Durham council rejects change to bow‑hunting rules after heated Trayburn testimony

Durham City Council on Monday considered and rejected proposed revisions to city ordinance section 6-3 that would have relaxed limits on archery hunting within the city. The proposal drew lengthy public comment from residents of the Trayburn neighborhood who were split over whether the changes were needed to reduce an apparently overabundant deer population.

Supporters of the change told the council the deer herd in Trayburn exceeds sustainable levels and has caused vehicle collisions, landscape damage and heightened tick exposure. "Numerous times, deer have started out in front of my car when I've been driving my kids to school," said Katherine Jackson, a Trayburn resident, during remote public comment. Jackson and others urged the council either to permit targeted culling in the neighborhood or to make feeding deer illegal.

Opponents said reducing safety buffers in the current ordinance would put children, pets and neighbors at risk. "We are in the city limits — we pay taxes in the city of Durham. We do not have to have hunting in our neighborhood," said Peter Tocci, a Trayburn resident. Several speakers described yards and common areas where dozens of deer gather; others said hunting would leave wounded animals on neighborhood streets.

Council members expressed sympathy for both sets of concerns but repeatedly cited limits on the city's authority. "Because North Carolina has already legislated in this area, the city is not able to add on extra restrictions," Council Member Cook said, noting state law constrains what the city can impose. Several councilors also raised process questions about applying any change citywide when the complaint originated in a single neighborhood.

A motion to adopt the proposed revisions was moved and seconded and then discussed at length. Council members offered alternatives during the debate: referring the matter to the Environmental Affairs Board for a deeper review, investigating enforceable rules on feeding wildlife, and exploring neighborhood‑level covenant changes such as permitting taller deer fencing. Procedurally, a substitute motion to refer the matter to the Environmental Affairs Board was raised but not immediately put before the council.

The council took a hand vote after public comment and discussion; the motion to revise section 6-3 failed. Mayor Leonardo Williams announced, "The motion fails." Several councilors said they remained open to further study and to returning the issue with more analysis or a formal referral to the Environmental Affairs Board.

Members of the public who spoke asked for an enforceable path forward to address deer overpopulation and the damages and safety issues they described; others urged preserving the existing restrictions to protect residents. The council did not adopt any ordinance change at the meeting and gave no direction that would immediately alter the ordinance.