The Haines Borough Assembly on Oct. 12 advanced a proposed bear attraction nuisance ordinance to a second public hearing, but members said they still have concerns about how the ordinance would be applied.
“Why can’t it just deal with garbage?” asked member Scott Rossman. “Garbage is obvious. If you go to somebody’s place and garbage is attracting a bear, it’s pretty plain to see. Garbage is garbage. Apples under a tree aren’t garbage.”
According to a draft of the ordinance, a bear attraction nuisance includes “more than one-half gallon of any putrescible waste,” “any organic material of a type which has previously attracted a bear to the property,” and soiled, disposable diapers.
Trash in a refuse container “placed outside temporarily for purposes of collection after 4 a.m. on a day scheduled for collection” would be exempt, along with material in a certified landfill, “living or dead flora or fauna indigenous to the property,” “material completely enclosed in a structure or container which requires hands or tools to open,” and “livestock protected by bear-proof fencing.”
The ordinance, introduced in September, would penalize offenders first with a warning, then with a fine up to $100, followed by a fine up to $200 for repeat offenses, and “each and every day during any portion of which a violation or failure to comply is committed, permitted, or continued, shall be treated as a separate offense, and subject the offender to separate charges and a fine.”
“Sometimes I kind of wonder where we’re going with ordinances,” said resident Bill Kurz. “The last I remember, this is Alaska; it’s kind of known for having bears. Most of us have lived with these bears for a long time.”
The assembly on Oct. 12 considered a few revisions recommended by borough manager Mark Earnest and police chief Gary Lowe in a substitute ordinance.
“Decaying fruit that has fallen on the ground” was added as a bear attraction nuisance, and “bear-proof fencing” was changed to “bear-resistant fencing,” defined as “electric fencing, chain link fencing or any other material sufficiently strong to restrict bear access to the property.”
Rossman said the ordinance is “well-intentioned,” but “goes too far.”
“What is a material ‘sufficiently strong to restrict bear access,’ besides a 12-foot tall, chain-link fence?” he asked.
Member Steve Vick called the ordinance’s draft wording “a starting point” and said the assembly should continue to work on it. The assembly moved forward the version of the ordinance without Earnest and Lowe’s later substitutions. Rossman voted in opposition. A second public hearing is expected at Tuesday’s meeting.
“I want everybody to write down your comments that you have,” said member Norm Smith. “Bring them to the next bear ordinance meeting. I don’t think it should be an assembly issue; this should go back to the draftees of this ordinance and say, ‘We’re going to rework this.’”
Smith, who said, “I don’t want to see all the apple trees disappear,” suffered damage to his Officers’ Row home when a bear was attracted to dog treats.
“The porch door was locked, and it was bolted,” Smith said. “The bear took out the wall and went out the door from the inside.” He said the animals repeatedly have hit locations around town for food.
“They know it’s garbage on Tuesday, and bears aren’t stupid; they’ll come back,” Smith said.
Earnest said education will be “a critical component” of the ordinance, which he modeled after regulations in Skagway, Sitka and Juneau. He said another bear summit should be planned.
“I certainly am very interested in getting something that works for Haines, works for the community and is effective at the same time,” Earnest said.
Member Joanne Waterman said the assembly would continue to adjust the ordinance to better manage the bears.
“We’re the smart ones here, supposedly,” Waterman said.