House committee advances bill to allow negligence citations for food‑related bear attractants

The House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee voted to advance House Bill 13‑42 as amended, a measure that would let Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and law enforcement cite people when food or edible waste is negligently left where it creates a substantial risk of luring a wild bear.

The bill’s sponsors, Representative Ashley Stewart (sponsor) and Representative [Rep] Lukens, told the committee that Colorado has seen thousands of human–bear conflicts in recent years and that current criminal law requires proof of intent, an almost impossible standard for officers to meet. Representative Stewart said the bill “equips CPW and law enforcement with stronger tools to deter the behavior that puts both humans and bears at risk.”

Why it matters: CPW witnesses and advocates told the committee that most human–bear conflicts trace to unsecured attractants such as trash and pet food. Frank McGee, southeast region manager for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, testified that CPW officers spent more than 6,000 staff hours responding to black‑bear conflicts and that the division spent roughly $800,000 in supplies, grants and salaries related to those calls in 2024. Multiple witnesses said the present intent standard has produced few citations and that a negligence standard would allow officers to intervene earlier to prevent habituation and avoid euthanasia of conflict bears.

What the bill does: As amended by L1, the bill would make it a misdemeanor for a person who, with criminal negligence, places food or edible waste in circumstances that create a substantial risk of luring a wild bear to the food — "unless otherwise permitted by commission rule." The amendment (L1) was developed with district attorneys, sponsors said, to eliminate ambiguities about what prosecuting a negligently luring offense would require.

Supporters’ case: Brenda Lee, founder and executive director of the Colorado Bear Coalition, told the committee she has worked on human–bear issues for 15 years and that repeat offenders often cite forgetfulness or lack of awareness rather than intent. "This bill creates the pathway," she said, arguing that escalation of penalties is necessary to change repeated behavior. Melinda Marquis of Science for Colorado Wildlife testified that open‑records data show thousands of reports over recent years and many more bears killed than people cited; she urged the committee to adopt the bill.

Operational perspective: Frank McGee said CPW expects to issue only a small number of citations under a negligence standard (he estimated five to 10 citations per year compared with zero under the present intent test) and described the statute’s current inconsistency: "This is the only statute in all of Title 33 that requires somebody to get a warning on a first offense," he testified, limiting officers’ ability to issue citations when appropriate.

Concerns and clarifications: Several committee members, especially from lower‑conflict areas, asked whether removing mandatory warning language would remove flexibility for officers in regions that seldom see bears. Representative Johnson urged restoring permissive warning language ("may" instead of striking "shall") to preserve local discretion; Commissioner Perry Will and CPW witnesses said officers already have discretion in most violations and that the bill targets sustained high‑conflict areas rather than isolated incidents. Representative Zukla raised specific examples — hummingbird feeders, fish feed, beehives and domestic animal food — asking whether ordinary activities could trigger a fine; sponsors and supporters said the bill is intended to address repeated or obvious negligence rather than ordinary, reasonable conduct and that the text includes an exemption for food producers.

Committee action and next steps: The committee adopted amendment L1 (moved by Representative Lukens) to clarify prosecutorial elements and then voted 8–4 (with one member excused) to send HB 13‑42 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. The committee did not take a final floor vote; the next formal step for the bill is consideration by the Committee of the Whole.

Reporters’ note: The article cites testimony and committee proceedings; numbers for CPW hours and costs were provided on the record by CPW witnesses and by public testimony.