Board tables rifle-hunting ordinance amendment after extended public hearing and data briefing

The Lancaster County Board of Supervisors on June 26 held a public hearing on a proposed amendment to county hunting rules to permit limited center-fire rifle and pistol use for deer hunting from elevated stands. The hearing featured a data briefing from the Virginia Conservation Police and extended public comment; the board voted to table the matter until its August meeting.

Why it mattered: the proposed language would allow rifles and pistols of .23 caliber or larger with magazine limits and require hunters to be on elevated stands at least 8 feet above ground; the draft also included limits on chambered rounds and seasonal restrictions for other species. Supporters said the change provides a safe, effective tool for deer management and preserves landowner choice; opponents raised safety, terrain and proximity-to-water concerns.

Virginia Conservation Police First Sergeant Tyler Bumgarner provided statewide hunting-incident data from 2019–2024 and explained investigative definitions and procedures. Bumgarner said incidents have involved multiple weapon types and that county-level ordinances must be submitted to the state fire/hunting digest by May 1 to be enforceable during the next license year. He warned that if the board repealed an ordinance or failed to submit amendments by the statutory deadline, county-specific restrictions (for example elevation or magazine limits) would not be enforceable against state law during the upcoming season.

Members of the public who spoke included Brett Dawson (citizen, county employee), who argued against the change on public-safety grounds citing flat terrain and water ricochet concerns, and Keith Bridal, who spoke in support and emphasized landowner control to restrict rifle use on private property. Several longtime residents urged caution, while others said modern ballistics do not materially increase risk compared with shotguns and pointed to data showing no safety change in some comparative studies.

Outcome: after public comment and discussion, a supervisor moved to table the proposal and bring it back at the Board’s August meeting; the motion to table carried. The board clarified that the public hearing record is closed and that the August item will be a consideration (not a new public hearing) but public input will remain possible through the regular public comment period.

Ending: staff and board members signaled a desire for more time to review enforcement mechanics, drafting language (including a suggested written landowner-permission provision) and the timing required for state publication so any amendment would be enforceable if adopted for the next hunting license year.