Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee advances bill narrowing 'unintentional' bear-feeding exemption amid drafting questions
Summary
The Assembly Commerce Committee favorably released A360, a bill that narrows the 'unintentional feeding' exemption in New Jersey's black-bear feeding law and directs civil penalties to municipalities. Supporters said municipal fines create local enforcement incentives; critics pressed the panel to clarify whether the change would affect deer-baiting and hunting rules.
A New Jersey Assembly committee on Wednesday voted to advance A360, a bill that would tighten the state's prohibition on feeding black bears by removing a broad "unintentional feeding" exemption and replacing it with a specific list of activities that are not considered feeding. The bill also redirects civil penalties for violations to the municipality where the infraction occurs instead of to the Division of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Environmental Protection.
Proponents said the change will reduce human-bear conflicts by focusing enforcement and encouraging municipalities to address attractants such as unsecured garbage and bird feeders. "By structuring the fines so that they go to the municipality instead of the state, it does create an incentive for local law enforcement to get involved," said Doris Lynn, legal director for the Animal Protection League of New Jersey, who testified in favor of the bill and urged members to "vote yes on a 360." She told the committee the bill requires a written warning before anyone is fined.
Brian Hackett of the Associated Humane Societies described the measure as "a tiny incremental step" to update an earlier law and to reduce habituation of bears to human food. Several residents from bear country recounted frequent encounters and said bear-proof containers and restrictions on attractants reduce conflicts.
The hearing turned contentious when members debated whether the new draft unintentionally removes a cross-reference that previously treated deer baiting as an example of unintentional feeding in specified areas. Several legislators pressed for clarification about whether the revised language would curtail lawful deer baiting statewide or would apply only in designated "bear conflict areas." Assemblywoman Fantasia and others said the deletion risked altering longstanding hunting law protections; the chair said he would work with the sponsor to clarify the language before the bill proceeds to the floor.
"If nobody here actually even understands what the bill does, I would say this is a pretty clear-cut case of a bill that should be fixed first," one member told the panel during debate.
Despite the drafting questions, the committee voted to release the measure for further consideration after members said they would seek clarifications and potential amendments. Committee members recorded votes both for and against advancing the bill; the chair announced that A360 "is favorably released by committee." The sponsor and staff will be asked to reconcile the deer-baiting language and circulate a clarified draft before the bill moves to subsequent committees or the floor.
The committee did not set an immediate floor date. Next steps cited during the hearing include follow-up meetings between the sponsor, staff and interested members to resolve the statutory language defining "unintentional feeding."
