Colorado Bear Coalition’s Statewide Recommendations
for reducing human-bear conflict

(1) Statewide Trash Statute

• Implement a statewide ordinance requiring use of bear-resistant trash carts, dumpster or enclosures for all cities/counties with human-bear conflict. 

• Require adequate enforcement 

• Require the city/county to provide sufficient enforcement from their enforcement department.

• Sufficient Penalties for violators
  
  Rationale

  Trash has been cited as the main cause of human-bear conflict. It takes tremendous effort to develop ordinances for each area. Rather than doing this piecemeal, it would be much more effective to develop a statewide ordinance (while recognizing and adapting to meet the variety of different local governments; e.g unincorporated community, statutory town, home rule municipality) The ordinance should be well-crafted to consider local variations in bear behavior, urban planning, and waste management infrastructure.

  Benefits of a statewide ordinance:

  • Consistency: A statewide ordinance provides uniform regulations across different jurisdictions. This consistency simplifies understanding and compliance for residents, businesses, and visitors, making it less confusing and more likely to be followed.

  • Efficiency: Creating and implementing ordinances on a city or county level can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. A single statewide ordinance streamlines the process, reduces duplication of efforts, and ensures that the same standards apply everywhere.

  • Holistic Approach: Bears, like other wildlife, don't adhere to city or county boundaries. A statewide ordinance can take into account the entire range of bear habitats, migration patterns, and behaviors, offering a more comprehensive solution.

  • Better Enforcement: A statewide ordinance could lead to more effective enforcement. Resources can be pooled to support law enforcement, monitoring, and educational campaigns, helping to ensure that the rules are consistently upheld.

  • Public Awareness: A statewide approach allows for more centralized public awareness campaigns. Education efforts can be streamlined and reach a larger audience, promoting better understanding and cooperation among residents.

  • Shared Expertise: Developing a statewide ordinance allows for collaboration between experts, stakeholders, and agencies across the state. This collaborative effort can lead to a more informed and well-rounded policy that considers a variety of perspectives.

  • Cost Savings: Developing individual ordinances for each jurisdiction can be expensive and time-consuming. A statewide approach may save resources by reducing administrative overhead and ensuring more efficient use of funding.

  • Adaptability: Wildlife behaviors and human populations can change over time. A statewide ordinance can be more adaptable to such changes, as it can be amended and updated based on statewide trends and developments.

  • Political Support: A statewide ordinance may gain stronger political support as it addresses a broader issue that affects multiple regions and constituencies. This can facilitate the passage of legislation and allocation of resources.

  • Research and Data: A statewide approach can facilitate the collection of data on human-bear interactions and the effectiveness of the ordinance. This information can guide future decisions and policy adjustments.

  Enforcement:

  No law is effective without proper enforcement, which is a resource that is often limited for municipalities or counties. Thus providing the ability for local areas to deputize citizens to enforce trash laws would provide a critical resource to fill that gap. 

  This has already been implemented in La Plata County as well as Aspen, where the board of county commissioners and the city, respectively, can designate any person as an enforcement officer. It would be prudent to expand these efforts across the state where resources are limited.

(2) Continuous Improvement Review Board

Establish an continuous improvement review board that reviews every incident in which CPW, APHIS Wildlife Services or resident relocates or kills a bear.

Rationale

• Currently CPW reviews and documents all incidents of bear handlings in the state frequently resulting in distrust and confusion.

  Benefits of an external review board:

  • Objectivity: The board’s independence from CPW will help maintain objectivity and reduce potential conflicts of interest.

  • Transparency: Having an external review board will increase transparency and provide an avenue for stakeholders to understand the rationale behind certain actions or practices.

  • Public trust: As citizens are becoming more involved in efforts to reduce human-bear conflict, maintaining public trust in CPW is crucial. An external review board's oversight will add a layer of credibility to CPW’s activities, especially when the public is concerned about safety, or ethical issues.

