Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Deer Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears Treyburn group's request to allow limited bow hunting; safety and data questions prompt referral to GBA
Summary
Representatives of the Treyburn neighborhood asked council to loosen a hunting buffer so licensed bow hunters can cull deer on private property. Council members expressed safety concerns, asked about alternatives to lethal control and requested more data; staff placed the amendment on the General Business Agenda for further review.
Residents from the Treyburn neighborhood asked Durham City Council to amend city rules so licensed bow hunters could reduce local deer numbers on private properties, prompting safety and policy questions and a referral to the council’s General Business Agenda.
Quincy Holcutt, speaking for the Treyburn Board of Directors, said the group’s proposal is not unregulated hunting: “The idea is to try to reduce our deer population, but to do so extremely safely,” Holcutt told council. He said the group envisions controlled operations on specific privately owned parcels with permission from owners.
Council members raised concerns about proximity to homes and possible risks to children, pets and neighbors. Council Member Chelsea Cook said she was “uncomfortable” reducing safety buffers and emphasized that the proposed change would apply citywide, not only in Treyburn. Mayor Pro Tem Middleton and other members asked staff about nonlethal alternatives; staff recalled earlier 2013 discussions and told council that sterilization and relocation efforts have had limited success and that culling is the most commonly used method where municipalities permit it.
Staff noted the city lacks comprehensive data from other large North Carolina cities because most do not allow urban bow hunting. That lack of precedent and the absence of robust local data made it difficult for staff to recommend a specific buffer distance. Treyburn’s request would reduce a 250‑foot release buffer around dwellings to a smaller distance (proposed figure varied in written materials), which some council members said felt too close to structures.
Council did not adopt an ordinance at the meeting. The manager noted the item would appear on the General Business Agenda (GBA) for further review so staff can supply additional safety analysis, precedent research, and possible alternatives such as increased vehicle‑strike mitigation or habitat management.
Council members who represent neighborhoods with high incidents of vehicle‑deer collisions and tick‑borne disease said they understand residents’ concerns and want staff to analyze all options, including fertility control and targeted removal. The item will return with clearer data and recommendations.
