Summary — HB 5671: "An Act Concerning a Limited Black Bear Hunting Season"
Status: Introduced April 11, 2025. Passed both chambers; transmitted to the Governor; vetoed by the Governor on June 22, 2025.
Note on sources: The full bill text was not provided. The summary below states the bill’s apparent purpose (from the title/subject) and outlines the kinds of provisions a bill with this title typically contains. Where specific text-based details (season dates, quotas, fee amounts, etc.) are not available in the materials supplied, that is noted.
Main purpose
HB 5671 would have authorized a limited hunting season for black bears in the state. The stated intent (by title/subject) appears to be to provide a legal, regulated framework for taking black bears under state law—generally to address population management, reduce human–bear conflicts, and create a regulated opportunity for hunters.
Key provisions (based on typical structure for this type of bill)
Because the bill text is not included, the precise statutory changes are unknown. A bill creating a limited black bear hunting season commonly includes provisions such as:
- Authority to establish a limited black bear season (by the legislature or by authorizing the Department of Energy & Environmental Protection / state wildlife agency to set dates and rules).
- Season dates and geographic areas (sport seasons may be limited to specified towns or wildlife management zones).
- Permit/permit lottery system and/or tag allocation; limits on number of permits issued.
- Bag limits (number of bears a hunter may take) and prohibitions (e.g., protection of sows with cubs).
- Methods of take allowed or prohibited (firearms, archery, hounds, baiting).
- Licensing requirements and fees; reporting and mandatory check-in/harvest reporting.
- Law enforcement, penalties for violations, and civil penalties.
- Requirements for data collection: monitoring harvest, population impacts, and reporting back to the legislature.
- Possible exemptions for nuisance removal or municipal control of problem bears.
- Use of revenues (license fees/tags) for wildlife management, research, public education, or enforcement.
If HB 5671 followed usual practice, the actual operational details (season length, quotas, fees, and methods) might have been delegated to the state wildlife agency through administrative regulation.
Who would be affected
- Recreational hunters and hunting organizations (opportunities and new permit processes).
- State wildlife agency (implementation, monitoring, enforcement).
- Municipalities and residents in areas with bear populations (public-safety and nuisance-management implications).
- Conservation and animal-welfare organizations (policy positions and possible legal challenges).
- Law enforcement and conservation officers (enforcement workload).
- Potential fiscal effects on the state (fee revenues vs. administrative costs).
Potential impacts
- May reduce localized human–bear conflicts if harvest targets align with population/habitat conditions.
- Generates licensing/tag revenue but imposes administrative, monitoring, and enforcement costs.
- Wildlife management effects depend on season scope, quotas, and population data; poorly designed seasons can harm long-term population stability.
- Public-safety and ethical concerns among stakeholders (methods of take, hounding, baiting) can generate controversy.
Legislative history (selected actions)
- Filed: 2025-04-11
- Referred to Joint Committee on Environment: 2025-01-21 (referral recorded)
- Passed House and Senate (various committee and floor steps in May 2025)
- Sent to Governor: 2025-05-31
- Vetoed by Governor: 2025-06-22
Because the Governor vetoed the bill on June 22, 2025, it did not become law unless the legislature successfully overrides the veto in a subsequent session.
Next steps / practical note
- For the precise legal changes, season dates, quotas, and regulatory authority, consult the bill text and the enrolled version (not provided here) or contact bill sponsors and the state wildlife agency.
- Interested parties (hunters, municipalities, conservation groups) should track any veto-override attempts or related administrative rules proposed by the wildlife agency.
