AB 1038 is a findings-only measure that assembles scientific citations, administrative data, and historical claims to argue that California’s black bear population has grown far beyond the state’s carrying capacity and that prohibiting pursuit by dogs has reduced hunter take and increased human–bear conflict. The text frames hunters — specifically pursuit with dogs — as the most effective tool for reducing bear numbers, restoring ecosystem balance, and protecting public safety.
For professionals tracking wildlife policy, the bill is significant not because it amends a statute (it does not include operative language) but because it crystallizes the case any future authorizing measure would rely on: large population estimates (60,000–80,000 bears), a long-unchanged bear management plan, numerical harvest targets and caps, and the claim that SB 1221 (2012) unintentionally worsened outcomes. If these findings inform regulation or future legislation, they would reshape quota-setting, Commission deliberations, and the debate about whether and how hound-assisted hunting should be permitted.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 1038 supplies a set of findings asserting that California’s black bear population is much larger than previously estimated, that historic pursuit by dogs was uniquely effective at reducing bear numbers, and that the 2012 ban on dogs (SB 1221) lowered hunter harvest and contributed to increased human–bear conflict. The text does not itself amend the Fish and Game Code or specify rule changes.
Who It Affects
Hunting organizations and houndsmen, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Fish and Game Commission (as the bill’s facts would inform quota and regulatory decisions), livestock owners and rural communities facing depredation, and conservation and animal-welfare groups opposed to hound-assisted take.
Why It Matters
The findings create an evidentiary foundation for reinstating pursuit-by-dogs and raising allowable harvests; regulators or future legislators could cite this evidence when proposing concrete changes. The document reframes hunter harvest as an ecological management tool rather than solely a recreation or cultural practice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The text of AB 1038 is a single, extended findings section that strings together data points and interpretations the sponsor says justify a change in bear-management practice. It opens by asserting that California now contains more black bears than any other contiguous state and cites a draft revision to the state’s Bear Management Plan that, according to the bill, estimates 60,000–80,000 bears.
The findings emphasize increased human–bear encounters and note California’s first confirmed fatal black-bear attack in 2024 as a public-safety marker.
The bill then sets out a management philosophy: because black bears are apex predators with no natural enemies except humans, the state must actively manage their numbers, the findings contend. The text recalls that pursuit by dogs was historically used to harvest bears and labels that method “by far the most effective.” It blames Senate Bill 1221 (2012), which prohibited dogs for bear take beginning in 2013, for a substantial reduction in hunter harvests and argues that the loss of hazing by hounds has reduced bears’ wariness of humans, increasing conflict in suburban and urban areas.AB 1038 compiles numerical claims about tags and harvests: over 30,000 bear tags sold in 2024, a statutory harvest cap of 1,700 bears (set historically), but actual recent harvests closer to 1,000 bears and specific 2024 harvest figures cited inconsistently in the text.
The findings also link high bear numbers to ecosystem effects—higher mountain-lion kill rates, increased deer-fawn predation, and livestock depredation in places such as El Dorado County—citing kleptoparasitism research and other studies.Taken together, the bill's findings articulate a policy argument rather than enact a new rule: they position increased hunter harvest, particularly via pursuit with dogs, as the practical lever to reduce bear numbers and mitigate spillover harms to people, livestock, and other predators. The text leaves open how that lever would be operationalized — whether by amending Fish and Game Code, changing Commission regulation, adjusting tag or quota systems, or creating depredation exemptions — but establishes the factual and normative premises any such action would rely on.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 1038’s findings cite a draft Bear Management Plan estimating California’s black bear population at 60,000 to 80,000 animals.
The bill states California sold over 30,000 bear tags in 2024 while retaining a statutory limit allowing only 1,700 bears to be harvested annually.
AB 1038 identifies Senate Bill 1221 (2012) as the law that banned pursuit by dogs for bear hunting beginning in 2013 and credits that ban with lowering annual harvests.
The findings report the draft plan’s estimate that a maximum sustainable annual hunter harvest is near 16 percent of the population, contrasting that with the bill’s claim hunters have been harvesting less than 3 percent.
