Trump Administration Rule Lets Hunters Bait Bears in Alaska

A new Interior Department rule allows hunters to bait bears on federal lands in Alaska with doughnuts, bacon, meat scraps and other human foods, according to The Guardian. The rule was published in the Federal Register on Friday and takes effect in mid-November.

The practice is typically used to draw bears to a fixed point so hunters can kill them at close range, the Guardian reported. The rule replaces a 2024 Biden administration measure that had banned baiting on the same federal lands.

What does the new rule actually permit?

The federal rule does not list specific foods hunters may use. Instead, it defers to Alaska state regulations, which already allow baiting, the Guardian reported. Nicholas Arrivo, a managing attorney at Animal Protection Law, told the Guardian that hunters typically use "the cheapest and most effective food, which is high fat and high sugar."

Hunters commonly place food in a steel drum or garbage can, monitor the bait site, then shoot from a nearby blind once a bear approaches, according to the Guardian's reporting.

Why do critics object to the rule?

Opponents argue the rule will make bears more comfortable around human food sources and more aggressive near people as a result. Drew Robertson, senior regulatory specialist for Humane World for Animals, told the Guardian: "We are discouraged to see this rule come back, specifically the bear baiting piece which is cruel and dangerous, not only to wildlife but the public as well."

Environmental groups cited by the Guardian called the rule change "indefensible and inexcusable." Critics also allege the policy functions as a political benefit to trophy hunters who skew rightwing, the Guardian reported, though the administration disputes that framing.

How does the Interior Department defend the change?

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the rule responds to requests from Alaska residents. In a press release quoted by the Guardian, Burgum called it a "commonsense framework" that "gives Alaskans a stronger voice in decisions affecting the lands, wildlife and traditions they know best."

The administration's position rests on local control: decisions about hunting practices on federal land in Alaska, in Burgum's framing, should track the preferences of residents who live near those lands rather than a uniform federal ban.

"We are discouraged to see this rule come back, specifically the bear baiting piece which is cruel and dangerous, not only to wildlife but the public as well." — Drew Robertson, Humane World for Animals

How does this fit into broader hunting rule changes?

The Guardian describes the Alaska bear-baiting rule as part of a wider pattern. Since 2023, state and federal regulators have made a series of changes that critics say permit hunting practices they consider unethical. The Guardian's report does not detail each of those changes but frames the Alaska rule as the latest instance of that trend.

The rule also marks a reversal of federal policy within roughly two years, moving from a Biden-era ban adopted in 2024 to a baiting allowance that takes effect this November under the current administration.

What happens when the rule takes effect?

The rule becomes effective in mid-November, according to the Federal Register filing cited by the Guardian. Once in force, hunters on the federal lands in Alaska covered by the rule may use baiting methods consistent with state regulations, which already permit the practice.

What to watch

• Whether Alaska wildlife agencies issue specific guidance on approved bait types once the federal deferral to state rules takes effect in November.
• Whether environmental or animal-welfare groups file legal challenges before the rule takes effect.
• Whether reports of bear encounters near baited sites increase once the hunting season under the new rule begins.
• Whether the Interior Department applies a similar deferral-to-state-rules approach to other wildlife management disputes on federal land.

The Guardian's original reporting, including additional comment from Arrivo and Robertson, is available at theguardian.com.