It is one of the most recognizable images across California – a grizzly bear walking on a tuft of green grass. That insignia is featured on the state flag.
Some state lawmakers want that scene to come to life on California’s modern-day landscape, which is home to more than 39.3 million residents – the most populous state in America. Called the California Grizzly Recovery Assessment Act, SB 1305 would establish a state policy framework for introducing grizzlies and directs the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to begin planning for it. The California State Senate already passed the bill and now it’s scheduled to go before California State Assembly members.
CDFW previously warned that it does not have the financial or staffing ability to tackle such an introduction and the subsequent escalation of human-wildlife management conflicts that would follow.
It is noteworthy that the sponsors of the legislation all live in urbanized southern California. State Sen. Megan Dahle (R-Bieber), who represents District 1 residents in the northern and northeast corner of the state where bears may be reintroduced, conducted her own informal Facebook survey in April. More than 2,000 people responded with an overwhelming 76 percent voting “no.” They are not alone.
A coalition of nearly two dozen hunting and outdoor conservation organizations, including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, sent a letter to Diane Pappan, chair of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, outlining a litany of concerns. The top of the list is how romantic ideology will collide with on-the-ground reality: “The return of the grizzly bear is often framed as an aspirational conservation goal rooted in California’s history and cultural symbolism. However, wildlife policy decisions of this magnitude must ultimately be guided not by symbolism or nostalgia, but by sound science, practical management considerations and the realities faced by the communities that must live with the consequences of those decisions,” according to the letter.
It continued: “The proposed ‘roadmap’ is not a neutral exercise but instead establishes institutional momentum toward reintroduction before critical feasibility, cost and conflict issues have been resolved.”
It also warned about impacts on rural communities, heavily used recreational areas and suggested “scarce conservation resources would be better directed toward habitat restoration, recovery of declining ungulate populations and meeting the state’s existing wildlife management obligations.”
A recent Sacramento Bee opinion piece by two Californians echoed those concerns: “To entertain the hypothetical reintroduction of a predator as formidable as the grizzly bear, while struggling to manage those already present, is irresponsible and a misuse of limited resources. It is also insulting to the rural communities whose safety, livelihoods and quality of life would be most affected, and who would inevitably bear the burden of defending against another predator,” wrote Californians Lee Adams and Bob Nelson. “California should focus on managing the predators it already has before even thinking about introducing new ones. Anything else risks undermining the fragile, hard-won collaboration between CDFW and rural communities and deepening challenges the state has yet to solve.”
The Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee plans to debate the bill on Tuesday, June 30.
Hunt 2 Conserve opposes the legislation as it is not grounded in ecological necessity, but rather in a philosophical vision about what some believe California should represent.
About Hunt 2 Conserve
Hunt 2 Conserve is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization affiliated with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Its mission is to advance a legacy of hunting and conservation by educating, activating and developing stewards and defenders of these fundamentally American ideals. For more information, go to hunt2conserve.org.
