Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Augusta County supervisors debate hunting rules at Buffalo Gap property after safety concerns
Summary
Board members discussed allowing hunting on county-owned Buffalo Gap property, raised safety concerns about high-powered rifles and cross-country running trails, and a supervisor moved to restrict hunting to archery from tree stands; the transcript does not record a final board vote on the new restriction.
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Augusta County supervisors on Jan. 6 debated restrictions on hunting at the county-owned Buffalo Gap property after staff said the board previously allowed hunting there with conditions to avoid conflicts with school activities.
County staff told the board the tenant would be allowed to hunt only when school was not in session; staff later reported a cross-country running trail runs along the woods' edge used by the high school, which raised safety concerns.
Supervisor Wells and others cited incidents reported by conservation police where high-powered rifle bullets traveled hundreds of yards and struck homes. Dean Borden, a conservation police officer, was cited in the discussion noting recovered bullets at distances of 400 to 600 yards in prior hunts in nearby localities.
Following those safety concerns, a supervisor made a new motion to restrict hunting on the Buffalo Gap property to archery only and require hunters to use tree stands. The motion was seconded, and board members clarified that other previously discussed limitations โ chiefly that hunting would not occur during school activities โ would remain in effect. The public transcript does not record a final roll-call vote on the new restriction.
Why it matters: the property abuts school running routes and nearby residences; the board is balancing recreational and property-use interests against public-safety concerns raised by county conservation officers.
Next steps: staff noted that, because the original allowance for hunting had already been decided at a prior meeting, board members could either bring a motion to rescind the earlier action or entertain a new motion; the transcript shows a new motion was made and seconded but does not record a conclusive vote. Any formal change will be reflected in the official minutes if and when the board records a final action.
