An act to add Sections 3960.7 and 3960.8 to the Fish and Game Code, relating to bears.
Summary
AB 1038 would change California’s bear-hunting rules by creating two new pathways for the use of dogs in bear pursuit. First, it would require the Fish and Game Commission to establish seasons during which a person may allow dogs to pursue a bear, so long as the bear is not injured or killed during that activity. Second, after the Department of Fish and Wildlife finalizes its long-delayed update to the 1998 Bear Management Plan, it would authorize the commission to establish a bear hunting season in which a tag holder may use dogs to pursue bears in areas the commission determines.
The bill is framed around the author’s findings that California’s black bear population has grown substantially, that bear-human conflicts have increased, and that the current prohibition on dogs has reduced harvest levels. The measure does not itself set a specific season, quota, or geographic boundary; instead, it directs the Fish and Game Commission to create seasons and conditions, and it ties the hunting-season authority to completion of the updated management plan. It also excludes game refuges and ecological reserves where hunting is otherwise unlawful.
Impact
AB 1038 would amend the Fish and Game Code by adding Sections 3960.7 and 3960.8, creating exceptions to the existing statewide prohibition on allowing dogs to pursue bears. It would expand the commission’s regulatory authority over bear pursuit and hunting by dogs, while preserving the commission’s role in setting seasons and areas and requiring the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Bear Management Plan update before a dog-assisted bear hunting season can open. The bill would affect bear hunters, houndsmen, wildlife managers, and areas where bear hunting is otherwise allowed, but it would not appropriate funds or directly change bear tag limits or harvest caps.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have support from members who favor expanded wildlife management tools and who accept the author’s premise that California’s bear population is too high and that dog pursuit would improve management. That said, the committee vote shows the measure was not unanimous: it passed the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee 6-4, indicating meaningful opposition. The absence of committee testimony in the provided record limits the ability to identify broader stakeholder sentiment, but the vote pattern suggests a divided response along familiar lines in hunting and wildlife policy debates.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether allowing dogs to pursue bears is a necessary wildlife-management tool or an unacceptable rollback of animal-welfare protections. Supporters, as reflected in the bill findings, argue that bear numbers, public safety risks, and ecosystem impacts justify restoring dog-assisted pursuit and hunting. Opponents are likely to focus on the cruelty and ethics of using dogs, the risk of injury or death to bears, and whether the bill relies on disputed claims about population levels, harvest rates, and ecological effects. Another point of dispute is the bill’s decision to condition the hunting-season authority on completion of the Bear Management Plan update, which suggests some deference to scientific review while still pushing for expanded hunting authority.
An act to amend Sections 2301 and 2302 of, and to add Section 2303 to, the Fish and Game Code, to add and repeal Section 515 of the Food and Agricultural Code, to amend Sections 675, 676, and 676.