The text argues that banning pursuit by dogs reduced hazing behavior, diminished bears’ fear of humans and dogs, and thereby increased human–bear conflicts and ecological disruption (e.g.
effects on mountain lions and deer).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Population estimates and management plan status
These subsections present the core numerical claims: California allegedly hosts more black bears than any other contiguous state and a draft management plan — not yet codified in the bill — estimates 60,000–80,000 bears. The text also flags that the department’s last formal Bear Management Plan dates to 1998, framing the draft as the new authoritative baseline for management decisions.
Management philosophy and historical methods
Here the bill lays out its normative justification: because black bears lack natural predators, humans must manage them, and hunting — especially pursuit with dogs — is presented as the historically effective method. These paragraphs directly attribute a loss of bear wariness and increased human–bear encounters to the 2013 prohibition on dog-assisted pursuit, setting up the claimed causal link between policy change and public-safety outcomes.
Tags, harvest caps, and recent take data
These subsections supply administrative numbers the bill uses to argue current rules are inadequate: over 30,000 tags sold in 2024 versus an annual harvest cap of 1,700 bears, with reported recent harvests well below that cap. The text contains inconsistent harvest figures for 2024 (it lists 808, 972, and other numbers) but uses them collectively to argue the cap no longer reflects population realities or hunter capability without hound pursuit.
Ecosystem and public-safety consequences
The final cluster links high bear abundance to ecological effects — increased kleptoparasitism of mountain-lion kills, higher mountain-lion kill rates, depressed deer recruitment, and reported livestock depredation in El Dorado County — and concludes that prohibiting hound-assisted pursuit has materially contributed to these problems. The findings draw on cited studies and the draft plan to connect wildlife dynamics to human safety and agricultural impacts.
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
- Houndsmen and organized hunting groups — The bill’s findings explicitly rehabilitate pursuit-by-dogs as an effective tool, which would support any future regulatory or statutory change restoring that method and expanding hunting opportunity.
- Ranchers and livestock owners in bear-impacted counties — By framing bear abundance as a driver of livestock depredation, the text strengthens the case for more aggressive population control options that rural producers favor.
- Hunters seeking increased tags or harvest opportunity — The findings question the historical 1,700-harvest cap and reference a much higher sustainable take percentage, providing data that proponents can use to argue for higher quotas or more liberal seasons.
Who Bears the Cost
- Animal-welfare and conservation NGOs — Restoring hound-assisted pursuit and increasing harvest would be the direct policy outcomes these groups oppose on ethical and conservation grounds, making them likely opponents in regulatory and legal forums.
- California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Fish and Game Commission — If regulators choose to act on these findings, they would face politically fraught rulemaking, the need for new data collection, enforcement planning, and potential litigation, all of which impose administrative and budgetary burdens.
- Urban and suburban residents in overlapping ranges — Expanding hunting methods or seasons near the wildland–urban interface raises public-safety and nuisance risks (e.g., stray dogs, increased human activity) that communities not engaged in hunting would shoulder.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma AB 1038 raises is between using hunting (and specifically pursuit by dogs) as an efficient, culturally entrenched tool to reduce bear numbers and protect public safety, versus the ethical, safety, and ecological concerns that accompanied the 2012 prohibition; resolving that dilemma requires clearer data, explicit statutory and regulatory design, and political choices about how to trade increased hunter take for animal-welfare and community-safety protections.
AB 1038 is rhetorically dense but legally thin: it marshals data and causal claims without proposing the statutory text or regulatory changes necessary to legalize pursuit-by-dogs or alter quota mechanics. That gap matters because whether the state returns to hound-assisted take depends on specific Code amendments, Commission rulemaking, and operational controls (season timing, zone limits, public-safety buffers) that the bill does not address.
The bill’s empirical claims also raise implementation questions. It cites a draft plan and discrete studies linking bears to changes in mountain-lion behavior and deer recruitment, yet the draft-plan citation, uneven harvest figures, and sweeping causal attributions would likely be contested during scientific review or administrative proceedings.
Even if managers accept the population estimate, translating a population percentage (e.g., a purported 16% sustainable harvest) into an annual quota requires demographic models, spatially explicit harvest strategies, and safeguards against local overharvest. Finally, reintroducing pursuit by dogs carries operational trade-offs — detection and control of hounds, hunter conduct standards, safety zones near communities, and enforcement resources — that the findings do not engage.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.