When a bear mauled and killed her 18-month-old bull at her former farm in Woodstock, Patty Taylor said the loss was more than financial.

The bull’s face and body had been torn apart, she wrote in testimony to the General Assembly’s Environment Committee last week – a gruesome sight she still remembers years later.

In 2024, Connecticut passed a law allowing residents to kill bears in self-defense. The legislation also created a permit system for farmers dealing with nuisance animals, but it stopped short of enacting a bear hunting season.

Now, legislators are revisiting the law to expand its provisions. They want to expand when farmers like Taylor can use deadly force, and streamline the permitting process for killing bears and other wildlife that threaten livestock and crops.

Supporters say the bill strengthens farmers’ ability to protect their animals and livelihoods in an industry with razor-thin profit margins. But opponents argue it amounts to a de-facto “bear hunt” – something many have called for but lawmakers have repeatedly rejected, even as bear encounters continue to rise across the state.

Under the 2024 law, residents can kill a bear only if it attacks – or is about to attack – a human or pet, or enters an occupied building. Farmers dealing with wildlife that damages their livestock, crops or beehives can apply for a “depredation” permit from the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Before getting one, they must demonstrate that they tried “nonlethal efforts” such as electric fencing or enclosed structures. Violators face a fine of up to $500 or 30 days in prison for a first offense.

The new bill would tweak those rules in a few ways. It would add livestock to the list of situations in which deadly force can be used in self-defense. That means farmers who come across a bear attacking their herd of cattle, for instance, could kill the bear without first obtaining a permit.

The proposal also would ease permitting rules for large-scale commercial farms, where electric fences and other nonlethal methods have proven costly and ineffective, state officials say. In addition, the bill would allow farmers to qualify for a permit based on crop damage they experienced during the previous growing season, rather than having to show proof of current damage at the time they apply.

Connecticut’s growing bear population has fueled a sharp rise in public encounters across the state. State officials said they received 12,104 reports of bear sightings last year, nearly triple the roughly 4,500 reported in 2015. The state’s black bear population – now estimated between 1,000 and 1,200 – has “a high potential for growth” due to abundant habitat and easy access to human-related food sources, according to DEEP’s 2025 State of the Bears report.

Encounters with livestock also have increased in recent years, according to officials in the agriculture industry.

Over the past two seasons, DEEP issued permits that resulted in 15 bears killed in 2024 and 13 in 2025. The agency described those totals as relatively low, saying lethal action largely has been limited by the requirement that farmers first attempt nonlethal deterrents. But while electric fencing might work for smaller operations, some farmers say it is costly and impractical to install and maintain across wide swaths of land.

“Some of these producers have hundreds or thousands of acres of cornfields, and it’s really not practical for them to be able to purchase the equipment,” DEEP wildlife biologist Jason Hawley told members of the Environment Committee during last week’s hearing. “They’re almost just breaking even at that point.”

Finding ways to responsibly manage Connecticut’s burgeoning bear population has been a recurring source of tension among lawmakers and residents.

The 2024 self-defense law originally included a provision that would have allowed DEEP to issue permits to kill up to 50 bears a year in Litchfield County, but that measure was removed after hundreds of residents wrote to lawmakers in opposition, many saying it was unnecessary and inhumane.

Critics of the new proposal now argue that expanding when farmers can use lethal force on wildlife creates a regulated bear hunt without formally calling it one.

During last week’s hearing, state Rep. Mike Demicco, D-Farmington, a member of the Environment Committee, called the bill a “small version of a bear hunt,” adding that “we’re going after bears that haven’t necessarily done anything. The bear who is going to be taken this year based on this anticipated permit is not necessarily the bear or bears who caused the damage last year, and yet they’re going to be the ones who are going to suffer the consequences and it doesn’t seem right.”

Supporters reject that idea, saying the bill is narrowly tailored to protect livestock and crops, not to create a recreational hunting program.

“This is not about hunting for sport or food,” wrote Shannon Chatfield, a livestock farmer in Barkhamsted. “This is about responsibility, animal welfare and the survival of Connecticut’s working farms.”

In her written testimony, DEEP Commissioner Katie Dykes said bears can cause “extensive damage in a short time,” forcing farmers to absorb “substantial losses” while waiting for permits.

Other farmers and agricultural leaders shared that concern. Tracey McDougall, executive director of the Connecticut Farm Bureau Association, said the current permitting process “limits a farmer’s ability to respond quickly during an active attack.”

A single bear can wipe out years of investment that farmers put into their animals in the form of breeding, veterinary care and other labor, McDougall said. Beyond the immediate losses, attacks also can “destabilize herds” and “create lasting stress responses,” compounding the financial strain, she noted.

Kimberly Grijalva, whose North Stonington cattle farm spans about 100 acres, described quarantining her pigs for six months after they were attacked by a bobcat.

“Ultimately, due to stress and behavioral changes following the attack and extended quarantine, the pigs became aggressive with one another and had to be euthanized,” she said.

Justin Davis, chief of DEEP’s Bureau of Natural Resources, told lawmakers the agency would continue working with them to refine the bill’s language. The goal, he said, is to balance the needs of vulnerable farmers with the spirit of the existing law, which limits lethal action to situations involving crop or livestock damage.

This article originally published at Killing bears would be simplified for Connecticut farmers under proposed rules.