Connecticut DEEP backs regulated black-bear hunt as human-bear conflicts climb

Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) staff told the Environment Committee that a regulated black‑bear hunting season should be considered to reduce growing numbers of human–bear conflicts in Connecticut, where agency data and lawmakers say incidents such as bears entering homes and raiding trash have risen in recent years.

At a long public hearing where dozens of residents, farmers, hunters and animal‑welfare advocates testified, DEEP officials described a steady rise in conflict reports and said a carefully regulated season would be one more tool, alongside education and nonlethal measures, to reduce risk. Mason Trumbull, DEEP deputy commissioner for environmental conservation, said the agency and the Lamont administration support authorization of a managed hunting season targeted at the areas where conflicts are most frequent.

“Human–bear conflicts have increased significantly,” Trumbull said in testimony to the committee. He told lawmakers the department had recorded about 3,500 conflict reports last year and 67 home entries, and that the state’s expanding bear population is projected to keep growing if no management changes are made. Jason Holly, a DEEP wildlife biologist, described long‑distance movements by individual bears and explained the biological rationale behind targeting bold, food‑conditioned animals if a hunt were authorized.

The hearing featured sharply different views. Supporters — including farmers and residents from northwest Connecticut and other areas with repeated bear encounters — told the committee the risk to people, livestock and property is rising and that regulated harvests in neighboring states have reduced problem behavior in practice. Opponents — including wildlife rehabilitators, conservation groups and some scientists — argued that hunting will not prevent bears from seeking human food and could instead destabilize populations or create more conflict by orphaning cubs and leaving younger, inexperienced bears on the landscape. They urged stronger, funded programs to remove attractants (bear‑resistant dumpsters, secure trash, enforcement of ordinances, outreach) before authorizing a hunt.

DEEP staff said other tools remain in use: an agricultural damage permit program that allowed farmers to remove problem bears under strict rules resulted in 15 animals removed under that authority last year, agency officials said; the agency also enforces a recent law that allows killing a bear in self‑defense in limited scenarios. Jenny Dixon, director of DEEP’s Wildlife Division, said the department has invested in public outreach and a targeted education campaign, but that the existence of prosocial food sources (trash, bird feeders) and a growing population of habituated bears make education alone insufficient in the most affected areas.

Lawmakers pressing DEEP asked detailed questions about how any hunt would be designed — season timing, bag limits, geography and mechanisms (lottery, tag fees, whether wildlife biologists would accompany initial hunts) — and whether a season would be restricted to the western part of the state, where most conflicts occur. DEEP staff said any regulations would be developed publicly and would also be subject to the state’s formal regulatory review process. Several legislators urged the agency to return with a concrete management plan and data if the General Assembly were to authorize a season.

Advocates for nonlethal management repeatedly urged investment in bear‑resistant garbage programs and ordinances to prevent intentional or unintentional feeding, and some urged a state grant program to subsidize bear‑resistant dumpsters and electric fencing for farms and apiaries. DEEP witnesses and some attendees described pilot programs and local efforts that have reduced conflicts in other jurisdictions.

No formal vote on a hunting authorization was recorded at this hearing. DEEP staff told the committee they would provide further written information and a regulatory proposal if the legislature adopts authorizing language. In the meantime, DEEP also said its officers continue to remove and euthanize bears when immediate threats to people or animals occur under existing authority and that it has used agricultural damage permits in some circumstances.

The committee hearing included dozens of public testimonies, including residents who recounted bears entering homes or breaking into sheds, farmers who described repeated crop losses and beekeepers who said hives were damaged; hunters and conservation groups presented differing research and cited other states’ approaches. Several witnesses asked the committee to fund attractant‑reduction programs as an alternative to or complement of a hunting season.

As the committee considers legislation, the central questions lawmakers and the public pressed DEEP to answer were where and how a season would be restricted, how the agency would target the animals most responsible for conflicts, and what funding and community supports would accompany any management change.

Ending notes: the hearing demonstrated the state’s divide over wildlife management tools: some residents and farmers called for immediate legislative authorization of a regulated hunt; others asked for more pilot programs, funding and time to scale nonlethal measures. DEEP said it supports a regulatory process that would aim to target conflict animals while protecting population sustainability, and told legislators it would provide follow‑up materials if lawmakers ask for enabling legislation.