"Don’t Feed the Bears Act of 2025" Sparks Debate Over Bear Hunting Ethics and Conservation

On July 15th, U.S. Representative Shri Thanedar (D-MI) introduced the "Don’t Feed the Bears Act of 2025" (H.R. 4422), a congressional bill aimed at banning bear baiting on federal lands in seven states including Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Utah, and Wisconsin. Backed by a coalition of about 70 animal welfare and environmental groups, the bill has ignited a heated debate about the ethics of bear hunting and its implications for wildlife conservation. As the bill awaits review by the House Committee on Natural Resources, it raises critical questions about balancing hunting traditions with modern conservation principles.

The "Don’t Feed the Bears Act" seems like something of an attempt to toe the line between traditional hunting methods and fair chase principles. Proponents of the bill argue that baiting undermines ethical hunting standards and violates federal land management policies against feeding wildlife. Many of those in support of this bill and others like it, note that baiting can condition bears to human food and thereby increase human-wildlife conflicts, especially during the bears’ hyperphagia phase when they eat everything in sight as a preparatory step ahead of hibernation. In addition to conflicts, many worry that the practice of baiting bears actually works to artificially boost reproduction and thus leave hunters with an endless cycle of bears to bait and hunt.

Opponents, who naturally don’t see that as a bad thing, defend baiting as an ethical and effective method. They argue it allows hunters to closely observe bears, reducing the risk of mistakenly shooting sows with cubs, as one example. In states like Michigan, where 79% of bears harvested in 2021 were taken over bait, hunters remain steadfast in the role of bait when it comes to population management in vast landscapes. Many critics argue the bill overlooks regional hunting needs, potentially disrupting established practices without adequate alternatives.

The proposed ban would significantly alter bear hunting in the seven affected states, where federal lands, such as national forests and Bureau of Land Management areas, are critical hunting grounds. In Wyoming, for instance, baiting is a common strategy due to the state’s expansive terrain, where spotting bears without bait can be challenging. A ban could reduce hunting success rates, as seen in states like Montana and Pennsylvania, where baiting is already prohibited, yet bear hunting remains viable through methods like spot-and-stalk. 

In Alaska and Idaho, where vast wilderness areas dominate, hunters may face increased difficulty locating bears, potentially lowering harvest rates and affecting population control efforts. 

The bill follows a 2024 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule banning baiting on 20 million acres of national preserves, indicating a growing federal push to curb the practice. However, prior legal challenges in Wyoming and Idaho, where environmental groups argued baiting endangers grizzly bears, have met resistance, with federal agencies thankfully deferring to state authority. 

As the "Don’t Feed the Bears Act" awaits further congressional action, its outcome will undoubtedly shape the future of bear hunting and conservation in the seven affected states and possibly many others. If passed, the bill could very well standardize regulations across federal lands, potentially prompting states to reconsider baiting on private lands as well. A domino effect, we as hunters, should be cautious of.