 38
t
Ms. D. Shields
® Clerk
City of'Pickering s
1 The Esplanade y n
a
Pickering, ON L1V 6K7
The Regional, . .
-
Municipality
of Durham RE: DAAC RESOLUTION - CITY OF PICKERING PROPO,'ED - 7---'
Clerk's Department HUNTING BAN OUR FILE: C00.
605 ROSSLAND RD. E.
PO BOX 623 Ms. Shields, the Planning Committee of Regional Council considered
WHITBY ON L1N 6A3 the above matter and at a meeting held on March 31, 2010 Council
CANADA
905 -668-7711 adopted the following recommendations of the Committee.
1-800-372-1102
Fax: 905-668-9963
E-mail: clerks@durham.ca ".THAT the following comments from the Durham. Agricultural Advisory
www.durham:ca Committee (DAAC) with respect to the City of Pickering's proposed
Pat M. Madill, A.M.c.T, cMM In firearms by-law currently being circulated for public.comment be
Regional clerk forwarded to the City of:Pickering:
® In Section 13.i) - add the words 'or occupant' after the word
owner,,
® in Section 13 ii) - delete and replace with 'the property has a
Farm Business Registration number', and.
In Section 13 v) delete and replace with 'the' firearm is
regulated through the Wildlife Management Unit of the Ministry
of Natural Resources'."
if
P.M..Madill, AMCT, CMM III
Regional Clerk '
PMM/tf
c: A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning ,t
,
7
c- A 2_o0
Service Excellence
fc! OW Communities"
100% Post Consumer
Fro
1 3 SC ~
vim, -k C~ ...5
b) THAT a copy of Report #2010-P-19 be forwarded to the area
` municipalities, the Federal Minister of Natural Resources, the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency, the Ontario Minister of the
...Environment, the Ontario Minister of Energy and Infrastructure,
Ontario Power Generation (OPG), Hydro One, Durham's MPs and
MPPs, and the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities
(CANHC).
5. DAAC RESOLUTION - CITY OF PICKERING PROPOSED HUNTING
See BAN
Pages RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
608-609 &
Agenda
Page 71 THAT the following comments from the Durham Agricultural Advisory
Committee (DAAC) with respect to the City of Pickering's proposed
firearms by-law currently being circulated for public comment be forwarded
to the City of Pickering:
In Section 13 i) - add the words 'or occupant' after the word 'owner';
In Section 1.3 ii) - delete and replace with 'the.property has a Farm
Business Registration number'; and
® In Section.13 v) -delete and replace with 'the.firearm is regulated
through. the Wildlife Management Unit of the Ministry of Natural
Resources'.
Respectfully submitted,
J. Gray, Chair
Planning Committee
403
running uommittee - 8 - March 16, 2010
f) MONITORING OF GROWTH TRENDS FILE: D01-02-01 (2010-P-2140
Report #2010-P-21 from A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning, was
received.
MOVED by Councillor Grant;
(65) "THAT Report #2010-P-21 of the Commissioner of Planning be
received for information."
CARRIED
g) 2009 ANNUAL BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY REVIEW, FILE: D03-02
(2010-P-22)
Report.#2010-P-22 from A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning, was
received.
MOVED by Councillor Grant,
(66) "THAT Report #2010-P-22 of the Commissioner of Planning be
received for information."
CARRIED
7. EARLY RELEASE REPORTS
a) APPLICATION TO AMEND THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN,
SUBMITTED BY KEITH SHIER, TO PERMIT THE SEVERANCE OF A
SURPLUS FARM DWELLING AS A RESULT OF THE CONSOLIDATION
OF TWO NON-ABUTTING FARMS IN THE TOWNSHIP OF BROCK,
FILE: OPA 2010-001
A Report of the Commissioner of Planning will be. considered at the April 6,.
2010 meeting.
8. ADVISORY COMMITTEES
a) DURHAM AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
i) DAAC RESOLUTION - CITY OF PICKERING PROPOSED
HUNTING BAN
MOVED by Regional Chair Anderson
(67) "THAT we recommend to Council,-
THAT the following comments from the Durham Agricultural Advisory
Committee (DAAC) with respect to the City of Pickering's proposed
firearms by-law currently being circulated for public comment be
forwarded to the City of Pickering-
608
Planning committee - _ `
In Section 13 i) - add the words 'or occupant' after the word
141 owner',
• In Section 13 ii) - delete and replace with 'the property has a
Farm Business Registration number'; and
In Section 13 v) - delete and replace with 'the firearm is regulated
through the Wildlife Management:Unit of the Ministry of Natural .
Resources'."
CARRIED
ii) MINUTES OF MARCH 2, 2010'
MOVED by Regional Chair Anderson,
(68) "THAT the minutes of the Durham Agricultural Advisory
Committee meeting held on March 2, 2010 be received for
information."
CARRIED
b) DURHAM ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MOVED by Regional Chair Anderson,
(69) "THAT the minutes of the. Durham Environmental Advisory
Committee meeting held on February 11, 2010 be received for
information."
CARRIED.
C) DURHAM TRAIL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE
There were no minutes presented at this time.
The Committee had before it the outstanding items listing relating to the
Advisory Committees for information purposes.
9. REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS CURRENTLY.
BEING PROCESSED AND BEFORE THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD
MOVED by Regional Chair Anderson
(70) "THAT the Status Report, Regional Official Plan Amendment
Applications currently being processed and before the Ontario
Municipal Board, be received for information."
CARRIED
10. CORRESPONDENCE OUTSTANDING ITEMS
r MOVED by Regional Chair Anderson,
(71) "THAT the items currently outstanding be received for information."
CARRIED
609
- i
Thompson, Kim D.
From: 4 2
Sent: March 29, 2010 4:37 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: RE: by-law
Hi Kim;
Further to the last Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee. meeting, I wanted to send. you the input/feedback from the
Committee regarding the proposed hunting ban by-law. This resolution has gone to Planning Committe already and will
go to Council session tomorrow... further to our discussion I wanted you to have a heads up on the comments. You will
receive these formally throught Clerk's Dept. after Council.
-we can chat about this further, give me a call.
Thanks
b) PICKERING PROPOSED HUNTING BAN
IR"WRpraw circulated a copy of an e-mail from Kim Thompson, Manager, Municipal
Law Enforcement Services, City of Pickering, advising that the proposed firearms by-
law is presently being circulated for public comments and inviting the DAAC to provide
their input on the'draft by-law.
Discussion ensued regarding the exemptions to permit the control of nuisance wildlife
on agricultural lands in the restricted area. It was questioned if tenant farmers who rent
agricultural lands are still permitted to hunt, particularly on federal or provincially
owned lands. It was noted that there seems to be reluctance to give permission to hunt
on developer owned lands. Discussion also ensued regarding the need to indicate a
maximum firearm caliber in the by-law.
The Committee requested that the following comments be forwarded to the City of
Pickering for their consideration:
In Section 13 i) - add the words "or occupant" after the word "owner";
• in Section 13 ii) - delete and replace with "the property has a Farm Business
Registration number"; and
• In Section 13 v) - delete and replace with "the firearm is regulated through the
Wildlife Management Unit of the Ministry of Natural Resources."
N. Rutherford advised she will.forward the e-mail from Kim Thompson, as well as the
by-law and corresponding map to the Committee members for their review. She asked
the Committee members to forward any additional comments to her.
MOVED by.D. Risebrough,
"THAT we recommend to the Planning Committee for approval and
subsequent recommendation to Regional Council:
THAT the following comments from the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee
(DAAC) with respect to the City of Pickering`s proposed firearms by-law currently
being circulated for public comment be forwarded to the City of Pickering:
1
143
• In Section 13 i) - add the words 'or occupant' after the word 'owner',
• In Section 13 ii) - delete and replace with 'the property has a Farm Business
Registration number'; and
• In Section 13 v) - delete and replace with 'the firearm is regulated through the
Wildlife Management Unit of the Ministry of Natural Resources'."
CARRIED
"Thompson, Kim D." zkthompson@cityofpickering.com> 02/03/2010 11:03 am
118 INI, the proposed firearms by-law is presently being circulated for public comment. The timing is
perfect for the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee to provide their input prior to a final draft of
the by-law..
I have attached the Report to Executive Committee and the draft by-law for their, review. The last
page of the file is the existing firearms map for comparison.
The new by-law provides exemptions for agricultural lands in the restricted area to permit the control
of nuisance wildlife which may damage crops or property.
The specific provision is as follows:
13, No person shall discharge a firearm in the Restricted Area unless all of the following
conditions have been met-
1) the person discharging the firearm is the owner of the property or .a licensed
hunter or trapper with the written permission of such-owner
ii) the property is classified under the Assessment Act in the Farm Property Class
iii) the property is a minimum of 10 acres in size
iv) the discharge is for the purposes of protection of property from nuisance wildlife
that may be killed or harassed in accordance with applicable
provincial and federal legislation and,
v the firearm caliber is not greater than 275
14 No owner of a property in the Restricted Area shall permit the discharge of a firearm on such
property unless all.of the conditions set out in section 13 have
been met
The public consultation, process is open until March 31, 20101. Any comments the Durham
Agricultural Advisory Committee wishes to make should be submitted in writing to me either bye-
.mail or regular mail at the contact information below.
Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions.
Thank you
Kimberly Thompson
Manager, Municipal. Law Enforcement Services
Clerk's Office
City of Pickering
Thompson, Kim D.
From:
Sent: March 29, 2010 1 OA6 AM 44
To: Thompson, Kim D.
~
Cc: FIRM
Subject: proposed firearms by-law file L-200-001-10
Attachments: Wild life_Update_Repcrt_051109.pdf
Kim - thanks for discussing the above with me this morning.
You indicated that the Municipality will be incorporating an additional exemption to the draft bylaw which has the effect
of recognizing Provincially approved and regulated bow hunting seasons in the Municipality and permitting the discharge
of bows on farm properties during the apporved season.
This an amendment which our organization supports. In the absence of approved deer h.unting seasons the only
option for farmers to mitigate destruction of crops by deer is to apply to the Ministry . of Natural Resources for nuisance
deer removal authorizations - a process which MNR considers to be a last resort. The Provincial provisions for protection
of property do not apply to white tail deer. ( Section 31 subsection 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act )
As such we consider that Provincially regulated hunting seasons do play a major and important role in deer population
management and subsequent control of damage to agricultural crops by deer.
We appreciate Council's recognition of the need for farmers to protect their livestock and crops from nuisance wildlife
other than deer) by way the continuation of the exemption provided by Section 13 of the draft by-law.
have included for your and Council's information a May 2009 report updating the economic impact of wildlife damage
to Ontario crops and livestock.
OEM=
r~
i
• 1
1 4.5
GE OR G 1, ."I 0i" I
E Er'7iilF f °t .frtt}t rt; f I f1 s '1•; 7 .'F,
AN ECONOMIC UPDATE OF THE WILDLIFE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT FOR ONTARIO AGRICULTURE'
Prepared for: Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement
Association
Attention: Andy Graham
Prepared by: AI Mussel and Claudia Schmidt
George Morris Centre
225-150 Research Lane
Guelph, Ontario N 1 G 4T2
Telephone: 519-822-392 9 ext 209.
