Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Nuisance Bears topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Petersburg assembly declines resolution to authorize removal of nuisance black bears

5586193 · August 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After hearing a presentation from the police chief and agency partners about conditioned bears and costs for bear-resistant cans, the Petersburg Borough Assembly voted 3-1 to reject Resolution 2025-18, which would have authorized coordinated removal of problem bears.

The Petersburg Borough Assembly rejected Resolution 20‑25‑18 on Aug. 4 after discussion about public safety, costs and wildlife-management options.

The resolution would have authorized Police Chief Kerr to coordinate with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alaska Wildlife Troopers to remove “nuisance” black bears the borough identified as repeatedly accessing secured trash and causing property damage. Assembly member Lynn moved to approve the resolution; the motion was seconded by Member Valentine. The roll call vote was Valentine: yes; Vice Mayor Marsh: yes; Member Lynn: yes; Member Stanton Gregor: no. The motion failed for lack of the four votes required.

Chief Kerr told the assembly that a small number of bears in town had learned to defeat borough-issued garbage cans and ratchet straps. He said nonlethal methods had failed for those animals and described them as “conditioned and emboldened” bears. He recommended targeted removal of those animals in coordination with state wildlife authorities. The chief also provided cost comparisons for replacing borough cans with certified bear‑resistant containers, saying the borough’s 32-gallon cans cost about $51.29 each including shipping while some bear‑resistant models run roughly $187 apiece; larger can sizes also showed substantial price increases when switching to bear‑resistant models, according to his presentation.

A representative who spoke to the assembly about regulations noted that Alaska law allows a person to take game in defense of life and property when necessary and not precipitated by harassment or unreasonable invasion of habitat. The speaker urged exhaustive use of nonlethal measures before lethal removal and warned that traps and other measures carry risks to pets and people.

Several assembly members and the public questioned whether the borough was already using appropriate mechanisms with Fish and Game and the state troopers. Chief Kerr and a borough representative said the resolution would formalize interagency coordination and raise public education efforts rather than create new authority beyond existing state regulations.

The assembly also discussed continued distribution of free ratchet straps and public-education campaigns advocating “living with bears” measures. With the vote failing, no formal borough authorization was adopted at the Aug. 4 meeting.

The issue may return to a future agenda for further discussion of neighborhoodspecific outreach, potential capital costs to replace cans, or alternative mitigation strategies.