Supervisors Press Case Against Grizzly Return Study Bill

SIERRA COUNTY — Sierra County Supervisor Lee Adams and Santa Barbara County Supervisor Bob Nelson have laid out their opposition to California’s grizzly bear reintroduction proposal in a Sacramento Bee Viewpoints article titled “No grizzlies: Rural California cannot handle another apex predator.” The opinion piece argues against Senate Bill 1305, a measure by Sen. Laura Richardson that would require the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop a roadmap evaluating whether grizzly bear reintroduction in California would be feasible and advisable.

Adams and Nelson are also both connected to the Rural County Representatives of California. Adams serves as an RCRC board member, and Nelson as first vice chair. In the Bee piece, they argue rural communities would be asked to absorb the risks and costs of a statewide wildlife policy largely debated far from the places where grizzlies might actually live.

SB 1305 does not authorize the immediate release of grizzly bears, but would require CDFW to prepare a public roadmap by June 30, 2030. It would prohibit reintroduction until a series of steps are completed, including scientific viability findings, tribal consultation, and community engagement. The bill passed the Senate on May 27 by a 29-9 vote and has since been referred to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee.

Adams and Nelson acknowledge grizzlies have an important place in California’s history, ecology, and tribal cultures. Their argument is not centered on whether the bear matters, but whether modern California can realistically support another large predator. They write that California’s landscape has changed dramatically since grizzlies disappeared from the state more than a century ago, with development covering much of the habitat where the species once lived.

The supervisors also argue that even remote releases would not guarantee remote impacts. Grizzlies are wide-ranging animals, and Adams and Nelson contend rural residents, ranchers, law enforcement, and wildlife managers would be left to manage conflicts if bears moved toward homes, livestock, recreation areas, or working lands. They describe rural communities as already strained by wildfire risk, public safety power shutoffs, insurance costs, and existing predator conflicts.

A major portion of their argument centers on gray wolves, which have naturally recolonized California since 2011 and are protected under state and federal endangered species laws. Adams and Nelson cite wolf-livestock conflict as evidence that California is still struggling to manage large predators already on the ground. Their central message is summed up in one line from the Bee piece: “California should focus on managing the predators it already has before even thinking about introducing new ones.”

Adams had made many of the same points before the Bee opinion was published. On May 5, the Sierra County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a formal letter opposing SB 1305, written by Adams and signed by Board Chair Paul Roen. The county letter said Sierra County depends economically on tourism and livestock operations, while about 70% of the county is national forest system land, including areas similar to habitat discussed in grizzly reintroduction studies.

The county letter argued that California’s population and development make reintroduction impractical. It noted that grizzlies once ranged across much of California, including areas now occupied by San Francisco and Los Angeles, and suggested rural counties should not be expected to host the species while urban areas remain off the table. The letter also stated, “California has not yet shown the ability to effectively manage large, predatory animals listed under CESA for human-wildlife conflict.” The board ultimately approved the letter unanimously.

Supporters of SB 1305 have framed the bill differently, saying it would begin a careful study rather than force reintroduction. The bill is co-sponsored by the Tejon Indian Tribe and the Yurok Tribe, whose leaders have described the grizzly as culturally and spiritually significant, as well as ecologically important. In an April 2025 statement released with a California Grizzly Alliance feasibility study, Tejon Tribe Chairman Octavio Escobedo III said, “It’s important for people to realize that the grizzly bear isn’t just a symbol on a flag — it was a real animal that shaped California’s ecosystems and holds deep meaning for Tribal Nations across the state.”

Yurok Tribe Chairman Joseph L. James made a similar argument in the same release, pointing to the tribe’s condor restoration work as an example of long-term species recovery. “Based on this experience, we know that a potential return of the grizzly will require additional scientific research, widespread community buy-in, and collaboration,” James said. The 200-page study, led by UC Santa Barbara environmental historian Peter Alagona and released by the California Grizzly Alliance, concluded that there are no insurmountable biological, ecological, economic, legal, or policy barriers to returning grizzlies to California.

Support for the bill has also come from conservation and wildlife groups. During an April 7 Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee hearing, supporters included the California Grizzly Alliance, Sierra Club California, the Center for Biological Diversity, Women for Wolves, and Leaders for Ethics, Animals, and the Planet. Brendan Cummings of the Center for Biological Diversity also told the committee he was authorized to relay support from the California Native Plant Society, the National Parks Conservation Association, and other groups that signed a coalition letter.

Richardson and tribal supporters have emphasized that the bill was amended to require broader consultation before any future decision. At the April 7 hearing, Richardson said SB 1305 is “a study bill to determine if, how, when, and where the introduction of the grizzly bear would be successful.” Escobedo told the committee the measure asks whether it is possible to bring California’s state animal back “responsibly, collaboratively, and based on science.”

CDFW has previously expressed caution about the idea. In a public California Outdoors Q&A, the department said it was not convinced reintroducing grizzlies to present-day California was a good idea because of the state’s high human population and development across much of the bear’s former prime habitat. The department also cited wildlife connectivity issues, vehicle deaths, public safety concerns, and existing human-wildlife conflicts involving mountain lions, black bears, and coyotes.