Fax: 519-837-8721
Email: al@georgemorris.org
Date: May 13, 2009
'The authors wish to acknowledge and thank Ingrid Taylor for her willing
and valued assistance in completing this project
I
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 146
The- purpose of this project was to update the 2000 :Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario
Agriculture report based on the current economic data.' Historic survey results located in the
material provided by OSCIA were used to determine the loss rates for crops and livestock for
1998. Some technical complications were introduced by data collected directly in the 2000
study that could not be directly updated and aggregated consistently with published data. Thus,
the 1998 results were recalibrated based on data publicly available today, and then updated -for
the period 2005 to 2007.
The results showed the following:
• Since 1998, the year the primary survey was undertaken, nominal prices have increased. .
for all horticultural and field commodities and sheep. On average, acreage of major.
crops has increased.
• The wildlife damage compensation requests for livestock damages to OMAFRA have
increased since the time of the.original study. While precise and unequivocal data on
wildlife population are not available, data on damage rates and harvest are consistent
with wildlife populations increasing
• Based on .consistent data, wildlife damage in Ontario has increased by about 20% in
value since 1998. The table below provides a summary of changes in wildlife damage
from .1998 to 2005/2007, based on the loss rates determined by the wildlife damage
survey undertaken in 1998, and with average yield/price/acreage data from 2005 to
2007. The table shows that, based on commodities covered in the study, wildlife damage
in Ontario costs Ontario farmers approximately $41 million per year.
The results of this study should be understood as conservative. Because a new survey was
beyond the scope of this study, the existing loss rate from the. 2000 study was used and applied
to more recent data. The indication'from secondary sources in terms of expenditure on wildlife
claims, wildlife harvest levels, and emergence of new wildlife species that damage crops,
suggests that the wildlife damage issue is increasing. In addition, some of the vegetable crops
included in the 2000 study could not be updated here. Thus, the costs of wildlife damage
appear quite material in the current context, and even at that there is ratio nale to expect that the
value of losses estimated for 2005/2007 is conservative.
I
1
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture .
4 7Chan e in wildlife damage to selected crops and livestock from 1998 to 2005/2007
Commodity 1998 2005/2007 Percentage
Change
Livestock
Beef $1,010,783 $828,812. -18.0 %
Sheep $495,180 $730,505 47.0%
Field Crops
Corn $13,805,506 $17,220,451 24.74%
Soybeans . $5,290,917 $5,833,636 10.26%
Wheat $506,021 $979,171 93.50%
Forages (Hay) $6,684,159 $8,491,312 27.04%
Fruit
Apples $1,988,756 $1,642,583 -17.40%°
Grapes $1,831,888 $2,443,179 33.37%
Blueberries $319,191 $157,326 -8.84%
Strawberries $102,613 $1.12,979 10.10%
Tender Fruit $1,992,794 $2,330,806 16.96%
Vegetables
Sweet corn $217,344 $151,329 -30.30%-
Total $34,245,153 $40,922,089 19.50%
'Recalibrated based on current data availability
2
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
.Table of Contents 1 4 8
1. Introduction " ........................................................................................................................5
1.1 Purpose and Objectives
1.2 Organization of the Report 5
6
2. Review: Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
2.1 Estimation of wildlife damage to crops and livestock .....................................................6 .
2.2 Data Availability 7
3.. Update of data.- 1998 to 2005/2007 ..................................................................................8
4. Assessment of current value of wildlife damage in Ontario for selected crops and
livestock ....::......................................:..........................................................................................11
4.1 Field and Horticultural Crops ........................................................................................11
4.1.1 Estimation of loss rate ...........................""..............................................................11
4.1.2 Re-calibration of the values in the 2000 report 12
4.1.3 Application of the loss rate to 2005/2007 ..:....................................13
4.2 Livestock ......................................................................................................................14
4.2.1 Sheep and Lambs 14
4.2.2 Beef Cattle .....................................:...............................:..:.............:................"......1,5
5. Updates to the investment in the abatement of wildlife damages- CO FSP .....17
6. Potential options to minimize the impact of wildlife-caused losses ...................................18
7. Observations and Conclusions ........................................................................................19
7.1 Recommendations ..........:.................................................................................:...........19
References 23
i
i
I
3
An Economic Update of the Wildlife impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
J F, cl
Tables .
Table 1 Crops - Changes in yield, prices and volumes marketed from 1998 vs. 2005/2007 ......8
Table 2 Changes in number of animals marketed and prices from 1998 to 2005/2007 8
Table 3 Percentage of volume lost in Ontario's crop sector (1998) .............................................1 1
Table 4 Percentage of volume lost in Ontario's horticultural sector 1998
Table 5 Recalibration of survey values for field crops ................................................................1, 2
Table 6 Recalibrated 1998 values for horticultural crops ...........................................................13
Table 7.Estimation of the value of wildlife damage .......::.............................................................14
Table 8 Recalibration of Wildlife losses in Sheep and Lambs with 1998 values 15
Table 9 Wildlife losses in Sheep and Lam bs .................................................:............................15
Table 10 Valuation of Beef- 1998 values ................................................:...15
Table 11 Recalibration of Wildlife losses in Beef with 1998 values ............................................16
Table 12 Updated wildlife losses in Beef .16
Table 13 Claims for preventative measures (COFSP) ................................................................17
Table 14 Wolf/Coyote Predation compensation program ........................:..................................18
Table 15 Bear Damage to Livestock compensation program ...:.................................................18
Table 16 Change in volum e lost due to wildlife damage for selected crops and livestock from
1998 to 2005/2007 21
Table 17 Change in wildlife damage to selected crops and livestock from 1998 to 2005/2007..22
Figures
Figure 1 Method used to determine economic impact for crop damage ......................................6
Figure 2 Estimated White-tailed Deer Harvests in Ontario, 1930-2005 ........................................9
Figure 3 Canada Goose Harvest Estimates for Ontario 9
Figure 4 Registered inju red/killed animals due to wildlife in.1998/99 and 2007/08 in Ontario ....10
i
I
4
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
F. I:i Ht k. . r;;C.
150
1. Introduction
In 2000, a Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture was initiated by the Ontario Soil
and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA, 2000). The study intended to investigate the
economic impacts of wildlife on agriculture in the province. Apartnership was established to
draw on the advice and experience of a wide range of selected experts and to build cooperation
in working toward solutions. The partnership included farm organizations, academics, wildlife
conservation groups, government and government-directed organizations. The research
examined wildlife-related losses to different field crops, fruits, vegetables and livestock. The
study was based on surveys, of farmers, logs of documented damage, and on-site assessments
to collect information on the positive and negative impacts of wildlife as well as commodity
specific, information on wildlife losses.
1.1 Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this project is to update the 2000 Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario
Agriculture report based on the current economic data.
The specific objectives of this project are:
1.1.1 To review the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture in order to identify how
losses were determined, and, areas where economic information can be updated to
reflect the current situation.
1.1.2 To collect recent economic data and trends on wildlife.
1.1.3 To calculate a revised cost estimate of wildlife damages in Ontario based on current
economic data.
1. 1.4 To update.the investment in the. abatement of wildlife damages based on the 2000 report
and current economic data.
1.2 Organization of the Report
First, the report Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture (2000) is reviewed to assess
.how losses were estimated in the 2000 study. This is followed by an overview of changes to
economic and wildlife population data in the last decade. Crop and livestock damages due to
wildlife. are re-estimated based on loss rates determined in the 1998 survey. The report
concludes with a section on. potential options f or mitigating wildlife-caused losses.
5
An Economic. Update of the Wildlife -Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
51 Review: Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture.
The following section reviews the methods used in the OSCIA report Wildlife Impact
Assessment for Ontario Agriculture. The purpose of the review is to assess how loss estimates
were determined, and areas where economic information could be updated to reflect the current
situation and help to understand the analysis, findings and recommendations contained within
the 2000 report:
2.1 Estimation of wildlife damage to crops and livestock,
In the OSCIA (2000) study, a survey was undertaken to -estimate the economic damage of
wildlife to cash crops, fruits, vegetables and livestock. The survey was developed in 1999 and
split into a spring and fall survey and a summer logbook to record wildlife damage. A random
sample of 900 farms was collected. Some groups were over-represented (strawberry and
blueberry growers) and results were weighted appropriately.
In the spring.survey, producers were asked to indicate the wildlife losses that occurred in 1998,
and the changes over the last 5 years. The. 1999 survey was aimed at collecting information on
the damages that occurred in 1999. In 1999, 250 log books were distributed to producers so
that they could actively record the damage that occurred, with the help of AGRICORP and
OMAFRA field staff. Figure 1 shows the method used to determine the impact of crop damage,
from respondents surveyed.
The average county yield where the survey respondent operated his/her farm was multiplied by
the respondent's acreage and the percentage of the yield loss reported. The resulting lost
volume through wildlife damage was then multiplied by the dollar value of the crop in the given
year. The volume of loss was then multiplied by the dollar value of the crop in the year 1998.
The estimation of livestock damage. was based on the losses and dollar values recorded by
livestock producers: An attempt was undertaken to use publicly available market pricing and
average weight from the OMFRA website. However, only the survey results were used to
calculate the losses
Figure 1 Method used to determine economic impact for crop damage
From survey respondents in 2000
1.
Average Respondent X0 Yield Loss Respondent
County Yield X 4 of Acres `in x Reported - VOILrme of
C.ru1) Loss
Volume of ~ $ Value S Value for Crop per
Loss of Crop Respondent
6
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
2.2 Data. Availability 15 2
In the 2000 study, a survey was conducted to establish loss rates due to damage. This
provided a snapshot of what happened in 1998. The data collected directly from survey
responses, by nature cannot be updated, and the identity, location, and demographics
associated with respondents are protected by confidentiality.. Technical challenges were also
observed in aggregating responses from the survey to the provincial level, particularly in fruits
and vegetables.
These technical issues, related to data and aggregation, prevented an exact extrapolation of the
survey results from 2000. To bridge the gap, the results from the.2000 study for 1998 were
recalibrated, given the loss rates from the sample, and acreage, yield, and price data publicly
available today. In many crops, this resulted in little change. In other cases, notably in fruits in
vegetables, this: resulted in some adjustments; in particular, data for certain crops were not
available and had to be dropped. Given these technical challenges, the recalibrated 1998
values are lower than those reported in the 2000 study.
7
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
3 Update of data - 1998 to 2005/2007
In order to update the economic value of wildlife damage since 1998, the following data were
gathered:
Changes in yield, prices and acreage for crops
- Changes in number of livestock and livestock prices
Changes to wildlife trends
The 2000 report used values from 1998. In updating the data, to correct for annual fluctuations
in acreage, populations, market prices and yield, an average of three years is taken. In Table 1,
data from 1998 are compared with the average prices, yields and acres data based on a
2005/2007 three-year average..
