Shooting under threat in rocky view

[Webley Man]

URGENT NOTICE TO ALL SHOOTERS LIVING ON FARMS AND ACREAGES IN ROCKY VIEW COUNTY ALBERTA, PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW TO PRESERVE OUR WAY OF LIFE

We are all under threat if a new proposed Bylaw is passed in 55 days’ time. Due to some Rocky View residents complaining about noise levels, a Bylaw # C-7034-2010 has been drafted to control, among other things firearms discharge.

One of the effects of this Bylaw would be to prohibit ALL shooting on parcels of land throughout Rocky View less than 30 acres in size, other than occasional use for vermin control via a permit for shotguns and .22 rim fire rifles only issued discretionarily and on an occasional basis only.
Use of larger calibers would be completely prohibited enforceable subject to a $250- $500 penalty for each offence and there is no provision whatsoever for recreational shooting.

Shooting in Shoot Zones on parcels larger than 30 acres would be limited to duration of no more than 15 minutes of continuous use beyond which a noise penalty would be applied when noise levels exceed 95 decibels enforceable by substantial fines. Rifles typically exude between 130 and 200 decibels and so this means no shooting on larger parcels too or you as you will be fined for excessive noise violation.
The proposed Bylaw can be accessed at the following web page:
http://www.rockyview.ca/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lO232RqI_QQ%3d&tabid=195

The opportunity exists to make representation to Rocky View Council to amend / delete this proposed legislation for the next 55 days. Whether the legislation is enacted or significantly changed will be determined by the amount of opposition that is received.

If we stand any chance of modifying this draconian Bylaw then we must all ACT NOW. Please contact ALL of the members of the Rocky View Council and express your strong objections to this proposed legislation initially by phone and then by e-mail or personal letter. We must defeat this as it represents a threat to our freedoms.

We need to get organized and form working committees in each part of Rocky view, North ( I am volunteering as spokeperson) Central, and South to liaise with the County Bylaw Manager and councillor’s to get to remove / modify this legislation to make it workable for the rural shooter. If you want to discuss this, I can be contacted at pbarberrr2@gmail.com.

The Councillors’ contact information can be accessed on the web at www.rockyview.ca/Default.aspx. Please act now before it’s too late. Thank you for your support fellow shooter.

[Wolf Medicine]

Not sure if we from other areas can actually help. But this is A dangerous precedent for any county or municipality to put in place for rural Albertan's. As one falls others use it as A spring board to knock the rest down. Would push very hard for decibel levels to be measured at the location of the complainant. And for A high decibel threshold for it to be A offense. Let us from other areas know if we can help..

WM..

[Grizzly Adams]

I guess if your municipality is dedicated to enlarging the tax base, by creating as many acreages, as possible, this is what it's going to come down to in the end. Too late for Rockyview, but let this be a lesson for all of us, regarding sub-division policy.

Grizz

[densa44]

Here are my suggestions, this is promoted by the "west side" west of the 5th meridian. Organize people ion the east side of #2 to sign petitions and appear on their behalf at the public hearing. The compromise should be that those in springbank, Bragg Creek and bearspaw get a prohibition and the rest of us will be left alone, at least for awhile.

[wwbirds]

I have written to all the Rockyview councillors. Operating a farm and shooting preserve in the MD this could affect not only my ability to shoot and those of my hunters but also the duck, coyote and gopher shooting in the area. This isn't noise it is my livelihood and lifestyle!

An oldtimer once told me his biggest concern with folks moving to the country was most of them wanted to make the country as sterile as the city. Don't try and regulate the sights sounds and smells of rural life, if you don't like it leave.
Go where the sight of horses breeding in the field won't offend you. combines working most of the night trying ot get the crop off before the frost won't keep you awake and the smell of our manure doesn't bother your sinuses. Just stay away from the country if our way of living offends you and go back to where you came from.

As a very high profile shooter and hunter in this area my neighbors on acreages generally point in this direction when questions on guns come up.
The last RCMP car to drive in the driveway investigating a shooting noise complaint was directed by me to the propane cannon in a barley field 1/2 mile from my house set by a neighbor to keep the waterfowl out of his barley.

We have enough hoops to jump through with federal and provincial regulations for gun owners we don't need any municipal bylaws on top of those.

