California Senate Bill 1305 proposes to reintroduce grizzly bears to the state. Currently, the only grizzlies in the state are those flown on the flag. At the time of the Gold Rush, it was estimated that over 10,000 grizzly bears called California home. The bill supports reintroducing 1,000 bears into the state and is backed by a study identifying three areas in the state as potential recovery areas: the Klamath Mountains and surrounding areas, the Sierra Nevada mountains and the Los Padres backcountry. The same study claims bears could be sourced from the Rocky Mountains or British Columbia.
Last spring, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) pushed out a study released by the California Grizzly Alliance, which included a 200-page study promoting the idea that grizzly bears could refill a role they played in the ecosystem before the state became home to 40 million people. The man behind the initial study hails from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Dr. Peter Alagona, an environmental studies professor, founded the California Grizzly Research Network (CGRN) in 2016.
In 2024, the California Senate declared it as the “Year of the California Grizzly Bear” to commemorate the last credible sighting of a grizzly bear in the state in 100 years. That same year, the California Fish and Game Commission passed a resolution for the centennial mark and calling for studies to inform “any considerations of the future of the grizzly bear in California.”
The CGRN, which conducted the initial research, touts several reasons for why now is a good time for reintroduction, starting with the increasing number of grizzlies in the northern Rockies. They cite the ”success” of wolf reintroduction as another reason. Finally, they say the growing “tolerance” for large carnivores in California is another reason for their views.
The CGRN mentions 330 records of grizzly sightings in California, of which 136 included references to grizzlies eating. From these sources, the CGRN built a “menu” for grizzlies that resulted in the following breakdown: 43% livestock, 5% terrestrial mammals, 4% marine mammals, 1% fish, 27% wild plants and 18% honey, crops and unspecified others.
The report then goes on to say, “Habitat loss did not kill off CA’s grizzlies; a small group of white men armed with guns, traps, and poisons did it (before modern laws that would have stopped them).” Keep in mind that the CBD was a major driver in the wolf reintroduction effort. They have somewhat of a blueprint and the connections in Sacramento to push this through.
In January, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) appointed Meghan Hertel as the director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Before this position, Hertel was deputy secretary for biodiversity and habitat for the California Natural Resources Agency. In this role, Hertel “leads the Agency’s efforts to conserve biodiversity and improve habitat across the state through … efforts including the Cutting Green Tape initiative and supporting the implementation of large-scale habitat projects.”
The idea clearly is getting resistance across several fronts. In an interview with Action News Now, Howl For Wildlife Founder Charles Whitwam said of the reintroduction idea, “Always with apex predators, you have to consider not can you do it, you have to consider should you do it.” Howl For Wildlife is an advocacy group that defends hunting, fishing and science-based wildlife management.
Whitwam continued, “The problem with rewilding is you can’t rewind. We’re not going back to 200 years ago. Habitats are different. Infrastructure is different. We have roads. We have trains. We have buildings. All the human things. So right, wrong, or indifferent, we have to take that into consideration … to add another predator, this time a grizzly bear, an apex predator, on top of all the other species, it’s frankly something that the state cannot handle.”
In 2023, CDFW Deputy Director for Communications, Education and Outreach Jordan Traverso said, “We already have conflicts with mountain lions and livestock and humans … and now we’ve got wolves. To think about bringing another predator into the state that we would have to manage … does not seem feasible for us. With wildfires erupting throughout the state, there are enough issues to solve. Why do this now?”
California Cattlemen’s Association Vice President of Government Affairs Kirk Wilbur told WLJ, “Wolves killed or injured 196 livestock animals in California last year, and there’s every reason to think grizzlies could be just as destructive. Ranchers and CDFW are struggling immensely—now is not the time to introduce another apex predator on the landscape. That’s doubly true if the state is serious about protecting wolves: grizzlies and wolves compete for prey, and grizzlies have been frequently observed stealing kills from wolves.”
After seeing the complete debacle and management with the wolf population and reintroduction, the state has utterly failed its citizens time and time again. Now, once again, advocates who study from a suburban location are forcing ideas and beliefs across mass populations. These same advocates don’t have their livelihoods or families under the constant attack from apex predators. This is yet another example of the ideological lawfare producers who represent less than 1% of the population have to endure for making a living feeding, clothing and providing for the other 99%. — LOGAN IPSEN
