Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves bear-luring measure after debate over criminal penalties and officer discretion
Summary
HB 13-42, addressing negligent luring of bears and giving law enforcement tools in human-bear interactions, passed after floor debate about whether the bill's misdemeanor penalties and civil fines are appropriate for inadvertent conduct and about clarifying officer discretion to issue warnings.
The House passed House Bill 13-42 on April 21 following extensive debate on how to balance wildlife management, public-safety tools for officers, and fairness for residents who unintentionally leave attractants that draw bears.
Sponsor Representative Lukens described rising human-bear conflicts in Western Slope communities and said the bill provides Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and responding officers "more tools in the toolbox" to address repeat or dangerous attractant behavior. Representative Stewart, a co-sponsor, said the bill aligns statutes governing wildlife interactions and that CPW requested clearer enforcement tools after more than 5,000 human-bear incidents in 2024.
Opponents worried about criminalizing accidental conduct. Representative Garcia Sander gave practical examples — leaving cooking scraps by an outdoor grill or a trash can left open — and warned residents could face misdemeanor charges for ordinary mistakes: "Leaving chicken out accidentally just became the same level of crime and penalty as DUI and some assaults," she said, urging a safer, clearer approach.
Floor amendments addressed these concerns. Representative Soper proposed a safe-harbor amendment allowing an employer or property owner to demonstrate an unintentional possession or to receive a warning rather than immediate enforcement; that amendment (L16) failed. Representative Johnson’s amendment to put a clarifying legislative desk note into the bill that preserved peace officers’ discretion to issue warnings (L005) was offered to reduce confusion for counties with rare bear encounters; that amendment failed on the floor.
Sponsors and supporters emphasized the bill targets intentional or unreasonable conduct (for example, unreasonable abandonment of a job to the detriment of consumers or deliberate luring) and that first citations would be modest civil penalties rather than large fines; sponsors pointed to statutory language that sets the initial citation at $200, not $5,000.
The bill passed after votes on several amendments; supporters said it would aid regions with high human-bear conflict, while opponents warned of unintended consequences for small-property owners, renters and people who compost or use bird feeders.
What happens next: If enacted, the measure would give CPW and law enforcement clearer statutory authority to pursue specified kinds of luring that lead to public-safety harms; counties and law enforcement will continue to seek clarity on how the law will be implemented.
