Why We Stand United Against AB 1038: Protecting Bears, People, and the Public Trust
We've joined more than 60 animal welfare, environmental, and tribal advocacy organizations—including the California Wildlife Alliance, the Humane Society, Sierra Club California, and the Mountain Lion Foundation—in formally opposing Assembly Bill 1038, a bill that threatens to undo one of California's most significant wildlife protections by reinstating the inhumane practice of hounding bears.
AB 1038 seeks to reverse the bipartisan legislation passed in 2012 under Senate Bill 1221, which banned the use of dogs to hunt bears and bobcats in California. At the time, the law was backed by overwhelming public support (with 70% of Californians opposing hound hunting), science-based wildlife management recommendations, and a commitment to fair chase principles and animal welfare. Nothing has changed to justify reopening this issue. In fact, the scientific case against bear hounding has only grown stronger.
Misleading Claims, Proven Harm
Proponents of AB 1038 claim California's black bear population has doubled and that hounding is needed to manage increasing bear-human conflicts. But these claims directly contradict the best available science.
According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's own draft bear management plan (April 2024), black bear populations have remained stable across the state over the past decade, with current estimates ranging from 25,000 to 30,000 bears—well within historical parameters. Meanwhile, unprecedented drought cycles and wildfire events have degraded natural habitats and food sources by an estimated 40% in key bear habitat areas, putting enormous pressure on bear populations. Bears are struggling to adapt to climate-driven habitat loss—not booming.
Killing Bears Won’t Solve Conflict
A growing body of peer-reviewed research demonstrates that lethal methods like trophy hunting or hounding do not reduce conflicts between humans and bears. A 2023 study published in Conservation Biology found no correlation between hunting pressure and reduced human-bear conflicts across Western states. These encounters are primarily driven by human behavior—such as unsecured garbage, accessible pet food, and bird feeders—and exacerbated by climate change impacts on natural food supplies.
That's why the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has prioritized evidence-based, coexistence strategies including public education campaigns, habitat restoration projects, and the deployment of over 12,000 bear-proof containers statewide since 2015. Data from pilot programs show these approaches have reduced repeat incidents by 85% in participating communities.
"Policymakers have access to 12 years of data showing that education, proper waste management, and habitat restoration are reducing conflicts while preserving healthy bear populations and the habitats that rely on them,” said Chance Cutrano, Director of Programs at Resource Renewal Institute. “We don't need to resurrect a banned practice when we have evidence-based alternatives that protect both public safety and our state’s rich biodiversity."
A Threat to Wildlife Rehabilitators and Animal Welfare
Reintroducing bear hounding would place immense strain on California's network of nonprofit wildlife rehabilitators, who already operate without state funding and care for over 800 orphaned bear cubs annually. Hound hunting historically increases cub orphaning rates by 300-400%, according to data from states where the practice remains legal. This would overwhelm rehabilitation facilities and potentially cost taxpayers millions in emergency wildlife management responses.
Additionally, hound hunting introduces documented risks to non-target wildlife, domestic animals, and private property. Colorado wildlife officials reported over 200 incidents of property damage, pet injuries, and trespassing violations related to hound hunting in 2022 alone—problems California successfully eliminated after the 2012 ban.
Undermining Public Process and Legislative Authority
AB 1038 would set a dangerous precedent by allowing five gubernatorial appointees on the Fish and Game Commission to override explicit legislative intent and public will. This circumvents the democratic process that led to the original ban and opens the door for special interests to rewrite settled conservation law without public accountability or legislative oversight.
A Better Path Forward
Rather than reviving ineffective and inhumane practices, we urge lawmakers to support evidence-based solutions. This includes continued investment in coexistence strategies that have proven successful, increased funding for wildlife agencies implementing non-lethal management programs, and advancement of habitat conservation efforts like those outlined in SB 427 (Blakespear/Stern)—legislation that would help secure food availability and safe wildlife corridors.
Successful models exist throughout California: communities like South Lake Tahoe and Mammoth Lakes have virtually eliminated bear-human conflicts through comprehensive waste management and public education programs, proving that coexistence is both practical and cost-effective.
AB 1038 is unnecessary, unscientific, and counterproductive to public safety goals. We urge the California legislature to hold this bill in committee and stand with the vast majority of Californians who support humane, evidence-based wildlife management that protects both communities and our state's natural heritage.