Table 1 Crops - Changes in yield, prices and volumes marketed. from 1998 vs. 2005/2007
change in % change in acres % change in
yrelci/acre price
Corn 11.10 -4.90 18.06
Soybeans -2.44 6.68 5.94
Wheat 20.95 15.02 39.09
Apples .16.64 -31.09 2.76
Grapes -0.75 9.23 23.03
Blueberries -0.66 25.67 25.16
Source: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/crops/index.html
Table 1 shows that prices have, on average, increased for all commodities. The price has
increased more than 20% for wheat, grapes and blueberries. Wheat stands out, as the yield per
acre increased by 'an average of 20% and acreage increased by 15%. The. yield per. acre has
increased by 16%.for apples. However, this has been balanced out by a.decrease in acreage of
31%•
Table 2 shows the changes in the livestock sector from 1998 to 2005/2007. The change focuses
on sheep and beef cattle as these. were the livestock the survey was concerned with. The
number of livestock, overall, decreased from.1998 to 2005/2007, except for lambs. All.numbers . .
refer to July values. Referring to Table 2, nominal prices for sheep and calves and breeding
heifers increased from 1998 to 2005/2007.
Table 2 Changes in number of animals marketed and prices from 1998 to 200512007
%.e`haizge is~ %'change in
inventory from prices from
,1998 to 200512007 ' 1998 to
2005%2007
Beef Cull Cows -9.9 -32.2
Beef Bulls -8.0 -25.2
Beef Breeding Heifers -33.8 ..6.1
Beef Calves -15.2 24.4
Sheep -32.3 13.0
Lambs 39.6 13.5
Source: http://wwW.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/livestock/index.htmt, July values
8
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
154
Wildlife population trends
Inventory on wildlife is not readily available. According to the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources (Wildlife Section, Fish and Wildlife branch), no estimates regarding the coyote and
raccoon populations are available. The most commonly used method to identify trends in wildlife
population for deer and geese is to look at the number of animals hunted or harvested.
Figure 2 shows the development of deer harvest since the 1930's. In 1980, the harvest
amounted to approximately 10,000 deer annually. However, this number has increased
dramatically over the last two decades, with deer harvest of up to 100,000 deer a year
(Government of Ontario). According to Environm ent Canada (2004), harvest for Canada Geese
has, been on the rise. Figure 3 shows the harvest estimates for Ontario from 1992 to 2002. The
number of harvested geese has nearly doubled in this decade.
Figure 2 Estimated White-tailed Deer Harvests in Ontario, 1930-2005
120000
100000
80000
0 60000 - - - -
t-
40000 -
20000 - -kill
0
w
O < O O ~ O O h O
O O
N O 1 O,. g O O
h; O
Source: Ministry of Natural Resources: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/244545.pdf
Figure 3 Canada Goose Harvest Estimates for Ontario
180000
_ _
160000 `
-
140000
120000 I'
100000 ._i._ _
80000
i
60000 cl--
40000 i--
20000 _
0 ..t..._..... _
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
_ .
Source: Environment Canada, 2004
i
9
I
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
F-ig'dre.4 shows the number of. injured or killed animals claimed under OMAFRA's Livestock,
Poultry and Honey Bee Protection Act. The number of claims has increased by 92% for cattle
(from 493 killed/injured animals to 948 animals) and for sheep by 55% (from 1990 killed/injured
animals to 3076 animals).
Figure 4 Registered injured/killed animals due to wildlife in 1998/99 and 2007108 in
Ontario
3500 _
3.000 rt--------- = - - .
2,500
t
2,000
- - - - p 2007/08
r
._I. - - - -
1,000
500
1 -
}
cattle boat Sheep Poultry
_
ess Risk Management Divisi_on.. (pe.rsonal communication)
source: OMAF -Busin'
Thus, for all commodities, in comparison to the 2000 study of wildlife damage, the marketed
volume of all commodities under study has increased, as have the nominal prices. Wildlife
number estimates could not be obtained for all species, but for deer and Canada geese the
population trend. appears to be markedly increasing.. Furthermore, the number of injured and
killed animals claimed through the protection of livestock and poultry act has increased
significantly from 1998 to 2008.
10 .
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
4. Assessment of current value of wildlife damage in Ontario for selected 156
crops and livestock
In this study, we revise estimates of the magnitude of the cost of wildlife damages in Ontario,
based. on'the losses identified in the 2000 report and current economic' data. Since the
collection of new survey data on estimated losses was beyond the scope of this update, the loss
rates are obtained using the survey values, and applied to updated crop and livestock data for
the period of 2005/2007. ,First, the update of wildlife damage for field and horticultural crops is
presented,.follo.wed by the estimation for livestock.
4.9 . Field and Horticultural Crops
4.1.1 Estimation of loss rate
The following procedure was employed to estimate loss rates due to wildlife damage in crops.
Loss rates can be interpreted as the average percentage of volume lost in crops due to wildlife
damage. Based on the. 2000 survey, the total crop volume lost. due to wildlife damage was
b
divided by the total acreage reported by survey participants. This value was then divided by the
average yield in 1998. The.survey values were retrieved from summarized 1998 survey results,
which were provided by OSCIA. The historical yield data were retrieved from OMAFRA. The
approach is illustrated in Equation 1 below.
Sirrvev value volume lost
Percentage of volume lost = ( V avg vield 1998) [1]
Stc te. va:tue: acres in the sec.mpl'e
Based on the approach defined by equation 1, the loss values for field crops. presented in Table
3 were obtained. For forages, hay acreage and yields were applied. The results show a loss
rate due to wildlife damage of 0.4-1.9%: These values are used to extrapolate the past and
current values of damage, which will be illustrated in the next section.
Table 3 Percentage of volume lost in Ontario's crop sector (1998)
Commodity Unit Percentage of
volume lost in 1998
surve results
Corn bu 1.94%
Soybeans bu 0.81 %
Wheat bu 0.35%
Forages Ha ton 1.45 %
Table 4 presents the percentage of volume lost for horticultural crops for Ontario in 1998.. The
category of tender fruit was composed of apricots, sweet cherries, nectarines, peaches, pears
and prunes. The average marketed production, area harvested, price, :and the following
percentage loss per acre were determined with OMAFRA data. Losses for vegetables, except
sweet corn, presented in the 2000 report could not be traced back and were, therefore,
excluded..
11
An Economic Update of the.Wildlife ImpactAssessment for Ontario Agriculture
Table 4 Percentage of volume lost in Ontario's horticultural sector (1998)
Commodity Unit" Percentage of` .
volum0ost in-1998
surve results
Fruit
Apples Ibs 2.33%
Grapes Ibs 4.28 %
Blueberries Ibs 13.50%
Strawberries. Ibs 0.58
Tender Fruits Ibs 4.50%
Vegetables
Sweet corn Ibs 2.84%
4.1 .2 Re-calibration of the values in the 2000 re port
The loss rate, as determined in the previous section; .is applied to the provincial average yield
and prices from 1998 for the respective field crops and horticultural crops to re-calibrate the
values from the 2000 report.
To determine the total damage to crops in Ontario, the loss rate was multiplied by the average
yield per acre (2). The volume lost in Ontario was then multiplied by.average price per bushel or
pound (3).
Volu:m.e lost in Ontario = percentage field loss per acre ~ a.vg.yi.eld per acre [2]
Total damage in Ontario = Volume lost in Ontario average price [3]
Table 5 shows the results of the recalibration.of the. 1998 losses as indicated in the study, based
on the available information. For field crops, specific dollar values were mentioned in the original
report, whereas values for fruits and vegetables are combined into one value.
The. last column indicates the percentage difference, where available, of the study and the
recalculated, value. .
As described above, the 2000 study definition of forages was imprecise; in this study, hay is
used to represent forages, and the table shows that this creates some discrepancy relative to
the 2000 study results. Similarly, the recalibrated value for wheat. is 22% lower than was
mentioned in the original. report. The reason -for this discrepancy could not be determined.
Table 5 Recalibration of survey values for field crops
`Com`modity 1998 Results Recalibrat ed 1998 Perce`ritage
Reported in the 2000 values difference
Stud
Field Crops
Corn $ 14,629,972 $ 13,805,506 -6,55%
Soybeans $ 5,290,917 $ 5,687,087 7.49 %
Wheat $ 621,546 $ 506,021 -22.83%
Forages Ha $ 5,242,745 $ 6,684,158.60 27.49%
12
An Economic Update of the Wildlife ImpactAssessment for Ontario Agriculture
158
Table 6 shows. the recalibrated total damage to horticultural fruits in Ontario in 1998. The
recalibrated value of total damage to fruit was $6,235,243. However, the 2000 report lists
$11,626,886 as total damage to fruits, which is an 86% difference. This difference. can be
attributed to the broader range of crops for which data were collected in the 2000 study, and the
manner in which damage to horticultural crops was aggregated. For the purpose of the update
in Table.6, the data were aggregated based on acreage.
Table 6 Recalibrated 1998 values for horticultural crops
Commodity Recalibrated Values
Fruit
Apples $ 1,988,756.34
Grapes $ 1,831,888
Blueberries $ 319,191
Strawberries $ 102,613
Tender Fruit $ 1,992,794.68
Vegetables
Sweet corn $ 217,344
4 1 3 Application of the loss rate to 2005/2007
Section 3 showed that yield and price data have varied significantly over time. In order to
provide a longer term picture of wildlife damage, data for the commodities whose loss function
could be traced _ back were averaged from 2005 to 2007. The total damage in Ontario was
calculated by using the approach explained before for the re-estimation of the. 1998 values.
Average yield, acreage and price data from 2005 to 2007 were retrieved from OMAFRA.
The next table shows the results of the calculation. The second column of Table 7 shows the
recalibrated values for.1998 as they were listed in Table 5 (field crops) and 6. (horticultural
crops). The third column of the table shows the results of the calculation when the 1998 loss
rate was applied to 2005/2007 average yield, price and acreage data. The last column of Table
7 shows the percentage difference between the re-estimated values from 1998 and the
,estimated values from 2005/2007, to give an indication of crops for which the economic values
of wildlife damage have increased or decreased.
For example, the.damage.to corn has increased by almost 24.8% and for soybeans by 10.3%.
The biggest change occurred for wheat, which is mainly based on the increased acreage
planted and the increased commodity price. The same is true for sweet corn and corn. The
wildlife damage for apples was estimated to have decreased by 17%. This is based on the
decrease in acreage by 31% in 2005/2007 as compared to 1998 (see Table 1).
13
I
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
.;fL811. J '1
1 Table 7 Estimation of the value of wildlife damage
2005/2007 Results Percentage
Commodity 1998 change
using 1998 loss rate 1998 =20051,2007
Field Crops
Corn $ 13,805,506 $ 17,220,451 24.74%
Soybeans $ 5,290,917 $ 5,833,636 10.26%
Wheat $ 506,021 $ 979,171 93.50%
Forages (Hay) $ 6684159 $ 8491312 27.04%
Fruit
Apples $1,988,756.00 $1,642,583.00 -17.4%
Grapes $1,831,888.00 $2,443,179.00 33.37%
Blueberries $319,191.00 $157,326.00 -8.84%
Strawberries $102,613.00 $112,979.00 10.10%
Tender Fruit $1,992,794.68 $2,330,806.23 16.96%
Vegetables
Sweet corn $ 217,344 $ 151,329 47.47%
*Recalibrated based on current data availability
4.2 Livestock
The following section shows the method used to recalibrate the survey values, in order to
update the economic losses for livestock losses due to wildlife. The valuation of killed and lost
livestock was captured directly in the original study survey, as reported directly by farmer-
participants. Thus, the 1998 results were recalibrated based on Ontario livestock statistics.
