A House bill in the Colorado Legislature would lessen legal hurdles for wildlife enforcement officials, allowing them to more easily cite people for attracting bears.
Language in House Bill 26-1342 seeks to change the legal standard of proving “intentional” luring of a wild bear with food or edible waste to a standard of criminal negligence. It would also eliminate the requirement that officers provide a first-time warning when they encounter violations.
The current law makes it a misdemeanor upon conviction to place food or waste in the open, with citations ranging from $200 to $2,000 for first through subsequent offenses.
If approved, the bill would raise fines for repeat offenders after a third offense from $2,000 to $5,000.
State wildlife officials continue to emphasize that unsecured food and human trash are the leading drivers of human-bear conflicts. Last year’s annual report showed human-bear conflicts rising statewide, with a number of contributing factors. One factor was the effect of a weak yield of natural foods, which drove bears nearer to neighborhoods and towns in search of food.
Reports of conflicts include bears eating from bird feeders, unsecured pet food, chicken coops, residential orchards and fruit trees.
The bill is in its earliest stages. It has been introduced in the Colorado House and assigned to the Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee for review and potential approval. The bill’s sponsors include Reps. Katie Stewart, D-Durango, Meghan Lukens, D-Steamboat Springs, and Sen. Janice Marchman, D-Loveland.
Exemptions in the draft include cases involving agriculture or food that is grown and harvested.
The idea emerged from a statewide working group led by Colorado Parks and Wildlife that spent the past year exploring ways to reduce human-bear conflicts before settling on changes to existing law.
According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife spokesperson John Livingston, many cities and towns – such as Dolores – have codes or ordinances to address bears and trash, such as requiring bear-resistant cans.
They, however, do not always have the resources for effective enforcement. In addition, the current law under Colorado Revised Statutes 33-6-131 sets a higher threshold for wildlife officers to meet to prove the “intentional” luring requirement.
The bear working group included members from various communities and stakeholders, such as waste haulers, code enforcers, officers and others.
“They threw out a bunch of ideas but looked realistically at what could work, finally settling on what they would like to see is better enforcement,” Livingston said.
Livingston said Colorado Parks and Wildlife mostly deals with the bear side of conflicts, including trapping, relocating or managing animals after they appear in residential areas. In 2024, 68 black bears were relocated, and 98 were euthanized because of incidents with humans.
“We in Southwest Colorado live in really great bear habitat. So, even if you were to eliminate every attractant off the landscape, it doesn't mean that we're not going to have some level of bear showing up in residential areas,” he said.
The House committee is scheduled to consider the bill April 13.
awatson@the-journal.com
