Behind the Bear-Resistant Container Ordinance: Preventing Conflict Before It Starts
By: Alison Brown, Co-Director
As the May 19 primary election approaches, conversation around the proposed bear-resistant container ordinance in Island Park has become increasingly visible in our community. Recently, Commissioner Chandler raised some questions about the proposed ordinance via social media. This is a discussion worth having because living in bear country comes with responsibilities. We welcome constructive conversations about how best to keep residents safe, protect property, and reduce preventable conflicts with bears in the Island Park area.
Below, we respond to several questions raised by Commissioner Chandler and provide additional context about how bear-resistant infrastructure, community education, and practical attractant management can help people and wildlife coexist more successfully.
| Commissioner Chandler: “Grizzly and Black Bears show up in Ashton, Chester, Drummond, Marysville, Green Timber, Lamont, Sand Creek, the Henry’s Fork Corridor, and Island Park. So, what boundaries are being proposed? Which communities would be required to use these containers?” |
| HFWA Response: The proposed ordinance would establish a “Bear Conflict Zone” in Precinct 1 of Fremont County identified as the Island Park area located north of the Ashton Hill to the Idaho border to the north, Clark County to the west and Yellowstone National Park to the east. It includes residential, commercial, and public property where garbage is stored or placed for pick up. The area excludes the City of Island Park — which already has its own trash ordinance — and state and federal property located in the Island Park area. Here’s a link to the draft Bear-Resistant Container Ordinance that was proposed in 2025. |
| Commissioner Chandler: “Some bear‑resistant cans work with certain garbage trucks, others require manual unlocking by hand before pickup. Are current refuse trucks compatible? Or will new trucks be required? Are haulers willing to unlock cans one by one?” |
| HFWA Response: Modern bear-resistant trash containers designed for residential curbside service are “fully automated” meaning that they are specifically engineered to work with standard automated garbage collection trucks. In communities with bear-resistant trash ordinances, these fully automated carts are the industry standard because they both prevent wildlife access and maintain efficient refuse collection operations. A fully automated bear-resistant can uses a heavy-duty locking mechanism that keeps the lid securely closed against bears, raccoons, and other wildlife. However, the lock is designed to disengage automatically when the truck’s mechanical arm lifts and tips the container during normal pickup operations. This allows the can to function just like a standard residential trash can from the hauler’s perspective. Because of this design: – drivers do not need to exit the truck to unlock containers individually; – collection routes can continue operating with the same efficiency as standard service; – existing automated side-load refuse trucks are generally compatible with these carts; – and new trucks are typically not required when fully automated bear-resistant trash cans are selected. PSI, the area’s largest refuse hauler, already services a combination of standard and bear-resistant trash cans in Island Park using its existing fleet, demonstrating that current collection vehicles are compatible with this type of automated bear-resistant system. Manual unlocking concerns generally apply to older or non-automated bear-resistant containers that are not intended for modern curbside residential collection systems. Those types of containers would not be the preferred model for use in the Bear Conflict Zone. The purpose of selecting fully automated bear-resistant cans is to ensure that wildlife protection measures can be implemented without creating significant operational burdens for refuse haulers or reducing collection efficiency. Here’s a fun-fact: Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) certified bear-resistant trash cans are are field tested by the bears at the Grizzly and Wolf Discover Center in West Yellowstone! |
| Commissioner Chandler: “Where does the funding come from? Will taxpayers, cities, or garbage customers pay for purchasing and maintaining containers? Who pays for enforcement of proper usage?” |
| HFWA Response: The financial responsibility for implementing a bear-resistant trash ordinance does not need to fall solely on taxpayers, local governments, trash haulers or customers. In many communities, adoption of a local ordinance is what enables counties, cities, and nonprofits to qualify for grants and outside funding that help offset the cost of bear-resistant infrastructure. Nonprofit organizations frequently assist with funding through matching grants, rebates, and community partnerships. However, without clear local policy support, these organizations are less likely to invest limited resources into a community because they cannot be confident that enough residents will participate to make the effort effective. In Durango, Colorado, local partners secured state grant funding to provide rebates for bear-resistant trash cans, while the remaining cost was spread over time through a modest monthly utility fee rather than burdensome upfront expenses. Other communities have implemented phased replacement schedules, allowing residents to transition gradually as existing containers reach the end of their usable life. Notably, research from Durango found that if approximately 60% of residences in a neighborhood secured their trash, human-bear conflicts decline significantly, demonstrating that broad community participation can produce meaningful results. Here’s a link to a presentation about that work by Dr. Heather