[220swifty]

Perhaps the next provincial government would be interested in in disallowing the counties from adding on to current federal firearms legislation. It would be even nicer if they could keep the citiots in the city.

[nick0danger]

granddad has got almost 2 sectioins of land by keoma, and i will be make lots of phone calls, and letters.

[ishootbambi]

this is far from where i live.......but it stinks so bad i can smell it from here. i dont know if anyone will listen to me as im not a voter there, but ill write another letter. ive done so many this week im getting good at it. :mad0030:

[big-river]

That is the curse of the acreages and the acreage owners. And the worst part is that they become Councillors replacing the common sense farmer/rancher land owner as the acreage owners outnumber the farmers and vote in their types of people, who now control policy in a rural area.

It's a bloody shame and a good case against sub-division of land.

[nick0danger]

sent off a couple of fact finding emails, and will calling grandad tommorow, i know one farmer who takes his deer for the year off his land will he be able to do this if this goea though he is north of the bow zone (just on the north side of the road where rifles can used again) east of irricana.

[Webley Man]

Thanks muchly for all of your support in your responces, by the way I am from a long way away too originally but love our Country and the freedoms that we currently enjoy.

Guys and girls we have to get organized on this thing, is there someone in the South of Rocky View and somone in the middle that will be prepared to step forward as spokesperson for all of the residents in your areas.

We have to present a unified front if we are going to stop this bad legislation and be organized about how we address it. You need to get together with your collegues in your area and form working groups.Volunteers please as spokespeople in mid and southern Rocky View.


Paul

[pottymouth]

I live in Rockyview, don't know If I agree with you all. I see more pro's than con's....Thanx for the heads up !

[hillbillyreefer]

I live in Rockyview, don't know If I agree with you all. I see more pro's than con's....Thanx for the heads up !

Because less freedom is always better. Eh, Hans.

[pattycr125]

i do not live there but this is ridiculous.

if everyone could maybe agree to lower the amount of rounds they fire or the sustained periods for which they fire there guns then i'm sure a compromise could be reached.

NOBODY NEEDS MORE USELESS LAWS AND PENALTY'S

[Grizzly Adams]

Perhaps the next provincial government would be interested in in disallowing the counties from adding on to current federal firearms legislation. It would be even nicer if they could keep the citiots in the city.

Or being more dedicated to preserving farmland and restrict sub-division. No one seems to remember, that in the end, farmland is what feeds us.

Grizz

[270WIN]

It sounds to me like just one more gun law that most members of the Police Forces won't understand but will be perfectly willing go racing out, laying charges (whether or not an actual violation has taken place) and seizing legally owned firearms evey time some hysterical yuppy hears a gun go off.

End of Rant.:)

[Coulee]

Acreages are the worst use of land I have ever seen. I'm sure many of you might disagree, but all they do is fracture the landscape into useless small parcels that are not efficient for agriculture or wildlife. It's just a bunch of city folks who want to live in the country, but without the country. I know someone who has had acreages slowly encroach on his family farm. It's very frustrating.

[260 Rem]

Some of the "noise" portions of the proposed by-law were considered by Beaver County in 2010 when they gave readings to a NOISE BYLAW. SPFGA (Gun Range) and the Tolield Gun Club were concerned so made presentations. In our case, the County stated that the purpose of proposing the by-law was to address issues relating to noise disturbances in subdivisions where houses were in close proximity. They were trying to deal with compaints related to loud parties, loud vehicles (motor bikes, diesels warming up) etc.
The initial proposal was like the Rockyview version in that it was all inclusive, restrictive, and un-enforceable. By the time the bylaw was ready for 3rd reading, it had been reduced and applied only to noise "eminating" from within designated subdivisions. Everybody was happy! You should be able to google the enacted version.
A couple of comments about the the Rockyview DRAFT. First, if decible readings are taken at the point of reception, a gunshot measured from more than 100M would likely not exceed 80 decibles. And second, if any noise considered to be "annoying" (section hh) ...that means you can stop your neighbor from listening to Celine Dione ... well, I find her annoying!!! (Maybe there is some merit to including section hh)

[270WIN]

And second, if any noise considered to be "annoying" (section hh) ...that means you can stop your neighbor from listening to Celine Dione ... well, I find her annoying!!! (Maybe there is some merit to including section hh)

Funniest post I've seen in some time. Nice to see there's always some room for a little humour.
You and I agree on one thing for sure, 260.

