Annual Hunt Stripped from CT Bear Bill

A controversial provision of a bill aimed at curbing the State’s growing bear population has been stripped out of the bill in Committee. The proposal would have created a lottery to grant permits for hunting up to 50 black bears each year in Litchfield County. Representative Maria Horn, who supported the provision, told The Goshen News “It did not have the votes to pass, so it was taken out of the bill.” The provision had also been supported by the CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), which continues to support the bill despite the removal of the hunting provision. Connecticut is the only northeast state with a significant bear population that does not allow them to be hunted.

Increasing numbers of home break-ins by bears and two reported attacks on humans last year are part of what’s driving the legislative effort to change the State’s bear policies. In a March Connecticut Public article, DEEP’s Wildlife Division Director, Jenny Dickson, is quoted as stating that the state’s black bears have become increasingly used to being around people and are “much more bold and much more aggressive”. According to Dickson, a record 67 home break-ins by bears were reported last year.

The same article reported that those opposed to the bear hunt say the state doesn’t have a bear problem, it has a human behavior problem. The Connecticut League of Conservation Voters told Connecticut Public that hunting will not stop nuisance bears if homeowners don’t stop providing easy sources of food and that the state needs to do a better job of educating the public and investing in non-lethal solutions.

The bear hunting provision had been the target of impassioned arguments on both sides of the issue since Rep. Horn first proposed it in January. In a CT Mirror article at the time she was quoted as saying: “I received a lot of hate mail about how bloodthirsty I am and how I want to kill all the bears and use them as trophies. Some environmental groups played a role in that. And so I am asking them to, please, let's have a policy conversation about this so that it doesn't suck all the air out of the room and so that we can continue to address other important issues.” “A couple of bears can decimate a cornfield, a Christmas tree farm, a blueberry farm. And these are small farms that can get wiped out by that.”

Now that the hunting provision is off the table, Ms. Horn concedes that the numbers proposed were small and were not intended to have a direct, significant impact on overall population. She explained that Massachusetts, which allows hunting and has a larger bear population than Connecticut, has fewer, percentage-wise, hostile bear-human interactions. Acknowledging that there is disagreement over the narrative, she thinks it suggests that hunting may have allowed the taking of the bears “that have become most acculturated; they’re not afraid of humans and they’re looking to us as food sources”. Proponents and opponents of hunting offer conflicting statistics from other states that allow hunting to support their positions.

While the hunting provision is out, the rest of the bill remains in play. Horn said she supported removal of the provision once it was clear that it couldn’t pass, “because I wanted the rest of the bill to pass”. Remaining provisions would “ban intentional feeding and it also improves the ability of farmers to deal with nuisance wildlife including bears”, she stated. While there is an existing statute dealing with nuisance wildlife, bears have always been handled separately and this new legislation would make it clear that bears are included, she explained. It authorizes DEEP to issue permits for taking of certain wildlife that threatens or causes damage to agricultural crops, livestock or apiaries. To get a permit the property owner must first have tried reasonable, non-lethal efforts that failed to prevent it, and DEEP must specify the means. It also allows the farmer to hire a third party to deal with it.

The vast majority of bear complaints and conflicts reported to the state involve bird feeders and trash, which is why the proposed ban on feeding bears is considered to be essential. The legislation would give local officials and environmental police the authority to fine violators.

“I do think that a big part of the problem is human behavior”, Horn said. “There are people who actively, intentionally feed bears. As a result some towns have passed ordinances… But I suspect the bigger problem is sloppiness…leaving your garbage unattended, leaving food sources just out, open and available... And that includes bird feeders. And to be clear, Audubon supported the ban on intentional feeding because for the most part, bird feeders at the time of year we’re talking about…we shouldn’t be feeding the birds. It’s not good for the birds.”

DEEP recommends that Connecticut residents take down their bird feeders in the Spring, once the bears become active, and that they take out their trash on the morning that it will be picked up, not the evening before.