No, hunters don’t need to kill more California black bears | Opinion

California’s Department of Fish and Wildlife decided to increase tag limits on black bears so that hunters can kill two in a season. That’s simply mystifying based upon a 2020 poll that found some 70% of the state’s voters disapprove of hunting bears altogether.

Less than 1% of Californians purchase hunting licenses or “tags” — with even fewer buying bear tags. In short, Californians are not standing in line around the block for the chance to kill bears.

Colorado leads the way

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife faces challenges, including the state’s substantial budget shortfalls. But a bet on bear hunting carries no great promise for the department’s efforts to solidify its funding. The real issue is the urgent need for new and more widely supported mechanisms for building revenue to support the department’s conservation mission.

Colorado offers models for how states can diversify funding without resorting to trophy hunting. When residents register their vehicles, they can opt in to purchase a reduced-rate state park pass at $29. This program has raised over $41 million for Colorado’s parks, wildlife and related programs. Colorado’s lottery program also contributes additional, stable wildlife conservation revenues.

California’s bears would be the immediate beneficiaries of a more enlightened approach. They are already under pressure due to historic mega-droughts and unprecedented wildfires that have scorched millions of acres of earth. This is why Yellow 2120, a 550-pound black bear, ended up living in a crawl space in Altadena.

In recent years, too, record numbers of bears have been struck by vehicles as they scramble to evade fires or find food. With human development impinging on their habitats and migration corridors, bears’ survival is tougher than ever.

Preserve bear population

California’s bear population is unknown, and the main reason why the Department of Fish and Wildlife must not increase the “bag limit” to two bears per person. The department claims the population could be as large as 65,000 — more than double its previous estimate. But that count is questionable and largely based upon outdated studies and an untested model.

The department is pushing the increase to appease a small group of bear hunters — not because selling more bear tags to a select few will do much to boost agency revenues. A resident bear tag costs $61.30 (over 99% of bear hunters are residents), while a non-resident tag costs $387.85.

How can our state’s largest carnivore be expected to thrive — much less persist — when the Department of Fish and Wildlife allows trophy hunters to kill up to 1,700 of them annually? And what is the rationale for expanding the ability of hunters to kill more bears just because they cannot meet the established limit? Is the agency appeasing a vocal faction of bear hunters who want a second shot each year?

Although the total number of bears that can be killed each year — 1,700 — remains unchanged, doubling the number of bears each person can kill is still highly problematic. One issue is that the proposed change doesn’t include region-specific limits, meaning that bear populations in certain regions could be hit particularly hard if hunters were to use both tags in that area.

But the most important component is that there’s simply no scientific reason for a second tag — increased bear hunting does not reduce conflicts, it doesn’t grow deer populations. This is simply to appease a small, vocal faction of hunters who just want to kill more bears.

No one needs to kill two bears, and we need to have a broader conversation about that.

Bears play vital role

Biologists have taught us that bears play vital ecological roles. They disperse even more seeds than birds and help to recycle carrion. Bears also have intrinsic value, and many of us believe they should be able to raise their cubs without the threat of being hunted — especially when they have dependent young or when they most need to accumulate calories before winter hibernation (which, incidentally, coincides with hunting season).

Bears also reproduce exceptionally slowly. In California, females reach adulthood after five years, and then give birth to cubs only every two or three years. Approximately half of those cubs survive their first year. Mother bears are patient and doting parents, investing up to 24 months caring for their cubs. These admirable traits are incompatible with a wildlife-management system that caters to hunters without providing a scientific or social basis for increased hunting pressures.

The California Fish and Game Commission will discuss the agency’s proposal for two bear tags per person at its Feb. 12 meeting and issue a final decision in April.

Black bears hold special roles in California history. We need a more humane model of revenue generation, one that reflects the values of all the state’s residents.

We’ve already lost the grizzly — still emblazoned on our state flag, but long vanished from our wildlands. California cannot risk losing yet another great bear, and with greater care and ingenuity we can and should find a healthy mechanism for raising the funds necessary to advance the state’s conservation needs.

Jenny Berg is the California state director of Humane World for Animals.

This story was originally published February 12, 2026 at 5:00 AM with the headline "No, hunters don’t need to kill more California black bears | Opinion."