Bridgeport, CT to ban hunting??

jimpeel

New member
From the Bridgeport, CT Post 12-4-99.

If you will recall, Bridgeport is one of the cities suing the gun establishment. Now this.

<start>
Hunters battling mounting pressure after cop`s death

Saturday, December 04, 1999

By DEBBIE CARVALKO
Staff writer

Hunters across the region are outraged and "disgusted" by the recent
killing of a Woodbridge police officer in an apparent hunting accident.

But the ire of those hunters is being stoked higher by an official's
announcement this week that the town is exploring ways to ban all
hunting, on both public and private property.

"The actions of one individual, who [apparently was not] even hunting
legally, should not affect all hunters," Rick Boucher, a Fairfield resident
and board member of the Connecticut Waterfowl Association, said
Friday.

Boucher, a past president of the group that includes some 320 hunters,
was referring to the Nov. 20 death of Woodbridge's deputy police chief,
William Garfield, apparently shot and killed by his hunting companion,
Stephen Gombos, 60, of Woodbridge.

The two were on a town-owned parcel of land known as the Bishop
Estate when the accident occurred. A zoning official later said hunting is
not allowed on town-owned land, though the first selectman or police
chief could conceivably issue a permit to do so.

First Selectman Roger Harrison said he did not issue any permit; Police
Chief Dennis Phipps has not returned calls for comment. Harrison said
Thursday he is exploring whether hunting can be banned everywhere in
town.

"Every day, everywhere, every place," hunters in Connecticut are talking
about the tragic death, said Joe Ferrigno, a Derby resident and president
of the United Bow Hunters of Connecticut.

"It sickens me and shocks us all … When I get over my disgust, maybe I'll
go back in the woods," said Ferrigno, 61 and a hunter since his father
taught him how to shoot at age 6.

Ferrigno speculated that Garfield was mistaken for a deer in the
shooting. He said that would never happen if basic hunting rules were
being followed.

Ferrigno said it is standard practice that a hunter be certain the target
is an animal; identify a vital area to shoot the animal so it will die quickly
(usually the heart and lung area behind the front legs); and be able to
tell exactly where a fired round will stop if it passes through the animal.

A state environmental official agreed the problem is not hunting, but
"negligent" hunters.

"Hunting is recreational and a wildlife management aid to the state, to
keep the deer population in check," said Ed Parker, chief at the DEP
natural resources bureau. "To take that away because someone made a
tragic error [is] really punishing legal hunters for something someone did
that was stupid," he added.

Parker said any Woodbridge attempt to ban all hunting will fail, anyway,
as it has in other towns and cities in the state.

Two years ago, he said, Greenwich failed to pass a law banning all
hunting in town, including on private property. Courts would not uphold
the regulation, he said.

North Branford recently considered a similar attempt, but dropped the
proposal after legal research.

Recently, East Hartford officials went to court in an effort to ban all
hunting, but were rebuffed, said Parker.

Parker said there have been three hunting deaths in the last two hunting
seasons in Connecticut.

Garfield's death was the most recent.

In November 1998, a conservation officer was shot and killed by a man
hunting illegally after dark in Scotland, Conn.

Earlier that year, an attorney walking his dog in Coventry was shot and
killed on a Sunday by a hunter.

There is no hunting allowed anywhere in Connecticut on Sundays, said
Parker. And that hunter did not have a license, he said.

Boucher attributed all three accidental deaths to what he called
poachers, people who do not have all the necessary legal permits and
permissions to hunt.

Parker said the DEP has rewritten a proposal for stricter penalties for
hunting law violations in the state that failed to make it to the General
Assembly for a vote this year.

He said the legislation to increase suspensions, fines and jail terms for
negligent hunting will be submitted to the state Legislature next
February.

Debbie Carvalko, who covers regional events, can be reached at
736-5440.
 
Further on this story.

This from the Hartford, CT Courant 12-2-99

<start>
Slain Police Official Lacked Consent To Hunt On
Land

By GARY LIBOW
The Hartford Courant
December 02, 1999

WOODBRIDGE - Deputy Police Chief William Garfield and companion Stephen
Gombos did not have written permission to hunt on town-owned property - as
required under state law - when the police official was fatally shot Nov. 20.

First Selectman Roger Harrison said neither his office nor the town clerk's office
had signed the state- mandated consent form in the Connecticut hunter's guide
for Garfield and Gombos to hunt on the town land off Litchfield Turnpike.
Harrison said he has asked town legal counsel to research whether sportsmen
need written permission to hunt on town-owned property.