4.2.1 Sheep and Lambs
In the survey, a total of 151 adult sheep and 688 lambs were claimed as being lost to wildlife.
The total number of sheep owned by farmers who participated in the survey was 22,325.
Hence, the probability.of loss for adult sheep was 0.68% and for lambs 3.08%. On average,
farmers valued the sheep and lam bs they lost at $183 and $ 105 respectively.
It is unclear how this was aggregated to the provincial level in the 2000 study; however, if we
assume that total sheep and lamb populations were 148,800 and 100,200 respectively in 1998
in Ontario, the total value of sheep and lamb lost through wildlife in Ontario in 1998 would have
been $508,618.
Table 8 presents recalibrated results for sheep and lamb kills. The last column gives the
recalibrated value with the 1998 determined loss values. The start weight of lambs is 65 pounds
and finishing weight is 90 pounds. Hence, 'an average weight of 77 pounds was assumed. For
sheep, a weight of 140 pounds was assumed. Prices were 'retrieved from the OMAFRA
statistics. The recalibrated value for lost sheep, assuming the loss rate determined in the 1998
survey due to wildlife in 1998, was $495,180.
14
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
1,60
and Lambs with 1998 values
Table 8 Recalibration of Wildlife losses in Sheep
Survey .;Value of
# Livestock Valuation Populati Losses value of Avg losses in,<.
head # in Loss Survey survey, on in in Ont kills in Ont. Prices Ont in
r per;head floss 1598 n 1998 c in ;1.998 in .1998 1998
Sheep lost ' Survey— °
Adult 151 22,325 0.68 183 27,582 148,800 1006 $ 183,842 176.3 $177,465
Lambs . 688 3.08 105 72,362 100,200 3088 $ 324,776 102.9 $317,714
Total 839 22,325 249,000 $ 508,618 $495,180
Table 9 shows the application of the loss function from the 1998 survey values to. average
prices and livestock numbers for 2005/2007. Compared with recalibrated 1998 survey values,
the wildlife loss in sheep and lambs increased by 47% in 2005/2007.com pared to 1998.
Table 9 Wildlife losses in Sheep and Lambs
Avg
Loss Avg Pop 0 celanimal - #:of animals Value of~
Sheep % 2005/2007 +1,2005/2007 lost animals lost .
Adult 0.68 168,667 199 1141 $227,358
Lambs 3.08 139,833 117 4309 $503,147
Total 308,500 5450 $730,505
4.2.2 Beef Cattle
The survey results showed that farmers. in the 1998 survey owned a total of 14,942 head of .
beef. In the survey, a total of 2 adult animals and 68 calves and newborns were reported as
killed, missed or aborted. The actual numbers of cows, bulls, heifers and calves/newborns the
survey participants owned was not available. To facilitate the classification, bulls one year and
over, beef cows and beef heifers for breeding were included in the adult category, and feeder
calves in the calves and newborns category. Dairy cows, dairy heifers, steers and heifers for
breeding were excluded in this. analysis as these animals are kept in confinement and are not
commonly subjected to wildlife damage.
The loss rate for adult beef cattle, according to the survey, was 0.013%, .and for calves and.
newborns 0.46%. Market prices were not used in the original survey. For the recalibration, the
following prices (Table 10) were retrieved from OMAFRA enterprise budgets, the survey and
OMAFRA price lists. For the calf category, feeder calf prices were used to value calf and
newborn mortalities. For the adult category; an average price of slaughter cows, bulls and cattle
was used.
Table 10 Valuation of Beef - 1998 values
Beef Age Average Price
Definitions Weight k .$/1001k-<
Adult greater.than 2 years 635 128.85
Calf 1-6 months 227 233.18
Newborn less than one month 45 233.18
The actual value of beef cattle losses due to wildlife in Ontario in the original rep ort (OSCIA,
2000) was $1,334,394. The calculations followed the same procedure as in the section above
for sheep losses. The recalibrated losses for 1998 amounted to $1,010,783 (see T able 11).
15
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
161 ,
Table 11 Recalibration of Wildlife losses in Beef with 1998 values
Survey
value of Avg
# of. # of Valuation Livestock, Lost in kills in value of Value of
Livestock. Livestock' Loss Survey' Survey Population Ont in Ont in animal in kills in Ont.
=Beef - lost in_Surve ' % per head Loss in 1998 1998: 1998 1998 in 1998
Adult 2 14942 0.013 850 1700 532000 71 $60,527 $818 $58,263
Calves
and
newborns 68 14942 0.455 282 19193 660000 3004 $847,770 $317 $952,520
Total $908,297 $1,010,783
The update of wildlife losses in beef for the 2005/2007 period is presented in Table 12. Applying
1998 loss rates to the 2005/2007 data, the wildlife loss in beef decreased 18% in 2005/2007,
compared to 1998. The difference is based on the price difference between the two periods and
the decrease in. beef cattle populations.
Table 12 Updated wildlife-losses in Beef
Value of beef
Beef Loss Avg Pop # of Avg lost in Ont.
Price/animal
2005/2007 animals lost with 2005/2007
2005/2007 values
Adult 0.013 460833 60 $717.00 $42,954.28
Calves and Newborns 0.455 559767 2547 $308-55 $785,857.82
Total $828,812.10
.16
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
5. Updates to the investment in the abatement of wildlife damages- COFSP 162
The Canada - Ontario Farm Stewardship program (COFSP) provides incentives for. farmers to
improve management of agricultural land. The following data were provided by OSCIA.
Category 23 of the 2008 Project Eligibility Guidelines for COFSP provides incentives for farmers
to help reduce crop, livestock or property damages caused by certain wildlife species (deer,
geese, bear, coyotes and songbirds). Preventive measures aimed at controlling damage from
varmint species such as raccoons, woodchucks and mice are not eligible for cost share.
There are.three practice codes in category 23 that serve to group the types of preventative
measures implemented:
2,301 Forage Buffer Strips- Convert cropland to forage buffer strips of tall grasses around
wetlands where geese cause recurring damage;
2302 Fencing or.Netting- specialized predator-proof fencing or netting to protect stored feed,
concentrated livestock, high value crops, drip irrigation sy stems, and other critical agricultural
activities;
2303 Scaring and Repellent Systems and Devices- could include the use of electronic
devices, noise, guard animals, and chemicals. All devices must be approved and currently
registered for use by regulatory agencies.
The Project Eligibility Guidelines also identify ineligible practices and costs within category 23.
Table 13 reflects the activities in Category 23 from April 2005 through to September 12, 2008' -
Table 13 Claims for preventative measures COFSP
Practice Code Claims, Paid to TotalSum of Gross Project Number of
Date Federal Claims Costs Unique farm
Paid Businesses
2301- 3 $1,520. $4,093 3
2302 165 $598,978. $2,072,205 150
2303 44 $42,167- $141;354 44
Totals 212 $642,665 $2,217,652 197
Source: OSCIA, 2008
17
An Economic, Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
-1 b
6. Potential options to minimize the impact of wildlife-caused losses
The following section will provide an overview on the current status of federal, provincial and
municipal programs that address the wildlife damage problem. However, most policies have not
changed since the 2000 report. Nevertheless, some updated numbers on insurance payments,
will be provided.
Update on the Status of Policies in Ontario Addressing Nuisance Wildlife
The Ministry of Natural Resources collaborates with other ministries and municipalities to help
resolve issues around crop damage caused by wildlife. According to the Fish and Wildlife
conservation act, during the open se ason, farmers or immediate family members of a farmer are
allowed, without a license, to hunt game birds and hunt and trap game mammals, except black
bear, white-tailed deer, moose, caribou and elk. In a release from September 2008, the Ministry
of Natural Resources informed municipalities south of the French and Mattawa Rivers of current
changes in the Fish and Wildlife Act regarding Sunday hunting. As of the release.date, of 230.
municipalities, 167 requested Sunday hunting. The Migratory Bird Convention Act changed in
that hunting of migratory birds (geese; ducks, etc.) will be also allowed in municipalities on
Sundays, where Sunday hunting is allowed (MNR, 2008).
Compensation payments
OMAFRA provides payments to farmers who have experienced livestock damage.
The following numbers are payments made under the Livestock, Poultry.and Honey Bee
Protection. Act Part I and Part II (Protection of livestock and poultry - Wolf, Coyote predation)
and Order in Council (Bear damage to livestock compensation program). The values provided in
Table 14 show that the payments, based on wolf/coyote damage in 2006107, were significantly
higher for cattle and sheep than in 1998/99 (the time of the original wildlife damage survey).
Table 14 Wolf/Coyote Predation compensation program
1998/1999.' 2006./2007
claimed Payment $ - claimed Payment $
Livestock # Injured/Killed adjusted 2007 # InjurediKilled
Cattle 493 258,075 948 479,057
Goat 111 12,156 91 11,494
Horse 2 1,190 7 3,500
Sheep 1,990 323,040 3,076 448,671
Poultry. 478 9,393 442 7,953
Table 15 Dear Damage to Livestock compensation program
1998/1999 , 2006/2007
'Amount $ -
# Inured/Killed # Injured/Killed Amount $
Livestock adjusted 2007
Cattle 11 6816 39 24,949
Horse 1 476 3 1,250
Sheep 9 1249.5 4 599
18
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
7. Observations and Conclusions 64
The purpose of this study was to update the 2000 Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario
Agriculture report based on the current economic situation of farmers in Ontario, where
possible. Historic survey results located in the material provided by OSCIA were used to
determine the loss rates for crops and livestock for 1998. Some technical complications were
introduced by data collected directly in the 2000 study that could not be directly updated and
aggregated consistently with published data. Thus, the 1998 results were recalibrated based on
data publicly available today:
Table 16 presents a summary of changes in wildlife damage from 1998 to 2005/2007 in total
volume lost, based on the loss rates determined by the wildlife damage survey undertaken. in
1998, and with average yield and acreage data from 2005 to 2007.- The volume lost was
calculated by multiplying the average yield loss per acre times the number of acres in Ontario
for the respective time. period. Hence, the percentage change is heavily influenced by the .
change in number of acres over the years.
Table 17 provides a summary of changes in wildlife damage from 1998 to 2005/2007, based on
the loss rates determined by the wildlife damage survey undertaken in 1998, and with average
yield/price/acreage data from 2005 to 2007. The table shows that, based on commodities
covered in the study, wildlife damage in Ontario costs Ontario farmers approximately $41 million
per year. This represents about a 20% increase relative to consistent data measuring losses in
1998.
