Tennessee House Bill HB1453

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/31/23
• Refer: 2/2/23
• Refer: 3/8/23
• Refer: 3/15/23
• Engrossed: 3/23/23
• Enrolled: 3/31/23
• Passed: 4/25/23
• Chaptered: 5/3/23

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39 and Title 70, relative to wild animals.

Impact

The bill significantly alters existing wildlife-related statutes by introducing a legal framework within which residents can react to dangerous encounters with bears. It allows for the taking of a bear if certain conditions are met, potentially changing how interactions between humans and wildlife are managed in Tennessee. This law not only reflects a change in property rights regarding interactions with wildlife but also necessitates reporting any incidents involving bears to the appropriate state agency, thereby creating a new layer of accountability.

Summary

House Bill 1453 amends Tennessee Code Annotated, specifically concerning the management and interaction of residents with wild animals, particularly bears, in proximity to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. This legislation permits residents whose property adjoins the national park to take action against bears that pose a perceived imminent danger. This proactive measure is aimed at addressing safety concerns of individuals and families living near bear habitats, allowing them to defend themselves under specific circumstances set forth in the bill.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB1453 appears to be generally supportive among legislators who advocate for individual safety prerogatives. However, there may be concerns from wildlife conservation groups about the implications of permitting the taking of bears. Proponents argue that the law is a necessary response to increasing encounters with wildlife, emphasizing personal safety. In contrast, opponents fear that such measures could lead to overreactions or unwarranted killings of wildlife, challenging the balance between human safety and wildlife preservation.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the broader implications for wildlife management systems, as this bill establishes a precedent that may encourage similar self-defense actions in other areas involving potentially dangerous animals. Critics may argue that this could lead to increased mortality rates for bear populations if individuals misuse the law. Ensuring that actions taken are genuinely necessary for self-defense will likely be a topic of debate as the bill is implemented, calling into question how the law interprets 'imminent danger' and the circumstances that warrant such a response.