An Act Concerning The Protection Of Crops And Livestock From Certain Wildlife.
SB 146 makes two related changes to Connecticut wildlife law aimed at reducing damage to farms and improving protections for people dealing with dangerous wildlife. First, it expands the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s authority to issue permits to take wildlife that threatens or damages agricultural crops, livestock, or apiaries, including wildlife that caused crop damage in the prior growing season. The bill requires the property owner or lessee to have used reasonable nonlethal deterrents, such as electric fencing, animal guardians, or fortified enclosures, before a permit may be issued, and it limits permits to the owner, the owner’s agent, or a lessee with written permission. It also removes notarization as a requirement for the permit application and clarifies that federally protected species cannot be taken under this authority.
Second, the bill amends the state’s bear-defense statute to expressly allow a person to use deadly physical force against a bear if the person reasonably believes the bear is about to inflict great bodily harm, is injuring or killing a pet or livestock that is lawfully controlled, or is entering an occupied building. The measure is framed as a public-safety and agricultural-protection bill, balancing nonlethal deterrence first with a limited right to lethal action when wildlife poses serious risks.
The bill would amend two sections of the Connecticut General Statutes, section 26-47(e) and section 26-80a(c), effective upon passage. It broadens the circumstances under which DEEP may authorize the taking of nuisance wildlife and streamlines the permit process for agricultural property owners and lessees. It also clarifies the legal standard for using deadly force against bears, potentially affecting farmers, livestock owners, apiary operators, hunters, landowners, and residents who encounter bears near homes or animals.
The available voting record suggests the bill had generally favorable support in committee, passing the Environment Committee as a Joint Favorable Substitute by a 25-8 vote. That margin indicates substantial support for the bill’s agricultural and safety objectives, though not unanimous agreement. No transcript excerpts are provided, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote suggests the proposal was viewed positively overall by a majority of committee members.
The main points of contention likely center on how far the state should go in authorizing lethal removal of wildlife and self-defense against bears, and whether the bill strikes the right balance between protecting farms and preserving wildlife. Supporters are likely to emphasize crop, livestock, and apiary protection, along with clearer authority for landowners facing bear threats. Opponents may be concerned about expanded killing of wildlife, the adequacy of nonlethal alternatives, and the risk of broadening lethal-force standards beyond truly emergency situations.