CLOVIS, Calif. – More than a century after they were hunted and trapped to extinction in California, grizzly bears could once again roam the state’s wildlands under a divisive bill currently making its way through the legislature.
Senate Bill 1305, introduced by Democratic State Senator Laura Richardson of San Pedro and authored by two Native American tribes, would require the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to formulate a feasibility study and roadmap geared toward the potential reintroduction of grizzly bears by 2030.
Before the Gold Rush, an estimated 10,000 grizzlies inhabited diverse habitats throughout the state ranging from the Sierra Nevada foothills to the Central Valley to coastal areas. Ever wonder how the San Luis Obispo County city of Los Osos got its name?
Although grizzly populations can still be found in several Western states including Alaska, Montana and Wyoming, in California these fierce and fascinating omnivores exist only as a symbol: moving across a patch of grass on the state flag.
The last widely accepted grizzly bear sighting in California occurred in 1924 near Moro Rock in Sequoia National Park.
Proponents of the bill cite a moral imperative for their reintroduction to the Golden State. They also tout ecological benefits – grizzlies promote forest vitality by dispersing seeds and aerating soil while foraging for roots – and the potential economic boost for communities near recovery areas.
The push follows a feasibility study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of Washington published by the nonprofit California Grizzly Alliance. The 200-page report published last year concluded there are no biological, ecological, social or legal obstacles that prevent the return of a sustainable grizzly bear population.
“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 Peter Alagona, a UC Santa Barbara environmental historian. “A decade of research informing this study demonstrates that grizzlies likely can thrive in California if we make the decision to bring them back.”
Besides their historic relevance, grizzly bears are also culturally significant to Native American communities, including the Tejon and Yurok Tribes that co-sponsored the pending legislation.
“It’s important for people to realize that the grizzly bear isn’t just a symbol on a flag — it was a real animal that shaped California’s ecosystems and holds deep meaning for Tribal Nations across the state,” Tejon Tribe Chairman Octavio Escobedo III said in a news release published by the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity.
Ranchers voice their opposition
The effort is opposed by elected leaders representing rural areas where grizzlies would most likely be brought back as well as ranchers already coping with the loss of livestock related to mountain lions and the recent return of gray wolves.
“While we're still struggling with how to effectively manage depredations by wolves and mountain lions, we don’t think now is the time to reintroduce a new apex predator to California,” said Kirk Wilbur, vice president of government affairs for the California Cattlemen’s Association. “If we were to introduce grizzlies, it would only be something that we could envision happening after we get a handle on our existing apex predator populations. And even then it probably wouldn’t be prudent.”
“The state of California is not even able to manage the new wolf population – how are they going to add grizzly bears to the mix and manage that as well?” asked Jack Lavers, a sixth-generation cattle rancher from Glennville in Kern County.
The state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife, which would be entrusted with formulating a reintroduction plan, is not taking a position on SB 1305, spokesman Peter Tira said. When asked about the topic in past years, officials expressed reservations over the agency’s budgetary and staffing ability to manage another wild animal population while also educating the public about bear awareness with respect to grizzlies – which are larger than black bears and exhibit more aggressive behavior.
Compounding that challenge is California’s thriving estimated population of 60,000 to 80,000 black bears, whose numbers have more than tripled since the 1980s.
Black bears are finding their way into previously unseen areas — this month news outlets reported a cub was spotted near Herndon and West avenues in northwest Fresno — and there have been increasing break-ins to homes, automobiles and garbage bins in mountain and foothill areas.
A Downieville woman mauled in 2023 was reported as the first documented human fatality in California involving black bears.
Three areas considered for reintroduction
The 2025 study looked at three areas with potentially suitable habitat for grizzly bears despite their longtime absence: the state’s northwest forests, the southern Sierra Nevada mountains and the Los Padres National Forest. It also examined the likely ecological, social and economic impacts of bringing them back in limited numbers.
Alagona, one of the study’s authors, said that human-bear conflicts get “disproportionately covered” by the news media but have statistically been in steep decline over recent decades thanks to heightened public awareness.
“It's important to understand that the reason there are some coexistence challenges with bears is because they're so much like us,” Alagona said. “There are only three large terrestrial land-based animals on earth that are also omnivores, and that's humans, bears and pigs.”
Citing genetic testing of more than 50 California grizzly bears held in museums, researchers concluded the state’s former grizzlies were roughly 85% herbivores feeding on plant material and fruit. Grizzly bears are considered more carnivorous than black bears.
Other studies, meanwhile, have found that the historical grizzlies were genetically indistinguishable from those currently living in the Rockies, Yellowstone National Park and into Canada.
“That’s a really interesting finding,” Alagona said. “It tells us that although California’s grizzly population is extinct, there are still bears that are essentially identical that could be used as kind of the seeds of a new population here.”
Over-correcting past wrongs?
While proponents believe humans bear an obligation to restore the former keystone species, opponents reject this argument for a more pragmatic view.
“I think it is possible to acknowledge the potential wrongs of the past without, in a sense, over-correcting in the present,” Wilbur said. “I think we have to be clear-eyed about what the landscape looks like today and the negative impacts that grizzlies or various other wildlife species may have on the landscape that we have developed in the centuries since their extirpation. I think that in 2026 we have to manage for what the landscape looks like in 2026.”
SB 1305 has cleared two committee hearings since its introduction in February. In early May, members of the Senate Appropriations Committee placed the bill on the suspense file to further study its fiscal impacts.
Lavers openly questioned what business a state senator representing central and south Los Angeles has to introduce a bill with such potential negative effects on rural communities.
“Those bears are not going to be released in south-central LA, and so it doesn’t impact her or her constituents,” Lavers said of Richardson. “She’s writing a bill for an issue that she has nothing to do with. It won’t impact her except for the fact that she wants to be able to say she can go out there and see a grizzly bear someday.”