AB 1024 creates the San Gabriel Valley Bear Management and Community Safety Act and charges the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) with producing a regional, city-focused plan to address increasing bear encounters in the San Gabriel Valley. The bill also directs DFW to set measurable goals for reducing human–bear interactions and to use technology-based tracking of bears that enter residential neighborhoods.
This is a targeted statute: it limits the new planning, reporting, and tracking requirements to cities in the San Gabriel Valley (Los Angeles County) and includes a legislative finding that a special statute is necessary. For practitioners, the bill shifts concrete operational responsibilities and data-collection duties to DFW, raises procurement and animal‑handling issues, and creates transparency obligations through public posting and reporting.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires DFW to develop a San Gabriel Valley–specific regional bear-management plan and post it online; establishes measurable performance goals for reducing urban bear encounters and requires the department to report those goals to the Legislature. It mandates tagging and tracking any bear that enters a residential neighborhood in the San Gabriel Valley using technologies such as GPS collars or AI-based tracking.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the cities located in the San Gabriel Valley (Los Angeles County), municipal animal control and public-safety agencies, technology vendors offering GPS/AI tracking solutions, and residents of neighborhoods adjacent to the San Gabriel Mountains.
Why It Matters
The bill localizes state wildlife management to a high-conflict urban fringe and authorizes technology-forward monitoring tied to policy goals, creating new operational tasks and data needs for DFW. It also establishes a narrow statutory model that other localities might try to replicate and raises immediate questions about funding, animal welfare, and data governance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1024 directs the Department of Fish and Wildlife to produce, by a set deadline, a regional plan tailored to cities in the San Gabriel Valley that explains bear behavior in the San Gabriel Mountains, identifies why bears enter neighborhoods, reviews municipal ordinances and response procedures, recommends best practices for cities, and reassesses the department’s internal bear classifications to inform local responses. The statute requires the department to make that plan publicly available on its website.
Separately, the bill requires DFW to establish measurable performance goals aimed at reducing bear encounters within San Gabriel Valley cities and to submit those goals to the Legislature. The bill ties the reporting obligation to existing Government Code procedures and includes a built‑in inoperability date for the reporting requirement, limiting the statutory reporting window.On the operational side, AB 1024 compels DFW to tag and track any bear that enters a residential neighborhood within the covered cities, using “innovative technologies” such as GPS tracking collars or AI-based tracking systems, and to monitor those animals after relocation.
That mandate will require capture or otherwise securing animals for tagging, decisions about acceptable technologies and monitoring protocols, and coordination with local agencies and potentially private vendors.Finally, the bill contains a legislative finding that a special statute is necessary for the County of Los Angeles, which limits the act’s scope to San Gabriel Valley cities and anchors the statute as a geographically targeted response rather than a statewide rule. The combination of planning, public reporting, and technology-enabled monitoring establishes a new model of state-led, region-specific wildlife conflict management.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill sets a statutory deadline: DFW must develop the San Gabriel Valley regional plan and submit measurable performance goals to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2027.
The reporting requirement for the Legislature is explicitly made inoperative on January 1, 2031, and any legislative submission must comply with Government Code section 9795 procedural rules.
The plan must include a reassessment of the department’s bear classifications—an explicit mechanism to potentially change how DFW and local responders categorize and respond to bears in the region.
DFW must tag and track any bear that enters a residential neighborhood in San Gabriel Valley cities, using technologies such as GPS collars or AI-based tracking systems, and must continue to monitor the bear after relocation.
The statute applies only to cities located within the San Gabriel Valley in Los Angeles County and contains a legislative finding that a special statute is necessary under Article IV, Section 16 of the California Constitution.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: San Gabriel Valley Bear Management and Community Safety Act
This section names the chapter and establishes the Act’s independence as a discrete policy instrument. Practically, the short-title section signals that the succeeding provisions are meant to operate together to address urban bear interactions in the San Gabriel Valley rather than as isolated directives.
Regional plan requirement and required components
Subsection (a) requires the department to develop a regional plan specific to cities in the San Gabriel Valley by January 1, 2027. Subsection (b) lists required plan elements: an overview of bear behaviors in the San Gabriel Mountains, causes for bears entering neighborhoods, analysis of city ordinances and procedures, a catalog of best practices for cities to adopt, and a reassessment of DFW’s bear classifications to inform local response. Subsection (c) obliges DFW to post the completed plan on its internet website, creating a public transparency requirement and a single dissemination channel for guidance to local governments and the public.
