Discussions continue whether Hunting should be permitted on the East River Preserve; some of our citizens are in favor for environmental considerations; others are opposed simply because they are opposed to hunting for any reason, anywhere. For me, I feel there are a number of reasons to not allow hunting on the former Goss property:

Safety: there can be no question, regardless of whether you are a hunter or not, safety should be the first and foremost consideration in everyone’s mind. You might think, as some have said, that 600 acres is a large enough tract of land to limit hunting to an area far from the public areas. I disagree. To restrict and enforce and create 100% public awareness of the days and location of the hunting will more than difficult; I believe it will be completely impossible. Some folks will wander onto restricted areas unknowingly; keep in mind, due to use of federal funds to help pay for the 14.3 million dollar Goss property purchase, access to the preserve is available to anyone from anywhere, not just Guilford residents.

Liability to the Town of Guilford: I have information from a local attorney (which I confirmed with an attorney who specializes in insurance litigation) that the town can be liable in the event that an unfortunate hunting accident should occur. Can you imagine if a child were injured or worse, killed while using the Preserve for recreation?; Can you imagine the town’s liability if a group of teens decide they want to hang out on the Preserve at the wrong time and place and one is accidentally injured by an errant arrow?

Cost to the town of Guilford: Hopefully, doing due diligence, those making the decision to allow hunting have discussed hunting on town property with the town’s insurer. The likelihood is that the town’s insurance would have to include excess/umbrella coverage, which could be quite expensive; In addition, additional town staff might be required to be on site while hunting is going on (which is what New York state preserves are required to do).

Restrictive access: we are talking about restricting access to people (residents and tax payers) using the preserve for non-hunting purposes, giving priority to those who use it for hunting. Fair?

Dangerous precedent: since hunting is currently not permitted on any property owned by the town of Guilford, I believe the decision to allow hunting on this town owned property sets a dangerous precedent to future expansion of this hunting to other town owned properties (Timberlands, Westwoods, etc);

Transparency and Accountability prior to the 14.3-dollar referendum: The issue of hunting was not disclosed to the public prior to asking the taxpayers of Guilford to appropriate 14.3 million dollars to approve the purchase.

Political fallout: unfortunately this issue is developing into a political issue, which could manifest itself in our next town wide election.

Tony Fappiano

85 Grist Mill Cir

Guilford, CT 06437

(203)453-5271