The Assembly Appropriations Committee on Thursday halted Senate Bill 1305, authored by Sen. Laura Richardson, a Democrat from Inglewood. The proposal would have directed the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to study whether reintroducing grizzly bears to the state was realistic — and, if so, what steps and safeguards would be needed to make it happen.

True to the appropriations committee’s usual practice, there was no floor debate or public comment before the bill was set aside. Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat who chairs the committee, simply announced that the measure would not move forward.

Speaking with reporters afterward, Wicks said the state has more pressing work to do before even considering the return of a large predator to California landscapes. She cited the state’s rocky experience with reintroducing gray wolves, which has led to livestock losses and friction with ranchers in rural areas.

“The state needs to really invest in how we are actually addressing and dealing with those conflicts,” Wicks said, suggesting that unresolved tensions over wolves make the timing wrong for a similar conversation about grizzlies.

Grizzly bears were once a defining feature of California’s wilderness, with population estimates suggesting as many as 10,000 roamed the state before the Gold Rush drew waves of settlers west. Their presence was so deeply woven into California identity that early settlers named their short-lived breakaway nation the Bear Flag Republic — a legacy still visible today in the grizzly emblazoned on the state flag.

That population didn’t survive contact with California’s rapid settlement. Hunting and habitat destruction wiped out the grizzly population by the 1920s, leaving the smaller black bear as the only bear species native to the state that still exists in the wild today.

SB 1305 had drawn support from two Native American tribes acting as co-sponsors, along with a coalition of environmental and animal welfare organizations. Supporters framed the bill as a chance to address a historical ecological loss and help restore balance to California habitats that once depended on large predators.

But the proposal ran into strong opposition from ranching groups, hunting organizations and residents of rural communities, who argued that California’s dense population and existing wildlife conflicts make it an unsuitable place for another apex predator. They pointed to ongoing problems with mountain lions, black bears and wolves already encroaching on livestock and, at times, residential areas, saying rural communities are already stretched thin managing those interactions.

Notably, the bill didn’t include any funding to actually carry out the proposed study — it simply left the door open for a future legislative session, or an outside organization, to pursue the research if they chose.

Yue Stella Yu contributed reporting.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Bill to Reintroduce Grizzly Bears Fails to Advance appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California hasn’t seen a wild grizzly in more than 100 years, even though the animal remains front and center on the state flag. Before the Gold Rush era, an estimated 10,000 grizzlies roamed the state. Settlers hunted the species to extinction here, and now a group of Democratic legislators is pushing to study whether the bears could ever return.

The proposal, which has already cleared the state Senate and is now before the Assembly, wouldn’t reintroduce grizzlies outright. Instead, it would direct the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to study the feasibility of bringing the apex predator back to the landscape.

Supporters include tribal nations, conservation groups and animal welfare advocates, who argue that grizzlies play a vital role in balancing ecosystems and that their disappearance left a lasting scar on California’s natural heritage.

Tiana Williams-Claussen, who directs the Yurok Tribe’s wildlife department, said the loss of the grizzly has had ripple effects that go far beyond biology. “I can see the ways in which my homeland has suffered from the loss of iconic species such as the grizzly, and that this loss lingers in our heart and in the attenuation of a millennia-old relationship,” she said.

Notably, the bill’s author and its coauthors all represent urban districts in Southern California — a detail not lost on critics in the state’s rural regions, where opposition runs deep.

Ranchers, hunting organizations and many rural residents argue the idea is unrealistic and potentially dangerous, especially in communities already dealing with growing conflicts involving mountain lions and wolves. Nearly every Republican in the state Senate voted against the bill.

Some opponents also raise concerns about fairness to the bears themselves. Elizabeth Washoe, a Native American resident of Modoc County, said uprooting grizzlies from their current habitats to place them in a dramatically altered California landscape would do the animals no favors.

“Where they’re at, they’re living a pretty good life, and we’d take them and put them here in a landscape that is so dramatically changed from what it was the last time that the bears were truly living a good life here,” Washoe said. “It feels egotistical.”

For now, the debate remains a study proposal rather than a concrete reintroduction plan — but it has reignited a long-simmering divide between California’s urban and rural communities over how to manage, and remember, the wild spaces that once defined much of the state.

In other news from across the state:

A federal appeals court has thrown out the fraud conviction of a man once at the center of a $1 million COVID-relief scheme tied to a state-funded parolee rehabilitation program. Attila Colar ran a rehab home called All Hands on Deck, which was the focus of a 2023 investigation revealing California had spent hundreds of millions of dollars on similar programs without tracking whether they actually helped participants find work or avoid reoffending.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that the trial judge should have removed a juror who expressed clear bias against Colar, who is Black and Muslim and represented himself for part of the trial. That juror said Colar’s comments amounted to little more than “discrimination, conspiracy theories, and police corruption,” language the appeals court said reflected personal bias the juror admitted he could not set aside.

Meanwhile, a fight is brewing over $200 million in unspent state funds originally intended to help schools install or upgrade air conditioning and heating systems. School officials argue the money was promised to campuses under a 2020 program funded by utility company fees and should be released to finish the work. Torrance Unified School District’s deputy superintendent, Keith Butler, called the funding freeze “unjustifiable,” saying the district simply wants to complete projects that were already underway.

Consumer advocates, however, contend the money should instead be refunded to utility customers whose bills rose to pay for a program the state ultimately shut down.

And in the Inland Empire, outgoing Cal State San Bernardino President Tomás Morales is set to receive a $340,000 salary in a new advisory role with the university system as he steps down from his current post. Morales had been a central figure in a $12 million legal settlement after two former female administrators accused him of gender discrimination and retaliation.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Grizzly Bears Once Called California Home — Should They Return? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.