[Dacotensis]

If someone came to my door??
Well it would go like this!

"I didn't hear anything".

End of story.

[bakerman]

Sounds like they'll have to bring in a new rule that say's any gun larger than a 22cal must be equipped with the appropriate silencer.

[Jim]

Why would the county allow the building and operation of a hunting/firearms business on county property (Bass Pro)? Then turn around and pretty much ban the use of firearms and pretty much end gun hunting in the county, doesn't make any sense.

[tackleberry]

We don't need a bylaw!! Everyone just has to use common sense. Talk to you neighbors. 30 Acres is a bit small to be shooting a high caliber rifle on as far as im concerned. Most of rockyview is pretty featureless, so you would have to have a pretty good man-made backstop to shoot your 'deer rifle' safely.

I think in most cases you will find that if you get to know your neighbors and respect them, they will respect you too, but there are always bad apples on both sides. Sometimes you are just screwed, even if you do your due-diligence. Unfortunately, these are the cases that result in another stupid by-law.

Would be nice if we just had more public ranges that were safe and had some good targets of all ranges to shoot at.

[ward]

Thirty acres is plenty of area for shooting and you should always consider where the bullet is going no matter how large an area you are shooting on.

[Webley Man]

For everyone who has strong views on this proposed legislation please take the time to write in person to each of the Councilors in Rocky View.

Some people have contacted me advising that they are writing to their Councilor that is great but it will have considerably more impact if you send the same letter to EVERY member of the Council.

[wwbirds]

here is a copy of the response I received to my letter of concern today from T. McCauley of the MD:

Good Morning Rob, thanks for taking the time to get me your feedback. I have posted a copy of the Draft Bylaw on the Website for everyone to read as the newspapers rarely convey the information completely. The issues being addressed do not specifically relate to firearm noise, these are two separate issues. If a person has a need to lawfully shoot a firearm it would not have anything to do noise restrictions, unless for example it was happening at night. This also has nothing to do with city or country people, I am aware of the perceptions, but I think if you have time to read the pertinent sections of the draft you will understand what we are trying to accomplish. Any restrictions on shooting we are trying to implement in Rocky View deal with population densities, for example; shooting in Langdon is legal today if it is done safely. I think that shooting in Hamlets should be restricted. Many landowners have sold their land to developers and much higher density housing has been created, in some of these areas shooting should be restricted based on the number and proximity of the homes.

In closing, give the bylaw a read, and remember that it is a draft, your feedback is very important in putting forward a bylaw that Council can support. Thanks

[sjd]

That is the curse of the acreages and the acreage owners. And the worst part is that they become Councillors replacing the common sense farmer/rancher land owner as the acreage owners outnumber the farmers and vote in their types of people, who now control policy in a rural area.

It's a bloody shame and a good case against sub-division of land.


You can't have it both ways. In Clearwater County they tried to bring in rules that would preserve agricultural land and prohibit subdivisions, and it was blocked by farmer/ranchers who wanted to make more money by subdividing their land.

[theduke]

some one help me on this, i do alot of waterfowling in rockyview everything i hunt on is way over 30 acres so am i still good to hunt on these properties if this goes through? and du projects like weed lake and langdon res. still open to shooting? i know it may sound dumb but a lil confused on this bylaw

[220swifty]

here is a copy of the response I received to my letter of concern today from T. McCauley of the MD:

If that were addressed to me, my reply would be something along the lines of ; "Federal firearms legislation already prohibits the discharge of a firearm within 200 meters of an occupied building, and prohibits the discharge of a firearm in a manner that will allow a projectile to pass within 200 m of an occupied building. This should address the concern with firearms use in densly populated areas, so why does the MD feel it is necessary to spend additional tax dollars writing and enforcing this bylaw?"

[SBE2]

If that were addressed to me, my reply would be something along the lines of ; "Federal firearms legislation already prohibits the discharge of a firearm within 200 meters of an occupied building, and prohibits the discharge of a firearm in a manner that will allow a projectile to pass within 200 m of an occupied building. This should address the concern with firearms use in densly populated areas, so why does the MD feel it is necessary to spend additional tax dollars writing and enforcing this bylaw?"

x2, like the wording.