Garfield, 49, was pronounced dead at the scene after a single bullet from
Gombos' gun was somehow fired into his chest. The deputy chief had reportedly
removed his safety vest while harvesting a deer he had killed.

Garfield served on the Woodbridge Police Department six years. He retired from
the Milford Police Department as a captain in 1993 after serving 21 years.

Written permission from property owners, including municipalities, is required to
hunt deer and turkey, according to Col. George Barone, director of conservation
law enforcement for the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Harrison acknowledged Wednesday, however, that town officials have not
routinely required hunters to obtain written permission before hunting on the
town-owned property off Litchfield Turnpike. Over the years, it has been a
popular site for sportsmen, much to the chagrin of residents.

Some also question whether the hunters breached local hunting safety distance
requirements.

Clark Road resident James Riley, rattled by the hunting fatality, estimates his
home is about 500 feet from where Garfield was fatally shot.

While state law prohibits sportsmen from hunting within 500 feet of any building
occupied by people or domestic animals, the town hunting ordinance is even
stricter - prohibiting discharge of firearms within 1,500 feet of any dwelling or
building accessory.

``It's too close for comfort,'' said Riley, who voiced his safety concerns recently
with the first selectman. ``Over the years, people have hunted on our property,
quite close to our house. It has been a source of concern for us.''

Years ago, Riley said, his teenage daughter was walking along a popular hiking
trial when a hunter emerged from the brush and told her ``You almost got shot.''

Harrison said the board of selectmen on Dec. 8 will consider ways to better
safeguard against hunting accidents. One option, he said, is initiating a hunting
ban on town property.

State police Lt. Ralph Carpenter said Gombos, 60, forwarded a written
statement Tuesday. The statement was issued through attorney Ira Grudberg,
who said his client is innocent of any wrongdoing.

``It's a horrible thing. He shot and killed a dear friend,'' said Grudberg, noting
Gombos was armed with a high-powered rifle.

Gombos could not be reached Wednesday. A woman who answered the door of
his Amity Road home declined comment.

Carpenter, noting state investigators requested Gombos' version of the shooting
incident days earlier, said investigators from the DEP and the major crime
squad attended a necropsy Dr. Wayne Carver conducted Monday on the deer
remains found with Garfield.

Investigators, who are reconstructing events, are looking at the possibility the
deer might have been struck by the same fatal round as Garfield, said
Carpenter. The final medical report has not yet been provided to state police, he
said.

Investigators ``will try to determine where each of the hunters were located,
where the deer was located,'' at the time of the shooting, Carpenter said of the
criminal investigation.
 
I grew up in the next town and graduated high school in Woodbridge. My sister still lives there and all my people within 20 minutes. It an affluent suburb with large lots and a fair amount of free space. However, little of it is open enough to accomodate hunters unless they know what they're doing and where they're shooting.

Regardless, this is not the case of a homeowner being injured but of a typical and seldom seen hunting accident. Life is filled with danger. Caveat Emptor.

Rule four applies to hunters as well as defensive shooting. http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/safetyrules.html
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited December 05, 1999).]
 
This seems to be a case of several rules being broken. It has nothing to do with where the individuals were hunting. As Rich Said
"However, little of it is open enough to accomodate hunters unless they know what they're doing and where they're shooting."
This applies to the wilds of Alaska as well!
Be safe and good shooting,
Hank
 
I'm sure that CT state wildlife managers are giggling at the thought of Bridgeport "banning" hunting within their incorporated borders, especially on private lands. Wake up call for Bridgeport. In most states that have wildlife species and allow hunting, the wildlife belongs to the people of the state, and is therefore regulated by the state, NOT the municipality!

Any ordinance that would "ban" a legal state regulated activity would be akin to become null and void IF a case ever got to court. Usually, municipalities further attempt to regulate this legal activity by having an ordinance which prohibits the discharge of a weapon (including firearms, and vaguely interpreted bows and arrows) within City limits. However, again, such skirting of a state regulated activity by a municipality, such as using an approved weapon in conducting a state regulated activity, does not hold water when brought before a court.

Many municipalities actually do have these "un-Constitutional" ordinances on their books, but they aren't worth the paper they're written on in court.

To verify this, call your state wildlife management office and ask to speak to the person in charge of legal issues.
 
Perhaps they will wake up when several of their fine citizens end up with a deer placing them unceremoniously into the back seat of their car via the windshield entry method as has happened in Fire Island, NY.

People have no idea that the animal that causes more human deaths in America than any other is deer.
 
Back
Top