This summer, a lack of natural food sources has forced many bears into Colorado’s mountain towns as they bulk up for winter.

Human-bear conflicts can have dangerous consequences for both. For bears that become habituated to people, and human food sources, their fate is hazing, relocation or death. Colorado Parks and Wildlife reports that bear euthanization is most often traced back to human behavior, with most human-bear conflicts traced back to trash.

Bear activity is consistently the highest in Colorado’s northwest corner. Last year, Eagle and Pitkin counties as well as the easternmost portion of Garfield County including Glenwood Springs, accounted for the majority of the state’s bear reports. These conflicts resulted in 18 bears being euthanized and three being relocated in 2023.

---

---

To reduce conflict, Colorado Parks and Wildlife created a grant to help support community incentives, educational campaigns, rules and penalties around wildlife and trash. 

However, as conflicts continue, Brenda Lee, president of the Colorado Bear Coalition, had another idea for the state’s wildlife agency.

---

---

“Our goal is to reduce the need for (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) to have to euthanize bears due to conflicts and to shift the focus towards greater community responsibility,” Lee said during public comment at August’s Parks and Wildlife Commissioner meeting.  “One key policy that we’re exploring is the implementation of a statewide statute requiring these bear-resistant trash cans, dumpsters or enclosures in cities and counties that reach a predetermined threshold of human-bear conflict.”

What communities are doing now

Most counties and communities in Colorado’s bear country already have programs or policies in place to reduce conflict. While there are varying approaches, nearly all of them aim to limit access to trash for bears and other wildlife.

At a bare minimum, most municipalities have codified that trash containers may only be placed curbside on the same day as pickups. Nearly all also add an extra layer, limiting hours that the cans can be placed curbside on pick-up days.

The town of Silverthorne passed such an ordinance in 2022, prohibiting cans be curbside between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. in an attempt to curb wildlife encounters.

Some don’t require the highest level of wildlife-resistant containers available but do have some requirements around containers in an effort to limit encounters.

For example, Summit County commissioners passed a disposal district ordinance in 2021 defining receptacles for unincorporated parts of the county as “a watertight metal or nonabsorbent container equipped with a tightly fitting galvanized metal or nonabsorbent cover or lid.”

Adrienne Isaac, the county’s communications director, said the goal of this, and requirements on when it can be outside, were done in an attempt to “reduce wildlife/trash interactions.”

Frisco and Dillon also have similar receptacle parameters. Frisco requires trash cans be closed except for during pickup and have a “lid that prevents access to the contents of the can by birds and small animals.”

Some communities have rules that apply only to certain development or property types. For example, Granby requires that short-term rental license holders provide wildlife-proof trash containers.

For the majority of municipalities, whether or not receptacles are required to be wildlife-resistant or wildlife-proof comes down to where they are stored.

Snowmass Village recently supplied residences serviced by the town’s curbside trash service with bear-proof “Kodiak cans” with funds from the Parks and Wildlife grant, said Lauren Martenson, its community response officer.

However, it also has an ordinance requiring that all containers with trash that could be deemed edible by bears and wildlife be stored inside. Those that cannot “shall store their refuse in a wildlife-resistant refuse container or enclosure approved by the Police Department,” it states.

Aspen, Fraser, Eagle County, Grand Lake, Winter Park and Pitkin County are other examples where specific wildlife-proof containers or enclosures are required for trash stored outdoors.

As part of its trash ordinance, Breckenridge requires households to store garbage cans indoors, unless the can is “equipped with some type of latching mechanism that will hold the lid securely on the can,” but does not specifically require it be wildlife-resistant or -proof.

Some communities have a requirement for residents to purchase a wildlife-resistant container after multiple violations of these trash codes. This typically follows some combination of warnings and fines. Silverthorne, Fraser, Winter Park and Carbondale are examples of where such a policy exists.

There are also municipalities that have implemented an all-encompassing requirement for containers and enclosures to be wildlife-resistant.

The town of Vail adopted its Wildlife Protection Ordinance in 2006, requiring wildlife-resistant trash enclosures for residential dwellings and commercial businesses. Kristen Bertuglia, the town’s environmental sustainability director, said the policy change was “critical” to addressing its bear conflicts. It added recycling to the ordinance in 2015 and also recently increased its fines for violators.

