Reported by 1 source

The short version

  • The new regulation permits the use of high-calorie human foods to attract bears on federal lands, reversing a prohibition enacted in 2024.
  • Critics argue the practice increases aggression in wildlife and poses risks to public safety, while supporters claim it respects local traditions and state input.
  • Legal challenges are anticipated as environmental groups question the scientific basis and procedural validity of the policy reversal.

The United States Department of the Interior has officially published a new regulation that permits hunters to bait bears with human food on federal lands in Alaska. The rule, which is scheduled to take effect in mid-November, marks a significant shift in wildlife management policy by overturning a ban implemented by the previous administration in 2024. This change allows for the use of items such as bacon, doughnuts, and meat scraps to lure trophy animals into close range for hunting.

The practice involves placing high-fat and high-sugar foods in containers like steel drums or garbage cans. Hunters typically monitor these bait sites from nearby blinds, waiting for bears to approach before shooting them at short distances. While the federal rule does not specify which foods are permissible, it defers to state regulations that already allow such methods. This approach has been described by legal experts as relying on the cheapest and most effective attractants available to hunters.

News Journal

Opponents of the new policy argue that baiting bears creates dangerous conditions for both wildlife and the general public. Environmental groups and animal protection advocates contend that feeding bears human food makes them more aggressive and habituated to human presence. They describe the practice as cruel and unethical, asserting that it undermines the spirit of fair chase hunting traditions. Critics also point out that this rule change appears to be a political concession to trophy hunters rather than a decision based on careful scientific consideration.

Supporters of the regulation, including Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, frame the move as a response to demands from Alaska residents. They argue that the new framework provides Alaskans with a stronger voice in decisions affecting their local lands and wildlife traditions. The administration maintains that the rule is commonsense and respects the knowledge of those who live in the region. This perspective contrasts sharply with the views of conservationists, who see the reversal as an abandonment of federal responsibility to protect wildlife diversity.

The history of bear baiting regulations in Alaska is marked by political oscillation. A ban was initially established during the Obama administration, only to be reversed by the first Trump administration. Litigation at that time upheld the original ban and overturned the subsequent reversal. The Biden administration then reimplemented the prohibition in 2024, citing scientific evidence that baiting increases bear aggression and risks public safety. The current rule effectively undoes this recent effort, returning to a policy stance that has been contested for years.

This development is part of a broader trend in Alaska where officials have allowed various controversial hunting practices in recent years. These include shooting bears from helicopters, targeting swimming caribou from motorboats, killing wolf pups in their dens, and using artificial lights to draw bears from their shelters. While bear baiting is not unique to Alaska, with about a dozen other states permitting similar methods, it remains a contentious issue within the hunting community. Many traditional hunters do not view baiting as consistent with ethical sport hunting principles.

The rule change was directed by an executive order issued early in the second Trump administration, titled Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential. This order signaled a priority to expand resource extraction and hunting opportunities in the state. Legal experts have raised questions about the legality of the new rule, particularly because it discards the robust scientific process used to establish the 2024 ban. They argue that federal land management goals should prioritize preserving wildlife diversity over accommodating specific hunting preferences.

As the implementation date approaches, legal challenges are expected. Environmental organizations have already criticized the move as indefensible and inexcusable. Attorneys representing animal protection groups suggest that the Interior Department’s decision to scrap the previous rule without adequate justification raises serious procedural concerns. The outcome of potential lawsuits will likely determine whether this policy remains in place or is subject to further judicial review, adding uncertainty to the future of bear hunting regulations in Alaska.

Sources behind this briefing

Go to the original reporting