The results of this study should be understood in the following context. First, because a new
survey was beyond the scope of this study, the existing loss rate from the 2000 study, which is
representative of 1998, was used and applied to more recent data. By nature, wildlife inventory
is difficult to obtain, but the indication from secondary sources in terms of expenditure on wildlife
claims and wildlife harvest levels suggest that the wildlife damage issue is increasing, perhaps
markedly. Moreover, while most of the major Ontario crops are considered here, there.is a
range of minor crops not considered, which collectively could increase wildlife damage
estimates significantly. Finally, there are new wildlife populations such wild turkey, elk, and
sandhill cranes that damage farm products in the growing phase, which are not accounted for
here. Thus, the loss rate from the 2000 study is probably conservative, which probably makes
the 2005/2007 results conservative.
Second, because of the technical issues related to updating survey -collected estimates in the
2000 study with secondary, published data sources, some vegetable commodities had to be
excluded. This exclusion is unfortunate, and leads to anothe r source of understatement in the
results. Clearly, if all the crops included in the 2000 study could have been included in this
update, the damage estimates would be significantly higher. Thus, the costs of wildlife damage
appear quite material in the. current context, and even at that there is ratio nale to expect that the
value of losses estimated for 2005/2007 is conservative.
7.1 Recommendations
Wildlife in Ontario is publicly held, and managed in trust for its citizens by the Province. At the
same time, throughout eastern, central, southern and southwestern Ontario, much of the wildlife
habitat is provided by private landholders who are farmers. The provision of this wildlife habitat
comes at a cost.
Based on the data that we have available today, we can track crop and livestock losses due to
wildlife at approximately $34 million in 1998 and $4.1 million in 2005/2007. Different data
19
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
C.F IiN V I t-CPE,
JVAAle in 2000 showed wildlife damage values of $41 million even in 1998. If the same full
range of data from the 2000 study was available now, estimated losses for 2005/2007 would
clearly be higher.
Wildlife damage and the attempts to prevent it affect many interest groups such as farmers,
taxpayers, consumers and wildlife conservation groups. Ideally, a new survey should be
undertaken and structured in such a way that it can be easily updated from year to year. This
would serve to identify the actual volume of wildlife damage, to evaluate the effects of
prevention measures and to assess the costs incurred thro ugh wildlife damage to evaluate
compensation schemes to farmers. Responsibility for such an activity should be shared by farm
organizations, wildlife conservation groups and government.
20
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
artiut„ i.•rc:ri,
Table 16 Change in volume lost du.e to wildlife damage for selected crop s and livestock 166
from 1998 to 2005/2007
Percentage
Commodity , Unit::. 1,998 2005/2007 Change
Livestock
Beef (adult) # 71 60 -15.5
Beef (calves and newborn) # 3004 2547 -15.2
Sheep (adult) # 1006 1141 13.4
Sheep (lambs) .3088 4309 39.5
Field Crops
Corn bu 4,617,226 4,390,824 -4.9
Soybeans bu 698,010 744,642 6.7
Wheat bu 156,179 217,271 39.1
Forages (Hay) ton 67,517 87,578 29.7
Fruit
Apples Ibs 11,767,789 9,458,253 -19.6
Grapes Ibs 4,457,149 4,831,599 8.4
Blueberries Ibs 203,306 253,798 24.8
Strawberries Ibs 114,014 89,007 -21.9
Tender Fruit Ibs 490836 .488400 29.7
Vegetables
Sweet-corn Ibs 3,563,009 2,151,591
I
21
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
ii Fl.Nll~TS;
161
Table 17 Change in wildlife damage to selected crops and livestock from 1998 to
2005/2007
Percentage
Commodity 1998 2005/2007
Change
Livestock
Beef $1,010,783 $828,812 -18.0 %
Sheep $495,180 $730;505 47.0%
Field Crops
Corn $13,805,506 $17,220,451 24.74%
Soybeans $5,290,917 $5,833,636 10.26%
Wheat $506;021 $979,171 93.50%
Forages (Hay) $6,684,159 $8,491,312 27.04%
Fruit
Apples $1,988,756 $1,642,583 -17.40%
Grapes $1,83.1,888 $2,443,179 33.37%
Blueberries $319,191 $157,326 -8.84%
Strawberries $102,613 $112,979 10.10%0
Tender Fruit $1,992,794 $2,330,806 16.96%
Vegetables
Sweet corn $217,344 $151,329 -30.30%-
Total $34,245,153 $40,922,089 19.50%
'Recalibrated based on current data availability
22
An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture
- (:Fig. Ct rl<:ti'FrL
References 1 68
Environment Canada (2004): Population Status of Migratory Game Birds in Canada
Canadian Wildlife Service Waterfowl Committee, CWS Migratory Birds Regulatory Report
Number 13:
MNR.2008. Sunday hunting.
OMAFRA.2007. The Fish and Wildlife Act (January 1, 1999), Last amendment: 2007..-
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/enllish/elaws statutes 97f41 e.htm
Accessed, December; 2008:
OMAFRA.2008. The Livestock, Poultry and Honey Bee Protection Act.
http://www.e-iaws.gov.on.ca/html%statutes/english/elaws statutes 90124 e.htm
Accessed: December, 2008.
Ontario Government.n o year. Strategy for Preventing and Managing Human-Deer Conflicts in
Southern Ontario. Internet Source: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/244545.pdf
OSCIA. 2.000. Wildlife_Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture.
Rollins, K. 2004. Wildlife Damage Compensation for Ontario Producers. Principles and
Prospects - Summary. Draft report.
Migratory Birds Convention Act. 1994. Migratory Birds Convention Act,
1994nh,ttp://law s.justice. gc.ca/en/M -7.01/
23
Thompson, Kim D.
From:
Sent: 69 March 31, 20102:27 AM
To: Thompson, Kim D,
Subject: Re: Draft Firearms Bylaw
To Kim Thompson and City of Pickering Council:
While it is a commendable effort to update the Firearms Bylaw, and is long overdue,.I have concerns with some
of the proposed changes.
First of all I would like to comment that the maps provided could hardly have been more frustrating to work
with. Wiry are they not, at least, oriented the same way, with North at the top as is the standard? I'm new to
Pickering and these maps are headache-inducing. If Lmake the "new". bylaw map small enough to see the whole
overview, I carmot read the street names. I cannot do a side-by-side comparison with the "old bylaw map. And
the old map is partly, unreadable!
I would like to know why Pickering Council made a special effort to get the opinions of those who have a
vested interest in hunting (gun clubs, OFAH, etc.) but no effort to get a balanced viewpoint from any of the,.
local naturalist groups (eg. Pickering Naturalists, Durham Naturalists), stewardship groups (eg. Friends of
Seaton Trail), local homeowners (who may or may not be hunters), birdwatchers, dog walkers, hikers etc? This
does not seem very democratic to me.
As a citizen of Pickering I am very concerned that no public meeting could be held to discuss this issue due to
the fact that Pickering Council felt threatened by the very vocal, minority pro-hunting lobby, some of whom are
not even residents of Pickering (as was confirmed by Maurice Brenner). This is not fair to the people who pay
taxes here, vote here, and live here, and wish to feel safe enjoying the outdoors (or at home if living north of
Taunton Road!).
Perhaps in fairness the comment period should be extended, with notices posted, for example, near the Seaton
Trail where people will now be permitted to hunt (it used to be in the Prohibited area)!
I have heard that the boundary that was initially discussed as the northern limit for the new prohibited area was
the first Concession north of Highway 7, but was then lowered to Taunton Road due to the outcry by the pro-
hunting lobby. Where does the average public citizen's opinion enter into this? There are far more people who
don't hunt than those who do. How many people does Pickering Council think there are who hike, birdwatch,
walk their.dogs, trailride horses, ride bikes, picnic etc, compared to those who hunt? I have read that
birdwatchers alone outnumber legal hunters by an average of 10 to 1-.
Hiking along public trails and hunting are not compatible, as shown by the shooting death of Marianne Schmid .
in Simcoe County Forest in 2006. The proposed bylaw says hunters must be 100 metres from the trail but how
far can a bullet travel? How will hunters be expected to automatically know they are. 100 metres away, will
there be a posted, continuous fence line?
Likewise if someone has permission to hunt on a specific property, how likely is it that they will not cross
property lines (either knowingly or inadvertently) in pursuit of their quarry, as is presently known to happen?
Regarding the "Restricted" hunting areas, why are individuals allowed to determine whether the wildlife are
"pests" on their own whim? If they really are a problem, why not leave it to the MNR to issue a cull, rather than.
1
170
having no idea how- many of a particular species are being killed until they are possibly extirpated from the
area? Do we really want NO wildlife to be able to live peacefully in these areas of Pickering?
Does being a landowner mean you get to decide that just because a migrating bird, animal, turtle or whatever
travels over your land, you can kill it at will? What if someone living on the neighbouring property enjoys
seeing that wildlife come by? Should one person's right to hunt trump another's right to observe and enjoy the
local wildlife?
The places where one can observe wildlife in southern Ontario are becoming fewer and smaller with every new
housing development, shopping mall complex, and industrial area built. Shouldn't Pickering be making every
effort to keep what little we have left of the natural world?
There is presently a lot of illegal hunting going on in the Prohibited areas, this bylaw seems to do little to
address or stop this. Saying that someone needs to carry a "letter of permission" only opens up a.can of worms.
Who will be able to ask to see it? I suspect you'd only ever see one if you're an officer of the law. And how
would.one determine the letter was genuine? Will every supposed signer of a letter of permission be visited by
an officer? Or will it betaken on faith?
At present there are poachers who loudly claim to have permission to hunt in areas where it is illegal and has
been for decades. (They have even gone up to residents'. doors, weapons in hand, to "ask for permission" to hunt
on their land; .in prohibited areas! There are also many deer hunting stands and bait stations found in prohibited
areas.) There are very few MNR Conservation Officers available, so many poachers have been getting away
with it, and will continue. to do so, no doubt. However, it is good to see that Pickering bylaw officers and police
officers will be able to enforce this bylaw as well, so maybe the illegal hunting can be cut down a little.
The whole issue of hunting in Pickering is said to be revenue-neutral, so why would Pickering cater to those
who hunt, when hunter and non-hunter alike pay local taxes and vote. (Excluding those hunters who don't live
here!)
Why.would landowners AND tenants (or lesees) alike be able to give permission to hunt? What if they disagree
with each other, how would it be decided? What about co-owners of land, would there have to be unanimous
agreement, or would one individual be able to give permission regardless 'of what the others thought about it?
These are not idle speculations, but are actual arguments .that are already taking place..
I would still like to see a public meeting held, Council should not allow itself to be intimidated into not
allowing the public to be truly heard. If police or bodyguards must be present in order to allow democracy; then
do whatever it takes, invite.the media, and let everyone see who is.being reasonable or not.
Sincerely;
ickering Resident
p ease leave me anonymous if this letter is to be published online, as I do not wish to be threatened by the
same people Pickering Council are afraid of but I would certainly come to a public meeting if one.were held)
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
2
Thompson, Kim D.
