Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hunting Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County hears conservation police data on hunting incidents as supervisors consider rifle ordinance options
Summary
A state conservation police officer presented five seasons of hunting-incident data and outlined Code of Virginia authority and example ordinances from neighboring counties (elevation requirements, caliber limits, permissions) to inform Westmoreland’s deliberation on whether to permit rifles countywide.
A conservation police officer briefed the Westmoreland County Board of Supervisors on hunting‑incident statistics and the legal steps for adopting or repealing a county ordinance about rifle use.
The officer explained the agency’s definition of a reportable ‘‘hunting incident’’ (injury, fatality or property damage caused by discharge while hunting) and summarized five seasons of data. Examples shown: 2019–20 season had 20 incidents with one fatality and multiple self‑inflicted injuries; 2021–22 had 19 incidents with one fatality; 2023–24 had 10 incidents with one fatality. Over the five‑year span, shotguns were the most frequently involved firearm type in reported incidents.
He said the Code of Virginia gives counties authority to adopt ordinances regulating rifle and pistol use, and he presented neighboring counties’ approaches: Essex County’s ordinance imposes an 8‑foot elevated‑stand requirement in some circumstances; King George requires 10‑foot elevation; Richmond County includes magazine‑capacity limits and written landowner permission for rifle use. The officer recommended carefully drafting any changes and explained the May 1 deadline for submitting ordinance language for inclusion in the game law digest if the county seeks enforceability in the next hunting season.
Board members asked whether rifles are already used in the county; the officer said farmers can obtain damage or kill permits under state law and that some rifle use already occurs under those permits. County attorney reminded the board that changing or repealing ordinances requires careful drafting and likely a public hearing.
The session provided data and model language for staff and supervisors; the board did not vote to change the ordinance at this meeting.