Measurable performance goals and legislative reporting
This section directs DFW to establish measurable performance goals aimed at reducing bear encounters within San Gabriel Valley cities and to submit a report containing those goals to the Legislature by January 1, 2027. The statute references Government Code procedures: the reporting obligation is tied to section 9795 for submission format and is scheduled to become inoperative on January 1, 2031 per Section 10231.5, limiting the statutory reporting window and oversight timeframe.
Tagging and tracking bears that enter residential neighborhoods
DFW must tag and track any bear that enters a residential neighborhood in the covered cities, using so-called innovative technologies such as GPS tracking collars or AI-based tracking systems. The provision explicitly requires monitoring after relocation, which implicates capture and handling operations, ongoing telemetry or AI monitoring capacity, and data management practices that the department will need to define when implementing the mandate.
Legislative findings — special statute for Los Angeles County
The Legislature declares that a special statute is necessary for the County of Los Angeles because of increased bear encounters in the San Gabriel Valley. That finding narrows the bill’s geographic scope and provides the constitutional justification for a law that applies to a limited set of local governments rather than the entire state.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents of San Gabriel Valley cities: The plan and measurable goals aim to reduce human–bear encounters, which should lower property damage, increase public safety, and give residents clearer guidance on preventing conflicts.
- San Gabriel Valley municipal governments: Cities receive a state-produced assessment of ordinances, best-practice recommendations, and a publicly posted plan they can use to revise local codes and response protocols without each city starting from scratch.
- Public-safety and animal-control agencies: The bill supplies guidance and performance targets that can standardize responses across jurisdictions and improve coordination between municipal responders and DFW.
- Data and wildlife-technology vendors: The explicit authorization to use GPS and AI tracking opens opportunities for vendors to supply collars, telemetry, and analytical services to DFW or its contractors.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Fish and Wildlife: DFW will incur planning, capture, collaring, monitoring, and data‑management costs; those operational expenses are not itemized in the bill and will require internal resource allocation or external funding.
- Local cities and municipalities: Cities must engage with DFW, review and potentially revise ordinances, and implement recommended best practices—tasks that will consume staff time and possibly budget for enforcement or community education.
- State taxpayers and budget planners: If DFW requires new appropriations to support capture-and-monitoring operations or contracts for technology and telemetry, the state budget would absorb those costs unless separately funded.
- Wildlife (bears): The requirement to capture, tag, relocate, and monitor bears imposes stress and potential welfare risks for individual animals and could drive management choices that prioritize monitoring over noninvasive mitigation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill faces a classic trade-off between protecting public safety in a concentrated hotspot and preserving wildlife welfare and scientific integrity: it seeks rapid, localized interventions (including invasive monitoring) to reduce human–bear encounters, but those same measures create operational, ethical, and fiscal burdens that could undermine long-term conservation goals if not implemented with clear funding, oversight, and animal‑welfare safeguards.
AB 1024 bundles three distinct policy moves—localized planning, performance measurement, and technology-enabled monitoring—into a single, geographically targeted statute. That packaging raises several implementation questions.
First, the tagging-and-tracking requirement applies to “any bear” entering a residential neighborhood, but capture and collaring at that scale may be resource‑intensive and risky: GPS collars require capture and handling, and AI-based monitoring systems require validated sensors, cameras, or telemetry inputs that may not reliably detect every animal. The bill does not appropriate funds or set procurement rules, leaving DFW to fill operational and budgetary gaps.
Second, the law triggers data-governance and privacy considerations without describing controls: AI-based tracking systems and telemetry create location data that implicates public-access rules, municipal privacy expectations, and potential liability for misuse. The statute mandates website posting and legislative reporting but does not define retention, access, or third‑party vendor oversight.
Finally, the reassessment of bear classifications could change response thresholds, but the bill provides no procedural guardrails for how classifications will be altered, by whom, or with what scientific standards—raising the prospect of shifting policy based on local political pressure rather than transparent, peer-reviewed science.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.