From:
.11
Sent: 7 arc 31, 2010 :29 AM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Re: Draft Firearms By-law for Comment
Thank you for inviting me to comment on the proposed Firearms Bylaw.
While the proposed changes to the bylaw are a start,.the.y are still not strong enough.
The changes we impose on wildlife are immeasurable. As humans, some of us think we should be the
"controllers" of wildlife and nature. Yet are we not causing the greatest damage? We deem certain animals to
be "pests because they might cause some damage to what we've claimed as "our" property; as if we can
exclude nature without causing detriment to ourselves. Yet they still try to eat, nest, and make an existence out
of what little we leave them. Even when they die, they decompose and give back to the land. What do .we give
the earth? Dumps, toxic settling ponds, pavement, poison, genetic. modifications for our own short-term gain,
with little or no thought to the consequences, even to ourselves.
I want to feel safe living in Pickering, we recently moved here from Toronto to feel safer, please do not take
this away. I was shocked at the amount of seemingly unchecked hunting in Pickering, legal and illegal, anyone
with a bow or worse. Please do not be swayed by the pro-hunting factions. What can be gained by this?
Pickering can do so much better. It's time to stop listening to the few, and be more restrictive to hunting now. I
read that hunters and farmers were pre-consulted just to reach. this draft. Of course OFAH, gun clubs and
hunting groups want less restrictions on hunting. But there are 5 to 15 bird watchers for every single hunter, for
one example. There is something wrong here, Pickering makes no money from hunting so I don't understand
why you would be less restrictive to hunting, as seems to be the case from the increased "restricted" zone being
proposed, where hunting will be allowed, in some cases where it used to.be completely prohibited.
If there is wildlife deemed to be a "pest", the MNR can issue a cull. Would people on agricultural lands be
made to keep track of what they kill? You can't just let them kill whatever they want, this is unsustainable.
Some of the hunters are not behaving like good citizens, poaching is rampant in Pickering, even the legal
hunting is not just for "pest control". There are people leading hunting parties for paying customers from out of
town, even on land that is presently prohibited to hunting. Hunters are allowed to put out food to bait wildlife,
then shoot at what eats it. Should that even be called hunting?
If the poachers and hunters push against this too hard, I can show you. photos that will disgrace the "good
killing" they say they do; and show it is not just "pest" animals suffering.
At least shooting the animals usually kills them faster than the poison some are using, I have found rings of
dead animals around some farms, not just deemed nuisance animals. Some people seem to just think they need
to kill things, and that it is their human right to do so.
I would like to see a "Pest-Management Request Form" have to be filled out for each-request, even a review
process. The unchecked slaughter must stop.
Armed hunters have knocked on the doors of friends of mine in North Pickering asking if they could hunt there
(even in the prohibited areas)! Hunters must be told they cannot do this. How would any of you feel if an armed
person came to your door? I would be enraged!
1
172
Why even have the right to hunt in Pickering? It says there is "no financial impact to the proposed bylaw, but
allowing hunting can have a huge financial impact. What if someone is killed, for example?;Even the accidental
shooting of a pet can have a financial impact. The right to hunt has been tainted by poachers and various
wingnuts. I prefer my wingnuts unarmed! It is concerning that Pickering couldn't even hold a public meeting
about this proposed bylaw because the pro=hunting faction were so obnoxious and threatening it was deemed
unsafe!
Yet this bylaw is so old it really needs to be updated. What was the population of Pickering in 1973, when the
original bylaw was written, compared to the population now? Please consider moving the no-hunting area
further north, at least north of the proposed Seaton development lands and NHS, or you will have to revise it
again very soon. They're proposing to put at least forty thousand new citizens there shortly; with another thirty
thousand to follow!
Also please take valley lands out of the hunting zone. These lands are not farmed. The Seaton NHS is not for
hunting, it is supposed to be what area is left for the wildlife after development. It is also where there will be .
the greatest risk of accidental shootings to occur, once the new residents start using the, proposed walking and
biking trails through it., And are valley lands notparkland,city-owned.greenspace? How about prohibiting
hunting in greensPaces also? Why should there now be hunting allowed near the Seaton Trail? And shouldn't
t er built-u
huntin be rohibited entirely around Whitevale, Brougham, Greenwood and o h p residential areas?
g p
And is hunting going to be allowed in hydro corridors, for example? 1.0 metres is also way to close.to
roadways !
i
Can citizens request to see hunters' permits, or landowner letters? A big part of the poaching problem is that
there is too much grey area in interpretation of the present laws. Poachers I have. spoken to always claim they
have "landowner's permission". Lesees and tenants, I do not feel should be able to give permission to hunt. It
just adds another level of confusion over who to contact and how you prove permission was given. A written .
letter can be fraudulent and who will check on this? At present no one questions the person who supposedly
gave permission.
We need to start protecting wildlife in earnest .or there will be very little left. Thank you for your continuing
efforts, I hope you will reconsider some of.the proposed revisements and make them much more restrictive
rather than less.
Sincerely;
(name and address are not for publication)
On Wed, Feb 17; 2010 at 11:09 AM, Thompson, Kim D. <khompson@citYofpic_k ring.com> wrote:
2
Thompson, Kim D.
From: Thompson, Kim D.
Sent: 7 3 March 29, 2010 3.13 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Commen s Related to Proposed Changes to Pickering Firearms By-Law
Mrank you for providing your comments regarding the proposed firearms by-law.
To clarify, the regulations being imposed are more stringent than the existing by-law. The public
consultation process is underway, with ads placed in our local paper and on our web-site advising of
the proposed by-law and seeking comments until March 31, 2010. In addition, organizations such as
the Ministry of Natural Resources, Durham Regional Police, Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters,
the Durham Agriculture Advisory Committee, Pickering Rod & Gun Club and individuals who have
expressed an interest were all sent copies of the Report to Executive Committee and the draft by-law
for comment. Upon conclusion of this consultation period, staff will prepare a final draft by-law for
Council's review. The final report will also include the comme.nts received from the public.
Please allow me to clarify several of your concerns: Farmers have to be actively utilizing their land
for agricultural purposes and must meet the Farm Class Assessment requiring a minimum of
$7,000.00 income per year relating to farming operations. Agricultural zoning alone does not meet
the criteria. The provisions to. allow farmers to manage wildlife which may damage their crops or
livestock is a basic provision of most other municipal firearms by-laws. The provisions requiring
setbacks while utilizing firearms in the permitted area are new and intended to set basic
requirements. As an aside, there are no schools in the permitted area. - The Ministry of Natural
Resources actually advised the 100m setback was excessive and could be reduced further. Finally,
the Seaton Trail lands would be prohibited from discharging firearms and bows, firstly because they
do not meet the farm class requirement, and secondly because we would include them as park area
which would prohibit the use of firearms.
The new by-law clarifies bows, which were previously-not addressed at all, increases the area where
firearms are restricted (as large acreages between Taunton Rd and Whitevale Rd previously
permitting the use of firearms have been eliminated and lands west of Brock between Taunton Rd
and Hwy 7 have been added) and sets out far clearer regulations as to what is actually permitted to
occur.
'Again, thank you for taking the time to express your concerns, and if you have any further questions,
please contact me.
Kimberly Thompson
Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services
Clerk's Office
City of Pickering
Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2187
Toil Free: 1.877.420.4666
Fax- 905.420.9685
TTY: 905.420.1739
kthompson(cicityofpickering. corn
mAiw.cityofpickering.com
i
WAPlease consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print!
www.sustainablepickering.com 1,74
From
Sent: March 28, 2010 2:04 PM
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: Comments Related to Proposed Changes to Pickering Firearms By-Law
Ms. Kimberly Thompson:
am writing with reference to the proposed changes to the Pickering firearms by-law which I have read at the following
link: http //www citVofpickerinq com/standard/cityhall/notices/PDF/Propo8edFirearmsBylaw.pdf.
I am shocked and hope I have been misinformed by what I have heard relating to this proposed changes. Specifically
that these changes are being made without the traditional public consultation on the subject. Please tell me this is not
truly the result of. intimidation by the hunting lobby.
When I read the conditions related to the Restricted Area it occurs to me that the wording effectively permits hunting with
rifles up to .275 calibre and does nothing to impose any restrictions on shotguns. Although the wording suggests an
intent to permit the discharge of a. firearm only for the purposes of controlling nuisance or threatening animals on
properties of at least 10 acres the provision to allow hunting with written permission from the owner (and do I also
understand tenant?) which I believe effectively opens this up to sport hunting. I do not see how it would be possible to
distinguish a hunter walking a property for the purpose of exterminating a nuisance from one hunting for the purpose of
sport. I understand and agree with the requirement for farmers to protect their land however this should only be
accomplished by the land-owners themselves or with the land owner in attendance. Any provision for a hunter to carry
written permission and hunt freely opens this up far beyond the implied intent of the language for. all practical purposes.
The second provision that makes absolutely no sense to me are the proximity restrictions to schools, places of worship
and others as defined in section 15 bullet (b) with reference to the Permitted Area. -Discharging a firearm within 100m of
a School within the Permitted Area of Pickering is absolutely INSANE. Where there are schools there are children.
When l completed my hunter safety training program I learned bullets can travel for miles. With this by-law, a load like a
130 grain .270 cartridge is fair game. Even shot horizontally I've read this shell is only going to drop about 19 inches in
400 yards and is not a bad option for killing a deer. Why would we only have a perimeter of 100m around our schools?
This has to be at least 1000m.
Please help me understand what is the rational for amending the existing by-law to permit the discharging of a firearm
through-out the Seaton Trail system. When I compare the map on the existing by-law to the proposed changes the areas
around Whitevale; Greenwood, Brougham and Green River change from being Prohibited to Restricted. There is no
doubt in my mind that this proposed by-law is a definite step backwards in terms of the safety of our communities.
2
Thompson, Kim D.
From:
Sent: 175 March 31, 2010 4:27 PM-
To: Thompson, Kim D.
Subject: draft firearms by-law
Importance: High
Good afternoon Ms. Kimberly Thompson,
I have looked at the proposed draft firearms by-law.
I strongly disagree with many points.
i
First, let me say, I am a hunter, but haven't hunted for a good number of years.
So, I am not at all opposed to hunting:
However, I am very strongly opposed to people hunting (especially illegally) both with firearms and .
bows, around my house and neighbourhood.
I believe there are violations. of the hunting regulations, and no ready enforcement by Ministry of Natural
Resources officers. A resident of my community cannot legally challenge a person who is hunting, and
ask to see his letter of permission, or hunting licence, which may or may not exist. Without the
necessary enforcement, which does not exist in any meaningful way, then all hunters are free to
do whatever they want, anywhere, at any time!
It is well-recognized and documented that there is illegal hunting on-going in Rouge Park. As efforts are
mounted to monitor and stop that poaching practice, the hunters will move east to the Central Pickering
area, which already has many people discharging firearms at present.
.I have seen people parked at the side of the road (beside my house) well-after dusk, waiting for an
opportunity to drag their game out of the bush when few people are around to catch them, with their
multiple and illegal number of killed animals. One person even told me, "The Game Warden said it is OK
to hunt." Well, we have no Game Wardens in Ontario.
