Re: No Sunday gun hunting; Help local family after house fire; Taking from Peter to donate to Paul; Obeying Bylaws doesn’t always enforce them

No Sunday gun hunting

To the Editors,

I’m not against hunting, but I’m against hunting on Sundays. Fifty-two Sundays when I am having my coffee or barbecue with children running around it is not safe. 

Last year a slug went through a house with children inside. Luckily no one was injured. This is one of the few places in the world where guns aren’t going off on Sundays. I’m a hunter, trapper, and farmer who worked shift work and found time to hunt six days a week. If they would like to hunt Sundays, go to areas that allow hunting.

We don’t need people driving around in a pickup truck with a case of beer looking for something to shoot.  

Advertisement

 

Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck, and Bambi deserve one day a week they aren’t shot in the face with a 12 guage shotgun. People – make your voices heard. No Sunday gun hunting. Phone your councillor or email:    bylaw@haldimandcounty.on.ca.

Bryan Vanderburg, Cayuga

Help Local Family after House Fire

To the Editors, 

On April 10 of this year, Lloyd and Melba Ryerse’s life turned upside down. Their home, located in Woodhouse, burned to the ground. Everything is gone including family pictures and heirlooms. Luckily a neighbour helped Lloyd get out of the home, but a family pet wasn’t as lucky; adding to the tragedy – there was no insurance.

I received a message from one of their children, who said, “It’s quite the disaster. Everyone is ok thankfully. Thanks for caring.”

As a community, we have been investigating ways we can help. Money is seriously needed. So we have encouraged Melba to open a bank account at the Royal Bank which can be accessed from branches in Port Dover, Simcoe and Hagersville – ask for an account for Melba Saarivirta Ryerse, Transit 04662-003 – Account 511-689-2.

There is an urgent need for every dollar we can put together, we can make a difference! Every dollar you put in will go directly to the account for immediate use.

Mary Field, Port Dover

Taking from Peter to donate to Paul

To the Editors, 

First Ontario Credit Union has just informed its members of “exciting new retail chequing plans” in which members saw an increase from $0 to $13.95 monthly fees for their chequing account. First Ontario claims it is “owned” by its members, yet no owners were consulted about this change to their accounts. In order to retain the $0 monthly fee, owners are required to leave $4,000 untouched in their 0% interest accounts. Many First Ontario owners won’t see this as a problem, at least not until they look closer at who WILL be paying these fees. Those who will be most affected by this change are the poor and those who are living paycheck-to-paycheck. They will be forced to switch financial institutions or pay the monthly fee. 

My question is, why does First Ontario need to garner even more income from its poorest members? In 2022, First Ontario saw an income of $40 million before taxes! They donated $683,000: $230,000 to student nutrition, $200,000 to small business awards, $140,000 to food insecurity, $53,000 to affordable housing, $37,000 to the United Way, $13,000 to student tuition, and $10,000 to humanitarian aid in Ukraine. Donating is great, but why are owners not allowed to determine to whom and how much they donate with their own money? 

This owner was never asked which organizations I would like my money to be donated to and I don’t see Hope From Above Ministries-Haiti, Power At Work-Guatemala, or Bodega sa Grasya-Philippines on the list of charities. Why does First Ontario feel it necessary to make these decisions on my behalf or, even worse, on the behalf of their poorest members? Apparently, collecting interest on owners’ money isn’t enough, now First Ontario is taking even more money from their poorest members… in order to garner more income to donate to the poor. Let that sink in for just a minute. This does not make sense at all.

Lily Eggink,  “Owner” of First Ontario Credit Union

Obeying bylaws doesn’t always enforce them

To the Editors, 

Haldimand County bylaw rules state that it is “the duty to protect residents requires that the bylaws will be enforced.”

My letter is directed at Bylaw Officer Tom Doherty and his alleged incompetence in dealing with Barb and Doug Wadel’s rights concerning bylaws of their property fences.

On Good Friday I hired two quality fence installers to install a 6-foot wooden fence in front of my rear boundary or line fence, a 4-foot high chain link fence which I had paid for and had installed about 25 years ago. I had my new wooden fence installed 2-8” away from the boundary fence according to the bylaws.

While being installed my neighbour said I needed a survey, which I didn’t. The fence builders said that they have installed dozens of wooden fences next to the property line.

A couple of days later I found 50 feet of my boundary line fence was missing. I contacted Bylaw Officer Tom Doherty, who said he previously spoke with my neighbour, adding, “I agreed with (the neighbour) that the chain link fence does need to be removed.” 

Mr. Doherty stated he “left it with” the neighbour to talk to me. I was never asked by Mr. Doherty about the neighbour’s concerns with this fence.

Mr. Doherty sent me another email stating, “This is a civil matter. You can only contact me through your lawyer. I will not be responding to you.”

So thanks to Tom Doherty who came up with some story that a child or animal could get trapped between the gap between the two fences, which I never got to see this alleged problem as I was not notified of any potential problems and I end up losing 50 feet of chain link fence.

You are a real piece of work.

Doug and Barb Wadel, Dunnville