A new feasibility study by a coalition of scientists, Tribal leaders and conservationists concludes that reintroducing grizzly bears to California is biologically feasible, but success hinges on public support.
“Whether or not we bring grizzly bears back to California is a choice, as there is no biological reason we couldn’t do it,” said Dr. Peter Alagona of the University of California, Santa Barbara, lead author of the study. “A decade of research informing this study demonstrates that grizzlies likely can thrive in California if we make the affirmative decision to bring them back.”
The 200-page report, titled “Recovering Grizzly Bears in California,” synthesizes nearly a decade of research conducted by the California Grizzly Research Network, a collaborative group of researchers and educators. It assesses the ecological viability of reintroducing grizzlies to the state, where they have been absent since 1924. While the study affirms that suitable habitats still exist, it emphasizes that the initiative’s success depends on the willingness of Californians.
The study suggests that California still holds enough wild country to support grizzly bears, should the state choose to reintroduce them. Researchers behind the report used a variety of models and approaches to assess habitat suitability and concluded roughly 34.5% of the state could still provide viable habitat for grizzlies.
Habitat areas
The study highlights three major regions—the Northwest Forest, the Sierra Nevada and the Transverse Ranges—as large, high-quality habitat areas capable of sustaining one or more grizzly populations. Even when factoring out urban development, farmland and desert, the analysis found stretches of intact, protected wildlands.
According to the study, a computer simulation showed that grizzlies showed a preference for mid-elevation forests across all three proposed recovery zones. However, researchers caution that actual bear movements may differ, especially early in a recovery effort, as release sites are carefully selected for remoteness and ecological suitability.
The study also identified areas where grizzly bears might come into contact with human activities. Using the Human Influence Index—a measure that includes data on population density, infrastructure and access routes—researchers identified areas of potential overlap around the edges of proposed recovery zones and near trails or roadways. Most predicted conflict areas were low-intensity and located outside core habitats, such as along wilderness boundaries or in buffer zones.
In the Sierra Nevada, overlap was minimal and tied mainly to trail systems and nearby roads. The Transverse Ranges exhibited potential conflict areas near developed communities along their southern boundary, while the Northwest Forest showed limited overlap near recreational areas on the eastern fringe. The study suggests these areas should be prioritized in future coexistence planning.
Effects on agriculture
The study examined the potential effects of grizzly bear reintroduction on agriculture and found that it would likely have a minimal impact on most agricultural sectors, including the state’s crop and timber industries. However, livestock operations, particularly those adjacent to protected mountain habitats, could face more direct impacts.
While crop damage from grizzlies is expected to be minimal, given that bears would be introduced into remote wilderness areas, some fruit and nut orchards near recovery zones, especially in the Sierra Nevada and Transverse Ranges, could attract bears. However, the study noted that even California’s far more numerous black bears have not caused major issues for crop producers, and the state’s draft Black Bear Conservation Plan cites only one unconfirmed instance of black bears causing crop damage.
For livestock, especially sheep and cattle grazing near recovery zones, the study noted that the potential for depredation is a more immediate concern. Though predators account for a fraction of overall livestock losses—just 2% according to USDA data—such losses can be significant for individual ranchers already facing slim margins.
The study acknowledges this risk and emphasizes the importance of proactive, coexistence-based approaches, such as improved husbandry, carcass management and deterrents. Grazing on public lands, particularly in national forests and Bureau of Land Management areas, remains widespread, and any bear-related conflicts would likely occur in these contexts.
Compensation programs and targeted support for affected producers are recommended, alongside collaboration with agencies and non-governmental organizations to help integrate predator presence into sustainable land management practices.
Costs
According to the feasibility study, a grizzly bear recovery program is projected to cost under $3 million per year during its first decade. The estimate is based on spending from existing grizzly recovery programs in states such as Montana and Washington. It would support the full range of program needs, including animal transport and monitoring, infrastructure for coexistence, and tribal stewardship grants.
The study cautioned that despite its seemingly small footprint, funding such a program would challenge an already overextended California Department of Fish and Wildlife budget. While California has one of the largest wildlife agency budgets in the country, the department’s resources are fragmented across more than 60 restricted funds, leaving areas like species and habitat conservation underfunded. With additional support from federal agencies, state parks and California’s network of conservation nonprofits, the study concludes that a grizzly recovery effort is financially feasible, provided the political will and strategic coordination are in place to support it. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
13 Comments