  • Continuous Improvement: A review board offers constructive feedback that can help refine current practices. This iterative process contributes to continuous improvement and the advancement of knowledge and practices.

  • Community and Stakeholder Input: The review boards can incorporate input from relevant stakeholders. This inclusion ensures that diverse perspectives are considered, making the outcomes more comprehensive and inclusive. This may lead to greater community efforts to take accountability on reducing attractants.

(3) Revise “Knowingly luring bears.” Title 33, Parks and Wildlife, Article 6

Rationale

The vast majority of incidents statewide involving residents feeding bears and other wildlife is inadvertent, or due to careless or reckless management of human food attractants such as garbage, bird feeders, pet and livestock feed, chickens, domestic fruit and more. Current Colorado Parks and Wildlife statutes dictate that wildlife officials have to prove intent in feeding bears. Having to prove that it was the intention of residents to feed bears places an unfair burden on wildlife officers and is counter-productive in mitigating human-bear conflict due to bears accessing human food attractants. Intentional feeding of bears garners attention and focus, yet composes a minuscule percentage of incidents compared to careless attractant management. It is this group’s recommendation that removing “intent to feed” language would greatly increase CPW’s, and others, ability to address the feeding of bears and reduce human-bear conflict. 

Colorado residents have had increased interest in sustainability and growing their own food. However, the explosion in backyard chicken and beekeeping operations in the state has added a new and troublesome layer of human-bear conflict, costing resources and adding to the workload of wildlife officials. Bears having access to unsecured chicken coops, chicken feed, domestic fruit and beehives are leading sources of problematic bear activity and no longer should be exempted from laws meant to address the feeding of bears.This is particularly true if it’s the intent of the CPW Wildlife Commission to mitigate and reduce human-bear conflict. More so, when simple solutions such as protecting these sources of conflict with electric fencing exist. This language could be adopted by communities, counties, USFS, HOA’s, etc. - any law enforcement entity designated to enforce it.

(4) Landowner Responsibility Mandate

Prior to bear management action taken by CPW, landowner, or other including relocation or lethal action, landowner must complete mitigation of attractants.

Mitigation methods must be initiated or completed by landowner prior to bear management action taken by CPW, APHIS Wildlife Services or resident including relocation or lethal action. 

Rationale

Too often a bear pays the price for landowners not taking steps to reduce attractants that bring a bear onto their property. Proactive steps need to be taken prior to any action taken to remove the bear, otherwise it is much too easy for a landowner to remove a bear or have CPW remove the bear.

(5) Change Commission Makeup. Title 33, Parks and Wildlife, Article 9.

Create a commission that reflects the demographics of Colorado. Because healthy wildlife populations are important to the entire state, the commission should represent the people of the state.

Rationale

Approximately 5% of Colorado residents purchase hunting licenses, yet hunters have 27% of the commission seats.
https://stacker.com/colorado/see-how-many-registered-hunters-are-colorado

Agriculture represents about 8% of Colorado’s workforce, yet has 27% of the commission seats.  https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.co.htm

Putting Agriculture and Hunting together, about 13% of the population is represented by 54% of the commission seats.

The 95% of people who don’t buy hunting licenses are represented by a single seat (9% of the representation) on the commission. 

Current composition

• 3 members who are sportspersons (of which 1 is an outfitter)

• 3 members who are involved in production agriculture

• 3 members who utilize outdoor parks (of which 1 represents non-consumptive users)

• 2 members of the public at large

Example composition

• 2 members who are sportspersons (of which 1 is an outfitters

• 2 members who are involved in production agriculture

• 5 members who utilize outdoor parks  (of which 3 represent non-consumptive users)

• 2 members of the public at large

(6) Revise “Legislative declaration.” Title 33, Parks and Wildlife, Article 1

The current policy statement, 33-1-101, has wildlife management goals for the sole purpose of benefiting people. The initial policy statement needs to clearly state the focus on wildlife conservation and management that has the welfare of wildlife front and center.