Johnson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSJYgKplp8. There are several local nonprofit organizations that are poised to offer financial assistance to the community of Island Park if this bear-resistant trash ordinance is passed. Enforcement and education do not need to rely entirely on county general funds either. A local nonprofit has already expressed willingness to help financially support public outreach and ordinance implementation efforts, similar to a program currently operating in Teton County, Idaho. Education-first enforcement models have proven effective in many communities, where the emphasis is initially placed on outreach, warnings, and voluntary compliance rather than punitive enforcement. Ultimately, a bear-resistant trash ordinance should not be viewed as a standalone expense, but rather as a tool that unlocks outside funding opportunities, encourages community participation, and reduces the long-term costs associated with human-bear conflicts, property damage, emergency response, and public safety risks. If additional information would be helpful, we encourage reaching out to officials and community partners in Teton County, Idaho, who have firsthand experience implementing a similar approach. And, we’re always here to help! |
| Commissioner Chandler: “…where does it end? Will the next thing bears are attracted to spark the request for more mandates?” |
| HFWA Response: The proposed ordinance is not an endless series of mandates, nor is it intended to regulate every aspect of life in bear country. Its purpose is narrowly focused: reducing the specific human behaviors and attractants that are scientifically known to cause the vast majority of human-bear conflicts. Wildlife managers consistently identify unsecured garbage and other easily accessible food attractants as the leading causes of human-bear conflict. Once bears repeatedly gain access to human food sources, bears can lose their natural wariness of humans, create public safety concerns, damage property, and may be at risk of lethal removal or translocation. The ordinance is designed around that well-established reality. Rather than creating broad or arbitrary restrictions, it focuses on the most common and preventable attractants in areas where documented bear conflicts already occur. The requirements are geographically limited to the Bear Conflict Zone and center primarily on practical attractant management measures such as: – securing garbage; – properly storing commercial food waste and grease; – and reducing bird feeder access during periods when bears are active. Importantly, the ordinance also provides flexibility. For example, residents may either use bear-resistant containers or place standard garbage containers out only on the morning of pickup and return them afterward. The goal is compliance through practical prevention, not unnecessary regulation. This approach is not unique or experimental. Communities throughout the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the broader West have adopted similar targeted attractant-management measures because they are among the most effective tools available for reducing conflicts. At its core, this ordinance reflects the same principle already practiced voluntarily by many residents: reducing access to attractants reduces conflicts. The ordinance simply establishes consistent community standards in areas where bear conflicts are persistent and recurring, helping protect public safety, private property, and wildlife alike. |
| Commissioner Chandler: “In Ashton and Marysville, neighbors and volunteers keep apples picked up to avoid attracting bears. That’s personal responsibility. The majority of people in the county that live in bear areas practice personal responsibility to avoid attracting bears. So, the real question is whether we prioritize personal accountability over additional regulatory layers.” |
| HFWA Response: The majority of residents living in bear country do practice personal responsibility and make efforts to reduce attractants around their homes and properties. But, some members of our community may need a little extra help from time-to-time. One very popular event each fall involves a partnership between the Idaho Master Naturalists, the Henrys Fork Wildlife Alliance, and local volunteers who team up for the annual apple pickup in Ashton. Residents can sign up to receive help removing fallen fruit that could attract bears into neighborhoods. Last year, volunteers filled two truck beds and a trailer with apples. The trailer of apples was donated to the Grizzly and Wolf Discovery Center. In previous years the apples were also donated to food banks. Here’s our FB post from the event last fall: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14cMtSTZLjB/. Programs like this demonstrate that reducing human-bear conflicts is most effective when personal responsibility is paired with practical community support, education, reasonable community standards, and infrastructure that help residents successfully coexist with wildlife. |
Thoughtful questions should be part of any public discussion, especially on issues that affect residents, businesses, and visitors alike. When it comes to questions about human-bear conflict reduction, communities across the West have consistently found that securing garbage and other attractants is one of the most effective ways to reduce human-bear conflicts. While no single solution will eliminate every conflict, bear-resistant infrastructure, community education, and practical attractant management have been shown to reduce preventable encounters that can threaten public safety or result in bears being translocated or killed. The proposed ordinance is a targeted response to a documented problem in the Island Park area and reflects what many residents have already requested: practical tools and reasonable standards that help keep both people safe and bears wild.
