Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consid…
The Don’t Feed the Bears Act of 2025 would require federal land management agencies to prohibit intentional feeding of bears, including the practice of setting bait for the purpose of hunting (“bear baiting”), on Federal public lands. The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to enforce existing prohibitions in the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service regulations, and requires the Secretary of the Interior (for BLM lands) and the Secretary of Agriculture (for National Forest System lands) to adopt and enforce regulations banning intentional bear feeding within one year of enactment.
Liberals emphasize animal welfare, reduced human-bear conflicts, and aligning federal rules; conservatives emphasize federal overreach and impacts on legal hunting and state authority.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines the problem and prescribes a direct policy remedy by prohibiting intentional feeding/baiting of bears on Federal public lands and directing specific agencies to enforce existing rules or promulgate new regulations; it names responsible officials and sets a one-year deadline for required rulemaking.
The Don’t Feed the Bears Act of 2025 would require federal land management agencies to prohibit intentional feeding of bears, including the practice of setting bait for the purpose of hunting (“bear baiting”), on Federal public lands.
The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to enforce existing prohibitions in the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service regulations, and requires the Secretary of the Interior (for BLM lands) and the Secretary of Agriculture (for National Forest System lands) to adopt and enforce regulations banning intentional bear feeding within one year of enactment.
The statute includes an exception allowing intentional feeding in extraordinary cases when the responsible Secretary determines it is required for bear welfare, public safety, or authorized wildlife research.
On content alone, this is a modest, administratively-focused bill addressing a specific wildlife-management problem. Such narrow public-safety/environmental regulation often finds bipartisan support and can be folded into larger public lands or natural resources packages. The principal risks are organized opposition from hunting constituencies and potential federal-state tensions over hunting rules on federal lands; absent strong organized resistance, the bill's low fiscal footprint and clear agency implementation path raise its odds above average.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines the problem and prescribes a direct policy remedy by prohibiting intentional feeding/baiting of bears on Federal public lands and directing specific agencies to enforce existing rules or promulgate new regulations; it names responsible officials and sets a one-year deadline for required rulemaking. However, it omits fiscal/resourcing language, definitional precision, enforcement and penalty provisions, and monitoring or reporting requirements, which limits its operational completeness relative to the breadth of the policy change.
Liberals emphasize animal welfare, reduced human-bear conflicts, and aligning federal rules; conservatives emphasize federal overreach and impacts on legal hunting and state authority.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize animal welfare, reduced human-bear conflicts, and aligning federal rules; conservatives emphasize federal overreach and impacts on legal hunting and state authority.
A mainstream liberal would likely view this bill positively as a science-based, public-safety and animal-welfare measure that corrects an inconsistency on federal lands.
They would emphasize that banning baiting reduces bear habituation to human food, lowers dangerous encounters, and prevents bears from being labeled nuisance animals and killed.
They would see the one-year deadline and explicit exceptions for welfare, safety, and research as pragmatic.
A pragmatic centrist would generally view the bill as a reasonable, narrowly targeted public-safety and wildlife-management improvement, but would want clarity on implementation, costs, and coordination with states and hunters.
They would appreciate that existing NPS and FWS prohibitions are enforced and that BLM and Forest Service are given a clear deadline, while being cautious about the practicality and fiscal impact of enforcement.
They would likely support the bill if it included clear definitions, stakeholder engagement, and modest implementation resources.
A mainstream conservative would likely be skeptical of the bill as an example of federal overreach into hunting practices and state wildlife management.
They would acknowledge public-safety and wildlife-conservation goals but emphasize that hunting traditions, state primacy over wildlife management, and property/use rights could be adversely affected.
They would want stronger protections for lawful hunting on adjacent nonfederal lands, limits on federal authority, and greater deference to state regulations and local stakeholders before supporting such a measure.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, this is a modest, administratively-focused bill addressing a specific wildlife-management problem. Such narrow public-safety/environmental regulation often finds bipartisan support and can be folded into larger public lands or natural resources packages. The principal risks are organized opposition from hunting constituencies and potential federal-state tensions over hunting rules on federal lands; absent strong organized resistance, the bill's low fiscal footprint and clear agency implementation path raise its odds above average.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize animal welfare, reduced human-bear conflicts, and aligning federal rules; conservatives emphasize federal overreach and…
On content alone, this is a modest, administratively-focused bill addressing a specific wildlife-management problem. Such narrow public-saf…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines the problem and prescribes a direct policy remedy by prohibiting intentional feeding/baiting of bears on Federal public lands and directing specific a…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.