Steamboat Springs recently passed an ordinance requiring all trash be stored in bear-resistant containers, dumpsters or enclosures. The ordinance required that haulers provide the containers and dumpsters, having a phased approach between 2021 and 2023. In 2023, it was amended to require the same for commercial recycling.

The cost of these policies

While the cost of implementing and enforcing these rules varies based on community and approach, bear-resistant cans and receptacles are more expensive —  and could be preventing communities from being more strict with requirements. 

In Steamboat Springs, there was a “significant cost” to haulers to replace containers and dumpsters with those that met bear-resistant standards, Winnie DelliQuadri, the city’s special projects manager. This cost was also reflected in a “slightly-higher fee” to customers, DelliQuadri added.

“Certified wildlife-resistant receptacles can be prohibitively expensive for many members of our community,” Isaac said of Summit County.

It’s part of the reason the county has not required residents to upgrade, rather creating the Bear Safe Summit program. Under this program, the county reimburses residents and businesses that upgrade to wildlife-resistant cans, dumpsters and enclosures using funds from the Parks and Wildlife grant.

“Incentivizing residents to purchase containers like these not only helps in terms of cost equity but creates goodwill, more so than citing people or fining them,” Isaac said.

Glenwood Springs rolled out a new pay as you throw trash program in 2023, requiring that all residents upgrade their trash cans. While it does offer wildlife-resistant cans, they are almost double the cost of the other options. For example, a wildlife-resistant 64-gallon container is $49.44 per month compared to $25.44 per month for a normal can.

As a result, fewer residents have the wildlife-resistant options than before. The city is working to rectify the situation, seeking to lower the cost, giving out wildlife-resistant cans and more.

In Carbondale, the wildlife-resistant container option costs residents $10 more a month than the “regular” option.

The town of Eagle updated its hauler contract last year, moving from dual-stream to single-stream recycling, adding a composting service and replacing receptacles for residents in its waste service area with a wildlife-resistant container for trash and compost.

“There was an overall increase in price, but it wasn’t strictly related to adding bear-resistant cans,” said Jamie Wilson, the town’s communication and marketing specialist. “The price increase was to the town and directly passed on to consumers.”

Would a statewide approach help?

A Colorado Parks and Wildlife study in Durango reported that human-bear conflict could be reduced by 50% when bear-resistant containers are used. However, even with requirements and ordinances and place, minimizing conflict comes down to compliance and enforcement.

Parks and Wildlife addressed this in a recent bear management plan for Grand and Summit counties. Trash ordinances in these communities “have had varied success” most often “due to poor compliance,” the plan states.

“(Colorado Parks and Wildlife) will continue to work with communities to educate residents and visitors on Bear Aware practices, and encourage municipal and county authorities to strictly enforce trash ordinances,” it states.

Increasing enforcement, subsidizing the cost of containers, redesigning dumpsters, modifying trash hauling trucks and educating visitors and seasonal residents are all listed as potential ways to increase compliance.

In Vail, Bertuglia said that the tourism-based nature of the town is one thing that impacts compliance.

“With a seasonal community with (short-term rentals) it can be difficult to communicate the rules on a regular basis,” she said.

In Steamboat, DelliQuadri said staff capacity was the main challenge for enforcement.

Before the commissioners, Lee argued that having a statewide policy could streamline efforts and ultimately reduce the conflict.

“A statewide policy would proactively address trash as the main attractant, especially in areas with new or increasing bear activity,” Lee said. “Pooling resources could also lead to more effective enforcement. It is something that is a problem that needs to be looked at so that we can ensure consistent compliance to those rules.”

Bertuglia agreed that such a policy could help by streamlining approaches.

“It’s difficult to be effective if one community has a wildlife protection ordinance and the next doesn’t,” she said. “The implementation and enforcement follow through is key.”

While the Parks and Wildlife commissioners agreed to discuss the idea further at a future meeting, a few gave their initial reaction to Lee’s suggestion.

Commissioner Marie Haskett, who is based in Meeker, expressed concerns that this could create a bigger “rural-urban divide.”

“The small communities on the West Slope struggle already,” Haskett said. “Most of us are proactive in what we do, it’s actually probably more of a tourist area problem than it is the rest of it. So I would think about, very carefully, how you would do that statewide. I think you would be better doing it by county or town.”

Commissioner Murphy Robinson said that “resources are key” to the success of policies like this.

“Unfunded mandates are never good in a municipal government,” he said.