County Commissioner Candidate Responses
Candidates running in the May 19 primary election for the Fremont County District 1 and District 2 commissioner seats were asked the following question: “For the safety of residents, visitors, and wildlife, Island Park has repeatedly asked for a bear-resistant container ordinance. Will you support this effort?“
Their responses were published in the Island Park News. Read on to learn more about each candidate’s stance on this important issue:
| Dave Bloxham (District 1): “Yes, I support a bear resistant container ordinance in Island Park and any other community/area that feels there is a need for an ordinance. This is an issue the IP community has raised repeatedly without any resolution from our commissioners. I will listen to these concerns and work towards a commonsense solution that protects both people and wildlife.” |
| Kent Jeppesen (District 1): “For example, there is support among many individuals and organizations to put in place an ordinance to make every trash container bear resistant. Some think that with a simple ordinance in place the problem is solved however, this only moves the situation to another problem (enforcing the ordinance). Any time you make a mandate you have to have the resources to enforce it. I think problems can be best solved by the people living in the impacted areas. With fundraising, education, and the involvement of local residents we can educate citizens to comply to bear resistant containers. We can also encourage and work with Federal and State agencies that are responsible in managing these magnificent animals.” |
| Mark Chandler (District 2): “No. Bear-resistant containers as a solution to the problem of providing safety to residents, visitors and wildlife is a somewhat mendacious answer to the problem. Yes, I am concerned for the safety of residents, visitors and wildlife, but other areas that have tried using costly bear-resistant containers report reasons they aren’t the end-all solution, especially considering the cost of such receptacles. Enforcement is a whole other topic.” |
| Glade Mason (District 2): “They say a fed bear is soon to be dead bear. It is all about being a responsible steward of the land and all the creatures within. Other areas are able to coexist with bears without all the problems of food rewards that have cost so many bears their lives. Bears associate humans with food. It’s a solvable problem. The most important point I want to make is that we are well aware that the bear resistant cans, and other storage options for securing attractants come with a cost. But it is more than that. It is about educating people. Not just the locals but the vacationers need to be made aware of just how serious being in bear country is. I do support an ordinance, but it must be well constructed to prepare for all contingencies. Fremont County should be prepared to provide for the safety of all those who are within its bounds. Whether they be county residents or visitors to our fair county all should enjoy the peace of knowing the county has their welfare in mind.” |
| Josh Thomas (District 2): “Yes, I will support a bear-resistant container ordinance in Island Park and other affected areas of Fremont County. Protecting the safety of residents, visitors, and wildlife is a priority. Bear-resistant containers are a practical step that can reduce dangerous encounters and help prevent bears from becoming dependent on human food sources. This is an issue the Island Park community has raised repeatedly, and it’s important that we listen to those concerns and work toward responsible solutions that protect both people and wildlife.” |