I believe that these hunters are not from Pickering. One of my neighbours who hunts, travels well,-over a
100 kilometres away to do his hunting.
I have seen several tree stands permanently chained and padlocked to trees, just south of my home.
Also, as a resident.-of Seaton, which will soon become a densely populated urban area, firearms can be
very dangerous. The fact is.that discharged bullets can be deadly. beyond one mile.
I have heard multiple rapid fire shots not far from my house. This pattern of discharging firearms is not
in keeping with any kind of hunting that I am aware.
The easiest way to ensure that safety is maintained and no violations can occur is to completely ban
any kind of firearm discharge or hunting on any land in the "Restricted Area". In other words,
the.defined Urban Area should include all land in the Restricted Area.
I realized.the draft by-law may be stronger than what exists presently. However, these changes still do
not go far enough to protect the residents of Pickering.
I do understand the need of legitimate farmers to control nuisance wildlife.
1
i
176
There needs to be more public awareness and input about this proposed firearms by-law. I have spoken
to many people who are completely unaware of the pending by-law.
I look forward to "seeing this matter on the Council Agenda, so that it can be properly addressed by
concerned citizens,
Please pass my concerns to all members of Council. .
Thank you.
eta
. j
I
' I
Thompson, Kim D.
From:
Sent: 7.7 March 31., 20104:44 PM
To, Thompson, Kim D.; pat sheridan
Subject hunting by-law
My name is I have lived in Pickering for the past twenty years. For the last ten years I.
have lived in North Pickering
in the Hamlet of Whitevale. I would like to express my disappointment with the . recent.proposed by-law
change with regards to
firearms in the City of Pickering. I have faith that the MNR is able to manage wildlife conservation.
I cannot believe that there is to be no.pubiic debate with regards to these changes.
I am strongly opposed to`changes in law without debate.
Take your contacts everywhere. Try Messenger for mobile
1
178
March 30, 2010
Ms. Kimberly Thompson
Manager, Municipal Law
Enforcement Services
Clerk's Office
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1U 6K7
Dear Ms. Kimberly Thompson:
The Pickering Rod and Gun Club wish to thank the City of Pickering for the
opportunity to comment on the proposed new draft Firearms Bylaw... The
Club understands the need to revise.the current bylaw because it does not.
address the use of archery equipment in Pickering BUT we do not agree
with the way in which the proposed bylaw is drafted. It appears that the
City is trying to address a perceived clash between user groups and
trespass issues by imposing an expanded discharge of firearms bylaw on
most of the rural lands in Pickering.
Under your "Sustainability Implications", you note that there is an issue
between off-road trails and green space with the discharge of firearms. Fo.r
starters, if you are meaning public open space versus private lands. your
bylaw MUST delineate the public lands and private lands. Unfortunately
there is a very BIG. misconception that if the government owns the land
anyone can enter there upon without permission. This is WRONG, there
are no unalienated lands "Crown Land" to be found in Pickering like i.n
1 79.
Northern Ontario, which is open for all to enjoy in most cases. All the lands
in Pickering are "fee title" one way or the other including the Federal and
Provincial lands which means anyone. other than the owner/tenant must
have permission to enter onto the property, NO ONE MAY TRESPASS
without permission. There are publicly owned lands open to the general
public such as the Seaton Trail., Rouge Valley Park and other designated
public areas, but it is doubtful that the responsible government agency for
these lands.wou.ld give permission to discharge a firearm within the limits
of the trail and green spaces. There is an abundant amount of land owned
by both the Federal and Provincial Governments and more recently by
private developers in Pickering but they are not open to the general public
use. These lands for the most part are :under cultivation and anyone other
than the owner/tenant must have written permission to enter thereupon or
.
theyare "trespassing". Now if the hunter must have written permission by
law and there. is a conflict with off-road trails and green space users who is.
i.n the wrong on these lands which are NOT open for general public use?
Certainly not the hunter with the written permission in his pocket! So why
does this proposed bylaw discriminate against the hunter with the
expansion of limits of the no discharge bylaw on the majority of available
agricultural lands which are NOT available for general public use?
Reading further into the report by the City Solicitor it is noted that the
expansion of the prohibited areas suggested is only being done as a matter
of convenience or ease of drawing boundaries. The perceived urban
presence because of Taunton Road has little or no justification, does
council have any idea haw may heavily travelled roadways/highways in
Ontario have hunting being carried on annually beside them with no
incidents. The agricultural portions of Pickering have. been legally hunted
for years without incident under the existing bylaw. Some recent
newspaper accounts and some pictures supplied to Council of tree stands
and blinds have questioned the legality of the hunt but one must accept
that the current bylaw allows the use of archery equipment and if the
180
hunter has written permission to be there what is taking place is legal
hunting. Those who are complaining and taking the photos do they have
the legal right to be there? Are these people aware that interfering with a
person legally hunting on these lands that they are subject to charges
under the Fish and Wildlife Act. Maybe that part of the Act should be
enforced more vigorously to curtail this perceived conflict with the hunter!
So again th.e question is raised why is the hunter being discriminated
against with the expansion of the prohibited area and not the trespasser. If
anything maybe the current prohibited area should be adjusted to allow
more land to be used for legal hunting. With all the recent wildlife
complaints the City,is receiving the Club does not.understand why you
would want to further restrict this legal pastime.
The Club like any rational minded person does not want to see individuals
letting fly with arrows in. their residential backyards or the City Parks which
the current bylaw allows. The Club concurs with the rational to include
archery equipment in the new bylaw BUT only.in the URBAN'setting of.
Pickering, being forthe most part the built up areas south of the Third
Concession Road, the hamlets of Cherrywood, Whitevale, Green River,
Brougham, Greenwood, and Claremont zoned for residential uses. -
What the Club would like to see.is all lands zoned agricultural in Pickering
including all the Federal and Provincial lands, the Agricultural Preserve on
the west boundary of Pickering be unrestricted by this bylaw. Allow the
Trespass to Property Act, Occupiers` Liability Act, the Ministry of Natural
Resources Hunting Regulations and the land owners/tenants control the
issues that have been brought to Council about illegal hunting. Contained
within these Acts and Regulations there sufficient legislation and
regulations such as how close to a roadwaya firearm can be discharged,
that hunters must have written permission to be on the lands and people
can be charged for trespassing on lands not open to the general public
without permission.
The prohibiting of discharge of firearms within in Zoo meters of the various
described structures and open spaces requires.some rethinking when
archery equipment is being included in the description of firearms. The.
furthest recommend dispatching distance for an.arrow is usually 40 yards
which J's just a little more than third the distance suggested in the new
bylaw. The restriction to say the least is a little suppressive when one
knows that most of the hunting is with archery equipment. An allowance
should be incorporated for the use of archeryequipment versus a firearm.
The discharge distance from.a roadway of io meters is also unnecessary
since the MR regulations already prohibit anyone from the possession of
a loaded firearm, including archery equipment within 8 meters of the
travelled portion of a road or fence line where one exists at any time and
no discharge of a firearm from or across a right of way for passage of
vehicles at anytime in.all of Durham. -
The Club understands the need.to stop poaching and would be willing to sit
.,down with Council representatives to discuss.implementing a REPORTA
POACHER. program. in Pickering~especially along the boundarywith the
Rouge Park at a later time.
' In summary, the Pickering Rod and Gun Club requested that items 13 to
1.6c be rewritten to reflect the concerns stated above. The club is prepared
to sit. down and discuss these matters with all interested parties, the City,
MNR, OFAH , OFA and any landowners/tenants who wish to have input.
Conservation First and Foremost, .
Pickering Rod and Gun Club
r
OF ANGLERS & HUNTERS
P.O. Box-2300,4601 Guthrie Drive, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 8Lj
Phone: (705) 748.6324 . Fax: (705) 748.9577 • Visit: www.ofah.org a Email: o£ah rr ofah.org
182
OFAH FILE: 353B
March 30, 2010
Ms. Kimberly Thompson, Manager
Municipal Law -Enforcement Services
Clerk's Office .
City of Pickering
One the Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7
Dear Ms. Thompson:
On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (O.F.A.H.), our 100,000 members, supporters and
subscribers, our 660 member clubs (including the Pickering Rod & Gun Club), and most particularly, the 1,200
O.F.A.H. members who live in the area covered by the proposed bylaw, we are pleased to comment on
proposed Firearms By-law L-2000-001-10.
O.F.A.H. members, and indeed, the vast majority of legal, law-abiding, licensed and trained hunters are
dedicated to safe hunting practices and the full enforcement of laws: designed to ensure public safety and the
sustainable use and conservation of wildlife.
In the 1960's, the O.F.A.H.. partnered with the Ministry of Natural Resources on the introduction of a
mandatory Hunter Safety Education Program. The success of this program can be measured in the impeccable
safety record of Ontario hunters. Since the inception of the hunter education program, the rate of accidents
related to hunting has been reduced to virtually zero. In addition, since the introduction of the mandatory wild
turkey hunting seminars in 1987, over 80,000 hunters have take the course, with only one accident being
recorded. Based upon the statistics, the suggestion in the report that the regulation of the use of firearms and
bows is necessary to "reduce the risk of dangerous interactions between persons discharging firearms and
members of the community who are using the off-road trails and green spaces" is highly inaccurate and
unsubstantiated by fact.
According to Statistics Canada, hunting today is measurably safer than bicycling, boating, swimming,
horseback riding and most recreational field sports, including baseball and golf. In fact, both the Canada
Safety Council and the National. Safety Council are on record as stating that hunting in Canada is responsible
for 0.001 accidents, which is miniscule in comparison to the aforementioned sports, or the injuries that occur
as a result of insect bites and even lightning strikes.
Trained, licensed hunters present no risk to the nonhunting public. The introduction of restrictions against
hunting through increasingly restrictive no discharge bylaws, which are based upon poor information, or a
perceived "threat" to the public safety, withoutproof, are unwarranted.
While Section 119 of the Municipal Act does allow municipalities to introduce no discharge bylaws "in the
interest of the public safety," any municipality that unduly restricts the discharge of firearms, including bows,
in a manner or geographical area that can not be justified, or that is not clearly demonstrated to be necessary to
protect the public safety based upon the frequency or legitimacy of.complaints, the number of charges laid and
convictions achieved, intrudes upon the provincial jurisdiction to manage and control wildlife populations and
the hunting of wildlife. Accordingly, these may be subject to challenge.
.6e VOICE ofAnGlers and Hunters
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS
Ms. Kimberly Thompson
March 30, 2010
Page Two 183
In this case, it would appear that the impetus for a review of the current bylaw was either wholly, or in part,
spurred on by accusations made about "illegal" hunting by a Toronto resident who has apparently set himself
up as judge and jury of local hunters, despite the fact that he himself does not live in the municipality, nor
quite frankly, does he appear to understand what delineates "legal" and "illegal" hunting. In the process, this
same individual appears to have convinced a local Councillor that "illegal" hunting is rampant in the area and
needs to be "controlled."
