Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Torrington conservation panel weighs permit program for bow hunting on University Drive property
Summary
The Torrington Conservation Commission discussed a resident request to allow bow hunting on an 84‑acre, city‑owned parcel on University Drive, debated safety and administrative concerns and asked staff to research state rules and potential permit requirements.
Torrington Conservation Commission members discussed whether to allow regulated bow hunting on a roughly 84‑acre City of Torrington parcel along University Drive after a local resident asked for permission.
Commission members were told the property is owned by Public Works and is not encumbered by a conservation deed restriction. Assistant city planner Nate Nardi said the city has no current program that permits hunting on city land and that a landowner‑consent form and a permit process would likely be required if the commission wanted to allow it. “I’ll do a little bit more research,” Nardi said, adding he would check state distance requirements and how other towns run similar programs.
Why it matters: Commissioners framed the request as a natural‑resource management issue as well as a public‑safety and administrative question. Supporters said hunting could help protect regenerating trees and community gardens from deer browse; opponents and cautious commissioners flagged enforcement, proximity to dwellings and administrative cost as obstacles.
Discussion details: Participants noted the parcel is contiguous with other large holdings and that some adjacent fields are actively mowed or hayed under private arrangement (a local resident referred to as “Butch” was identified as haying parts of the complex). Commissioners and staff discussed typical program elements — a signed landowner consent, a permit application that documents where and when hunting would be done, limits on weapons (bow only vs. allowing crossbows), reporting of harvests and a nominal fee to cover administration. Nardi said safety buffers from dwellings commonly used in other jurisdictions appeared to be in the 500‑foot range for bow hunting but he would verify whether Connecticut statutes or state regulations set different distances for archery versus firearms.
No formal action was taken. Commissioners asked staff to research: state requirements and distance rules, how neighboring towns structure municipal hunting permits, options to limit crossbow use, and whether there is sufficient local demand to justify a program. Nardi said he would follow up with state wildlife officials and local land managers and report back at a future meeting.
Ending: Commissioners broadly agreed the commission would not adopt any policy this year but kept the topic on their radar pending staff research and possible community interest.
