The central issue at the meeting was the proposal from a subcommittee to ban hunting on all conservation lands, which sparked debate. The proposal, initially presented in December 2024, marked a shift from Amherst’s longstanding practices where hunting was generally permitted. The subcommittee, after rejecting an outright ban, developed a document titled “Hunting on Amherst Conservation Lands Alternatives,” outlining options such as restricting hunting to specific species or maintaining the status quo.

One participant, with a background in wildlife law enforcement, argued against the ban, emphasizing that hunting was not prohibited on conservation lands as suggested by the town’s website. They pointed out that state law permits hunting unless explicitly banned, and highlighted survey data showing high user satisfaction with conservation lands, with minimal safety concerns reported. They urged the commission to focus on factual evidence and consider the historical context, noting the absence of legal prohibitions on most conservation lands.

Ellen Jedriera, a representative from the conservation community, supported hunting as a crucial wildlife management tool. She argued that deer populations in Massachusetts lack natural predators, leading to overpopulation and related issues such as Lyme disease and vehicular collisions. She stressed that hunting helps manage deer populations, maintain biodiversity, and reduce public safety risks.

The discussion also touched on the types of firearms used in hunting, with one speaker noting that only .22 caliber rifles are generally permitted in Massachusetts outside of bear season, where more powerful rifles are allowed. They criticized the proposed 500-foot buffer around trails for hunting, calling it “ridiculous” and questioning its necessity given that no such buffer is consistently enforced statewide.

As the commission deliberated, members debated the implications of different alternatives proposed, including maintaining current regulations, restricting hunting to certain species, or banning it altogether. Michelle Labbe asked if additional information was needed before voting on the proposals, while Bruce Stedman inquired about the percentage of conservation lands available for hunting. David Ziomek, the conservation director, responded that the town owns approximately 2,400 acres of conservation land and 2,000 acres of preserved agricultural land, with hunting access largely decided by individual farmers.

The discussion revealed concerns about the legal foundation for current hunting restrictions, with one member questioning whether the commission was on “the right side of the law” by not allowing hunting on certain lands. The conversation highlighted the need for clarity in enforcement, with suggestions to consult the town attorney for legal guidance on posting requirements and regulations.

The commission also considered broader wildlife management issues, with discussions on deer population control, food security, and the economic impact of deer-vehicle collisions. One participant noted the decline in hunters amid rising deer populations, drawing parallels with the Quabbin Reservoir’s past experiences with overpopulation. They emphasized hunting’s role in food security, with hunters contributing to community food banks by donating game meat.

Despite the contentious nature of the debate, some members called for more public input and research before making any decisions. The need for a review of conservation lands and their suitability for hunting was emphasized, with considerations for public safety and proximity to residential areas. The commission acknowledged the importance of separating the hunting policy topic from other subcommittee discussions.