Alaska Federal Lands Now Allow Bear Baiting Amid Controversy

Federal regulators in the United States have finalized a policy that permits hunters to use common human foods to attract bears on public lands within Alaska. The new directive, which supersedes a prohibition established in 2024, becomes active in mid-November. This shift allows the placement of items like bacon, doughnuts, and meat scraps to draw the animals closer to hunters, a method primarily used for trophy hunting at short distances.

The Department of the Interior published the final rule in the Federal Register on Friday. This action reverses a 2024 regulation from the previous administration that had banned the practice. Environmental advocacy groups have reacted strongly to the change, with some describing the new framework as indefensible and inexcusable. They argue that the move favors specific hunting interests over wildlife conservation principles.

Drew Robertson, a senior regulatory specialist for Humane World for Animals, expressed dismay at the return of the baiting provision. He characterized the practice as cruel and dangerous, noting that it poses risks to both the wildlife and the general public. Robertson stated that the method represents an extreme departure from traditional hunting norms, suggesting that many hunters would not view it as a fair chase. He emphasized that the practice is more aggressive than the standards most people associate with sport hunting.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended the decision in a press release, stating that the rule responds to long-standing requests from residents of Alaska. He described the framework as a commonsense approach that gives Alaskans a stronger voice in decisions affecting their lands, wildlife, and traditions. Burgum argued that the policy respects the local knowledge of those who live and work on these federal properties.

The federal rule does not specify which foods may be used for baiting. Instead, it defers to state regulations, which generally permit the practice. Nicholas Arrivo, a managing attorney at Animal Protection Law, noted that hunters typically choose the cheapest and most effective options, which are usually high in fat and sugar. He explained that the standard method involves placing the food in a steel drum or garbage can, keeping watch over it, and shooting the bear from a blind at close range.

This development follows a series of recent moves by federal and state officials to allow other contested hunting methods. These include shooting bears from helicopters, targeting swimming caribou from motorboats, killing wolf pups in their dens, and using artificial lights to lure bears out of their dens. While bear baiting is not unique to Alaska, as about a dozen other states allow similar practices, the federal involvement remains a point of debate.

The decision stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump early in his second term, titled Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential. Robertson argued that because the order specifically directed the reissuance of the rule, it suggests a political motive rather than a result of careful scientific consideration. He noted that the process bypasses some of the robust scientific reviews that characterized previous iterations of the policy.

The history of this issue is long and often litigated. The Obama administration first imposed a ban, which was later reversed by the first Trump administration. Court rulings eventually upheld the Obama rule and overturned the subsequent Trump rule. The Biden administration reinstated the ban in 2024, citing scientific evidence that baiting makes bears more aggressive around humans and endangers park visitors.

Arrivo rejected the argument that the new rule gives the state appropriate control, pointing out that the lands in question are federal. He noted that Congress created the federal land program to place decision-making power with the federal government to preserve wildlife diversity. Although no decision has yet been made on a potential lawsuit, Arrivo suggested that scrapping the 2024 rule, which underwent a more rigorous scientific process, raises questions about the legality of the current measure.