AB 1038, “Bears: hunting: use of dogs” proposes the reintroduction of bear hounding to the state of California, a cruel practice that harms and scares animals in addition to doing nothing to solve problems related to human-wildlife interactions. The following letter was sent to Assemblymember Diane Papan, Chair of the California Senate Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee, in response to the bill introduced by Assemblymember Heather Hadwick.

RE: Opposition to AB 1038 (Hadwick): Bears: hunting: use of dogs.

 

Dear Chair Papan,

On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write in strong opposition to Assembly Bill 1038.

The scientific, management, fair chase, and animal welfare case for California’s ban on bear hounding is stronger today than it was in 2012 when Senate Bill (“SB”) 1221 (Lieu) passed the legislature on a bi-partisan basis, and was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown.

These California lawmakers agreed with the central arguments presented by Senator Lieu and proponents — and with 83% of Californians who were polled at that time — that bear hounding is inhumane, dangerous, unsporting, and unnecessary. We would refer you to the excellent legislative analyses of SB 1221 by both the Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife committee and the Senate Natural Resources & Water committee. We have also shared a large packet of materials that went to Gov. Brown in 2012 with your staff.

There are myriad inaccuracies and inflammatory statements in the findings for AB 1038. Notably, California does not have the most black bears in the nation (Alaska does), and California’s bear population is stable, not growing. [finding (a)]

Our state’s black bear population has not doubled (as claimed in finding (g)), but rather, as described in their draft bear management plan dated April 2024, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) has updated its bear population methodology and has re-cast their estimates. On page 48 of the draft plan, they write that the new model “provides strong evidence that black bear populations have been stable in all BCRs [Bear Conservation Regions] over the past decade… There is no evidence of any statistically credible (P>0.1) population declines or increases at the BCR scale during 2014-2023.”

We do know this: The megadrought of 2020-21 was the driest period in California history since 800 A.D. Severe fire regimes reduced some habitats to moonscapes. Taken together, drought and fires have significantly depleted foods and forest habitats for California’s black bears. Bears may be in worse shape now more than ever.

Numerous studies make it clear that killing bears does not stop human-bear conflicts, even as it radically reduces bear populations. And trophy hunting bears does not make people safer, because hunters are not killing the bears attracted to people’s homes by unsecured garbage, bird feeders, pet food, and animal feed. Human conflicts with bears are in response to anthropogenic (human behavior) causes, and natural food availability increasingly impacted by climate change.

There is a long history of research supporting that natural food availability is a primary driver of bear interactions with humans – and that programs promoting coexistence between people and wildlife, including education, capacity building, wildlife connectivity/corridor enhancements, and management of unnatural food sources (including trash) are going to be the most successful at reducing conflicts.

Consistent with this research and in response to public safety concerns, CDFW issued a new departmental bulletin in 2022 entitled: “Black Bear Policy in California: Public Safety, Depredation, Conflict, and Animal Welfare.” In that bulletin, CDFW states its objective to “avoid and minimize [these] conflicts by implementing measures to shift the behavior of bears back to their natural use of habitats and fear of humans, and to address concerns of public safety, public responsibility, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation.”

CDFW outlines a very specific stepwise and clear approach to responding to human-bear conflicts in a variety of situations, with practices that are informed by science and experience. As part of its activities, CDFW has invested and engaged in enhanced efforts to promote safety and coexistence (eg., Tahoe Interagency Bear Team, Bear Aware/Bear Smart education, $2.2 million in state funding to improve Tahoe area wildlife management, including subsidies for Tahoe Area residents (including Alpine County) for purchasing bear-proof trash receptacles for residents, new loaner “unwelcome mats” for residents of the North Central region, etc.) These are smart investments that should be further augmented.

In a study by bear biologists and social scientists in Durango, Colorado, when people received bear-resistant trash cans with automatically self-locking lids, residents drastically increased compliance with trash ordinances. With automatically locking trash containers, residents followed ordinances banning food attractants for bears by 92%, compared to only 39% compliance for trash containers with manually locking lids.

Unsupervised packs of hunting hounds are known to cause serious adverse impacts on non-target wildlife and regularly cause conflicts with private property owners — including trespassing and harassment of livestock, pets, and people. During the 2012 legislative effort, residents of Shasta, Tehama, and Placer counties weighed in with direct concerns and firsthand experience. These problems continue to occur in states where bear hounding is allowed.

Bear hounding raises serious dog welfare concerns that were previously documented by CDFW’s Law Enforcement Division and California animal shelters — ranging from abandonment, neglect, and injuries from fights with other animals. The re-establishment of wolves across much of California wilderness raises new and relevant concerns about hound safety. California’s first wolf of the modern era entered the state in 2011, and their expansion into areas across the state overlaps with bear habitat and hunting areas.

Reintroducing bear hounding in California will place an enormous burden on the state’s licensed nonprofit wildlife rehabilitators, who already operate without state funding to rescue, rehabilitate, and release injured and orphaned bears. Bear hounding will certainly lead to an increase in orphaned cubs when mother bears are killed or separated from their young. These vulnerable cubs, often too young to survive alone, would then be left in the hands of underfunded wildlife rehabilitators struggling to provide the necessary care.

These organizations rely on donations and volunteers to cover months-long care including costly medical treatments, food, and habitat preparation. Instead of bringing back a practice that directly harms bears and strains organizations working to support them, California should focus on supporting humane wildlife management strategies that respect both bears and those who dedicate their lives to their survival.

Lastly, AB 1038 proposes to give the five gubernatorial appointees of the Fish and Game Commission the authority to arrive at a different conclusion than the duly elected legislature did in 2012 — and adopt a regulation that directly conflicts with the statutory ban on the use of hounds to hunt bears in California. We urge you not to set that precedent, giving away the legislature’s authority.

We would be very happy to partner with legislators to enhance and augment the use of tools that are proven to make communities safer from bear interactions including advocating in favor of additional funds for CDFW expertise and resources to engage in successful coexistence work, and for Senate Bill 427 (Blakespear/Stern) to continue investments in wildlife habitat conservation that will improve natural food availability and safer passage for bears and other native wildlife.

AB 1038 is an unnecessary and problematic bill — and for all the reasons described above, we urge you to hold it in committee.

Click here to read the full letter with footnotes and see the 56 organizations who signed.