We would respectfully remind the Members of Council that there are already a number of federal and
provincial laws in place that are enforced with respect to.the safe use of firearms by hunters and other
legitimate users.
These include the Criminal Code of Canada, Sec. 86(1) that lays out the foundations of an offense committed
by anyone who acts in a careless manner, or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.
Similarly, the Ontario Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA) contains provisions regarding hunting and
creates an offense for anyone hunting carelessly in Sec. 16(1), which reads, "a person who is in possession of a
firearm for the purposed of hunting or.trapping shall not discharge or handle the firearm, or cause it to be
discharged or handled without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for people or
property." Both the Criminal Code of Canada and the FWCA contain penalty provisions for contravention of
these sections of the Acts, which can include fines and jail terms. The same is true regarding trespassing for the
purposes of hunting as spelled out under the Trespass to Property Act. The FWCA also provides for fines
and/or jail time for contravention of the trespass sections of the Act above and beyond what is provided for in
the Trespass to Property Act.
The mandatory provincial hunter education course and the mandatory federal firearms safety course ensures
that hunters in Ontario have taken two separate courses related directly to the safe use, storage and
transportation of firearms. Licensed hunters are knowledgeable about the range of their firearms, crossbows or
compound bows, and are trained to discharge a firearm or bow only when they know it is safe to do so.
Unnecessary restrictions, through no discharge bylaws, on the areas that may be hunted, or where firearms and
bows may be discharged, can drastically and needlessly impact on hunting on rural lands within municipal
boundaries-and impact on the province's ability to manage wildlife populations. This is particularly important
given the continued increase of wildlife/car collisions in may urban areas, and increasing populations of some
predatory wildlife; including coyotes, which have recently threatened even domestic pets.
By introducing an unnecessarily restrictive no discharge bylaw, Council may inadvertently create a larger
public safety hazard since it is anticipated that local wildlife populations will increase, as will the number of
collisions between cars and wildlife, most notably white-tailed deer, resulting in more damage, deaths and
injuries and the potential for increased predation on agricultural crops and livestock. We understand that the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture has asked Council to consider an exemption that would allow for bow
hunting on farm properties during regulated hunting seasons, which would be helpful in addressing the latter
point.
The number of deer/car collisions in Ontario; particularly in urban areas, has increased by 86% over the last
decade. There is presently a wildlife/car collision every 38 minutes somewhere in the province, 90% involving
deer, and 1 out of every 18 motor vehicle collisions involves some form of wildlife. The number of collisions
across the province has passed 15,000 annually, and the Ontario Provincial Police estimate that the number is
actually double that which is reported. Wildlife experts have also estimated that in some areas, the elimination
of hunting as a means of wildlife population control could result in collisions with wildlife increasing by more
than 200%.
I
I
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS
Ms. Kimberly Thompson
March 30, 2010
Page Three 184
Over the past decade, the O.F.A.H. has worked.with over two-dozen municipalities on their no discharge
bylaws. One of the most recent examples was the Region of Halton, who, after receiving a significant amount
of input in response to proposed changes to their no discharge bylaw, withdrew the draft proposal in favor of
the status quo. Others, such as the City of Sudbury, decided, upon review, that current legislation at the
provincial and federal levels of government was more than adequate to address any issues that might arise.
Sudbury and several other municipalities, including most recently the Town of Innisfil, felt it was valuable to
strike a working group, which included the O.F.A.H. and local club representatives, to work with members of
municipal staff and Council on the crafting of a bylaw that all could support. We would be pleased to
participate in any such group at the Town of Pickering.
Any consideration of an expanded no discharge bylaw should consider whether it is necessary in the interest of
public safety; include due consideration of the implications of such a proposal on local wildlife populations;
the Ministry's ability to manage these populations; and the potential increased threat to public safety from
increased wildlife populations and subsequent wildlife/car collisions.
No one, particularly legal, law-abiding, licensed hunters, who understand and practice the safe discharge of
firearms, would suggest that hunting in the immediate area of residential subdivisions is appropriate.
However, as others have already pointed out, the imposition of minimum acreage sizes (10 acres); and buffer
zones (10 metres) that ignore what is already established under the FWCA can have serious implications,
particularly for local farmers. The definitions contained in the proposed bylaw could potentially do far more
than simply establish locations around which hunting should not occur, and may in fact be intended to ban
hunting through the backdoor by imposing such onerous restrictions that the ability to hunt would be severely,
if not entirely, compromised. We would also respectfully remind you that the Ministry of Natural Resources'
Conservation Officers do not enforce municipal bylaws, and it will be the responsibility of municipal staff to
become aware of all of the provisions under the Criminal Code, FWCA, Trespass Act, Firearms Act, and any
other applicable statutes in order to enforce fairly.
The use of Taunton Road as a boundary is justified by the suggestion that the area along the road is now
significantly more utilized as compared to when the bylaw was passed in 1975, with Taunton Road now
considered to be a major commuter corridor. We would respectfully point out that between Peterborough and
Ottawa, hunting occurs on both sides of Highway 47, a major thoroughfare commuter route across the
province, with no threat to the safety of the public.
Thank you again for affording us with an opportunity to comment on the proposed draft bylaw. We look
forward to appearing as a deputation before Committee and/or Council when the issue comes forward, and
reiterate our willingness to serve on a committee examining this issue.
Yours in Conservation,
P .
Affmkomw
MMW
cc:
'oN oF4 YORK REGION
a
N FEDERATION. OF AGRICULTURE
Y
SERVING THE FARM COMMUNITY SINCE 1940
March 29, 2010
Ms. Kimberly Thompson
Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services
Clerk's Office
City if Pickering
I
Dear Ms.. Thompson:
Subject: Proposed Bow Hunting Ban
We are writing in support of members of York Region Federation of Agriculture ,
and York Soil and Crop Improvement Association who also farm in the Pickering
area who have concerns about.the proposed hunting bylaw.
Wildlife damage to crops is a significant expense to all food producers: In 2000,
the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) published the results
of its 2-year study assessing the impact of wildlife damage on farmers. OSCIA
determined that wildlife damage cost Ontario farmers $41 million in 1998. By
simply adjusting the 1998 loss to account for inflation, the loss in 2008 dollars
would be almost $51 million. This is a staggering loss to Ontario farmers.
Testimony from farmers in the GTA and in areas bordering urban areas suggests
that damages clear urban areas are more severe than in other parts of Ontario. We
believe and accept the fact that populations of wildlife need to be managed in these
near urban areas and that bow hunting of deer provides a safe and effective method
to achieve this, if only in a, small way, at the same time providing some measure of
crop protection.
Fanned areas in the municipality of Pickering are integral to food production and
need to be recognized as such by the urban population.
Respectfully,
BUY THE FOOD ONTARIO GROWS
Ministry of. Ministere des
ry-
Natural Resources Richesses naturelles
Aurora District Office Ontario
.50 Bloomington.Road West Telephone: (905) 713-7400 1 86
Aurora, Ontario L4G 3G8 Facsimile. (905) 713-7361
Kimberly Thompson
Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services
Clerk's Office
City of Pickering
Dear Kim Thompson, March 30, 2010
On behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Aurora District, we would like to thank
you for the invitation to review and comment on the proposed new Pickering Firearm Discharge
Bylaw. Some of the revisions we suggested and the information we provided following our face
to face meeting in late 2009, appears to have been considered within the new bylaw. However,
we are concerned the revised draft does not recognize many of the key recommendations made
during that meeting.
Two of our most serious concerns include a) the proposed vast areas of no discharge within
rural lands and b) the missed opportunity to retain archery-only areas. Regardless of how rural
properties are zoned or their ownership, the safety concerns are the same as those zoned
agricultural.
The proposed bylaw severely restricts discharge of archery firearms and long gun firearms
throughout most of Pickering-, even in areas that MNR believes there would be no safety
concerns. Subsection 210(36) of the Ontario Municipal Act empowers. municipalities to enact
bylaws that prohibit or regulate the discharge of firearms for the purpose of public safety. These
bylaws are for public safety only and should not be used to inhibit or restrict legal activities such
as hunting where there is no public safety concern.. MNR recognizes the need for no discharge
of firearms bylaws in urban areas for the purpose of public safety but encourages municipalities
to recognize that MNR is responsible for managing wildlife populations and the most effective
means we have of doing that is through regulated hunting and trapping. .
In Ontario, hunting is regulated under the. Fish and Wildlife. Conservation Act and its
Regulations. The exception is for migratory birds such as geese and waterfowl that are
managed federally by the Canadian Wildlife Service under the Migratory Birds Convention Act
and Regulations with input from the provinces.and territories.
Licences, seasons, bag limits, hunting methods, firearm types and other regulations relative to
hunting, are administered and enforced by MNR. Hunting regulations take into consideration
both the safety of hunters and the general public by prescribing such things as permitted types
of firearms and ammunition that can be used to hunt various species of wildlife. All hunters must
take a Hunter Safety course and pass a written and practical test before they become eligible
to purchase a hunting licence in Ontario.
The proposed discharge bylaw would also impact private landowners' ability to utilize licenced
trappers and hunters as.agents to effectively help control human-wildlife conflicts such as crop
depredation and livestock predation.
187
We urge the municipality to take into account the separate safety concerns regarding discharge
of archery firearms (bows and crossbows), and long guns including shotguns and/or rifles. All
have varying safety factors to consider. Shotguns and archery equipment have a limited range
and therefore can be discharged safely in areas where rifles may.not. Archery firearms have a
very short range (usually under .30 metres), and emit no noise when fired..' Because of this,
archery hunting can safely occur in near urban areas.
The approach of providing areas where archery firearms only can be discharged and. areas
where both, archery and long guns can be discharged has proven effective in other
municipalities in the GTA (Whitchurch-Stouffville, King Township, Town of East Gwillimbury) in
allowing hunting to occur while also addressing public safety concerns. We would encourage
Pickering to consider this approach so as to not restrict or, eliminate hunting opportunities
unnecessarily.
.Ontario hunting regulations do not require a hunter to have written permission to hunt on private
property. However, it is an offence to trespass to hunt. The requirement to have permission to
be on. private property to hunt is already in provincial legislation.; MNR does not feel that it is
necessary, or possibly even. within the municipalitie's area of jurisdiction to require this.
MNR's Conservation. Officers enforce the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act a'nd Regulations
which regulate hunting and trapping They do not enforce municipal bylaws.
Notwithstanding that the NINR does not believe that the City of Pickering has the legal authority
under the Municipal Act to unilaterally appoint MNR conservation.officers as an "officer" under.
this draft by-law, the MNR Enforcement Branch is not willing to have its staff become involved in
the enforcement of any municipal bylaws. We would ask that the reference to "Conservation
Officer" be removed from your draft by-law which is intended to' replace by-law 247/75.
Finally, the proposed bylaw seeks to set a discharge distance of 10 meters from a roadway.
Please be advised that this matter is already addressed in Ontario regulation .665/98k (the
Hunting Regulations) under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.
We appreciate the opportunity to.review this proposed new discharge bylaw. Please feel free to
contact me directly to discuss further or to attend an additional meeting or presentation to.
council.
Thank you very much!
Yours truly,