Could California's vanished grizzly bear return? A state bill sets the stage for reintroduction

Ever since the California grizzly was killed off a century ago, the prospect of bringing it back has endured in the public imagination.

A bill currently moving through the state Legislature is a first step toward making this idea a reality. The proposal, which faces a live-or-die committee vote next week, would require California wildlife officials to study what it would take to reintroduce the departed bear to the landscapes it once roamed.

In California, the grizzly is a civic icon. It graces the state flag, lends its name to countless landmarks and evokes an unparalleled sense of raw nature and beauty. Yet the potential return of the state's official animal presents huge challenges, not the least of which is how a predator that weighs up to 1,000 pounds and can easily topple a human might fare in crowded, modern-day California.

"This is something that people have said is impossible for a long time," said Peter Alagona, an environmental studies professor at UC Santa Barbara and founder of a research organization that's studying grizzly reintroduction and helping lead the call for the bear's return. "What I've learned is that it would be a lift for sure, but it's not impossible."

The vanished grizzly bear is not to be confused with the widespread black bear, which can be similar in color but is smaller and less aggressive.

A peer-reviewed feasibility study published last year by Alagona and his colleagues estimated that California could support nearly 1,200 grizzlies.

Alagona believes reintroduction could start with a handful of bears, transported from the northern Rockies, released annually, or every other year, in one of a few appropriate spots, such as the remote southern Sierra Nevada. The bears and their locations, diets and preferred habitats would be closely monitored by wildlife managers.

"This isn't just, ‘Oh, wouldn't it be fun to have a couple grizzlies in Sequoia National Park,'" Alagona said. "It's about thinking about how we can support a healthy population."

Having bears in the wild again, he says, would not only satisfy the deep nostalgia for wilderness that grizzlies have come to represent but help bring balance to ecosystems and fulfill the hopes of many Native Americans who consider the animal sacred.

The vision of Alagona and his colleagues, however, is still a long way from becoming state policy, if it ever does.

Senate Bill 1305, the legislation that seeks to get the state moving on reintroduction, faces stiff opposition, namely from rural areas where newly released bears might reside.

Some communities are already fed up with the return of gray wolves to California, blaming the state for letting wolf packs prey on cattle and harm ranching livelihoods. They don't want another predator added to the mix.

"It's really easy to get support for this (reintroduction) from people who are not affected by it," said Rick Roberti, president of the California Cattlemen's Association. But "the wolf situation woke people up to the fact that we're just not ready."

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which is managing wolf recovery and would be similarly responsible for monitoring the new bears, has warned that grizzly reintroduction would be too much for the agency to handle. The department doesn't officially comment on pending legislation.

A fiscal analysis of the bill presented this week by the Senate Appropriations Committee suggests that studying and preparing for grizzly bears could require 15 new employees at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, at a cost of more than $4 million a year.

"I hope we can use some common sense and say maybe this isn't the right time," Roberti said.

To try to appease critics, the author of the legislation, Democratic Sen. Laura Richardson who represents parts of Los Angeles County, recently weakened the bill. She eliminated language offering the state's outright endorsement of grizzly reintroduction, choosing to stick with just studying it.

Specifically, her legislation calls for developing a "roadmap" by 2030 that evaluates "whether, and under what conditions, reintroduction of the grizzly bear is feasible and advisable." It does not authorize releases.

Richardson's office declined to take calls to answer questions from the Chronicle.

SB 1305 is sponsored by California's Yurok and Tejon tribes. Both view the bear as a cultural and spiritual kindred. Tejon Chairman Octavio Escobedo, at a committee hearing on the legislation last month, said, "the grizzly is not just a symbol, it's a relative."

Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and National Parks Conservation Association, also are backing the bill. Many note the ecological importance of the missing predator, which ranges from aiding seed and nutrient dispersal across forests and plains to feeding scavengers and reshaping the behavior of other animals.

The bill's next step is a May 14 hearing by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The committee members will weigh the fiscal impact of the legislation and decide whether the bill should advance to a full vote of the Senate.

Brendan Cummings, conservation director at the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, says even if the recent cost estimates published by the committee were accurate - he believes they may be overstated - the cause would be worth funding.

"For less (annually) than the cost of a house in the Hollywood Hills, we could bring our state animal back," he said, calling the expense "dust" in the massive state budget. "It seems absurd that we as a state wouldn't do what we can to bring the animal back. It feels like an essential part of California is missing."

Before the Gold Rush, an estimated 10,000 grizzlies are believed to have lived across the state, including in coastal hills, interior valleys and inland mountains. As California was settled, however, the bears became viewed increasingly as a threat and commodity. They were eventually wiped out by hunters and trappers in the 1920s.

The 2025 feasibility study by Alagona and his colleagues cites three regions where grizzly reintroduction could be successful: the southern Sierra; the mountains of the state's northwest, including the Klamath range and the Trinity Alps; and the Transverse Ranges that span from San Bernardino County to Santa Barbara County.

The chosen sites are based on modeling of where grizzlies lived historically in California, the types of areas that bears elsewhere live in and where other predators in California have succeeded.

The study also found that the danger the animals present to humans is minimal, a concern that's often front and center in the discussion of the grizzly, which is up to 8 feet tall when standing. The authors noted additionally that if bear management is done right, livestock loss would not be a major problem.

"Large predators can be scary, but they can be among the most magnificent encounters with wildlife," said Cummings, who contributed to last year's feasibility study. "Millions of people go to Yellowstone (in Wyoming) to see grizzly bears. Virtually none have encounters that go awry."

Still, some people have been killed by grizzlies. The study estimates about 1.5 fatalities annually in North America.

Speaking at a recent Senate committee hearing, David Bess, a retired deputy director and game warden at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, said the threat posed by the bears is part of the reason he remains opposed to the reintroduction.

"Human-wildlife conflict will increase," he said. "Putting grizzlies on the landscape in California will create a public safety risk in addition to creating a significant workload that the department is not funded for or staffed for at this time."

For reintroduction to proceed, state officials would have to ultimately support the effort. Under most scenarios, the federal government would also need to consent. The grizzly bear, which has persisted in parts of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Washington (as well as Alaska), is listed as threatened in the Lower 48 states per the U.S. Endangered Species Act, giving federal wildlife officials management discretion.

The National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rolled out a plan two years ago to reintroduce grizzlies to the North Cascades in Washington, though that effort has not moved forward under the Trump administration.

As Alagona and his colleagues conclude in their study, bringing the animal back is not about logistical or ecological impossibility: "Whether the bears return depends on the choices people make."

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.