SB 1305 declares it is California policy to restore the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) to the state and tasks the unnamed “department” with producing a public roadmap for reintroduction. The bill sets out what the roadmap must contain—scientific assessments, tribal consultation with priority for tribes whose ancestral territory overlaps proposed areas, independent peer review, identification of relocation sites, management and conflict‑response protocols, cost estimates, and proposed regulatory language—and requires submission of the roadmap to the Legislature, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and the commission by June 30, 2028.
The measure also bars any reintroduction effort until multiple preconditions are met (biological viability findings, tribal and community consultation, conflict‑minimization and animal welfare procedures, and promulgated regulations), exempts a list of specified California code sections “as they relate to bears” from applying to grizzlies, and authorizes the department to accept public or private funds (subject to appropriation) to implement the chapter. The bill embeds cultural recognition of tribal ties to grizzlies and frames reintroduction as an ecosystem‑restoration and cultural‑repair initiative, while delegating operational details to the department and future regulations.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes a state policy to restore grizzly bears and requires the department to develop and publish a detailed roadmap for reintroduction; the roadmap must cover science, tribal engagement, relocation site identification, management protocols, costs, and proposed regulations. It prohibits any reintroduction until specific scientific, consultative, welfare, and regulatory preconditions are met.
Who It Affects
State wildlife agencies (the department and commission), California Native American tribes (prioritized for consultation), the University of California and research community (consultation and peer review roles), residents, landowners, and local governments in and around proposed reintroduction areas, and stakeholders who manage livestock, recreation, or infrastructure in those areas.
Why It Matters
This bill converts grizzly reintroduction from conceptual debate into an administrative obligation with a deliverable deadline and defined criteria for proceeding. It sets the framework for how science, tribal values, and public engagement must shape any future reintroduction and allocates funding authority and regulatory space for the department to implement that framework.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1305 begins with findings that frame grizzly bears as an ecological keystone and an important cultural figure for many California Native American tribes, and then converts that framing into state policy: the Legislature declares restoration of the grizzly as state policy. The operational center of the bill is a required roadmap the department must develop and publish.
That roadmap must rely on the best available scientific data—habitat suitability, population modeling, and viability thresholds—while also explicitly incorporating independent peer review and University of California coordination.
The bill makes tribal engagement a formal priority. It requires consultation with tribes whose ancestral territories overlap proposed reintroduction areas and asks the department to include cultural, spiritual, and ecological tribal values in the roadmap.
The department must also coordinate with local governments, landowners, residents, and other stakeholders, and describe how it will conduct public outreach in affected communities.On the logistics side, the roadmap must identify potential relocation areas using ecological criteria, land ownership and connectivity considerations, and risk of human–wildlife conflict. It must specify management procedures—animal handling, translocation logistics, postrelease monitoring, and conflict response protocols—and estimate implementation costs alongside an analysis of cultural, ecological, and socioeconomic benefits.
The bill directs that the roadmap be submitted to the Legislature’s budget and policy committees, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and the commission by June 30, 2028, and be made publicly available.Crucially, SB 1305 forbids any reintroduction until several preconditions are met: (1) scientific determinations about biological and ecological viability; (2) consultation with tribes and engagement with affected communities; (3) adopted procedures to minimize risks to people and property; (4) adopted procedures promoting bear welfare; and (5) promulgated regulations that specify when taking grizzlies may be authorized. The statute also carves out an express list of California code sections that, “as they relate to bears,” will not apply to grizzly bears, and it authorizes the department to accept funds from public or private sources and expend them when appropriated.
Finally, the bill makes clear it does not limit existing California Endangered Species Act authorities, leaving broader statutory duties intact.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The department must deliver and publicly post a detailed grizzly reintroduction roadmap and submit it to the Legislature, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and the commission by June 30, 2028.
The roadmap must include independent peer review, University of California coordination, priority consultation with tribes whose ancestral lands overlap proposed areas, and a framework for incorporating tribal cultural and spiritual values.
The roadmap must identify potential relocation areas by ecological criteria, land ownership, habitat connectivity, and human–wildlife conflict risk, and describe translocation, monitoring, and conflict‑response procedures plus implementation cost estimates.
No reintroduction may proceed until the department (or others) make scientific viability determinations, complete tribal and community consultation, adopt human‑safety and animal‑welfare procedures, and promulgate regulations governing when taking grizzlies is allowed.
SB 1305 exempts a set of existing California code sections (listed in the bill by section numbers) ‘as they relate to bears’ from applying to grizzly bears and allows the department to accept and, if appropriated, spend public or private funds for implementation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings and rationale
This section collects scientific, historical, and cultural findings: the bill frames grizzlies as a keystone species with widespread ecological effects, documents their extirpation in the early 20th century, notes recent genomic work linking California grizzlies to broader North American populations, and emphasizes the species’ cultural significance to California Native American tribes. Practically, these findings create the legislative predicate for declaring restoration policy and justify prioritizing tribal values and ecosystem objectives in the roadmap.
Official state policy to restore grizzly bears
A concise policy statement declares the state’s objective to restore the grizzly. While it does not itself authorize translocation or management actions, the policy language sets an administrative priority that will guide the department’s subsequent rulemaking, planning, and funding requests.
Roadmap content requirements
This subdivision lists mandatory content for the roadmap: scientific assessments (habitat, modeling, viability), prioritized tribal consultation and a framework to incorporate tribal values, independent peer review, coordination with the UC system and other experts, identification of relocation areas using ecological and land‑use criteria, detailed management and conflict response procedures, cost estimates and benefit analyses, and draft regulations governing taking and management. Each item constrains how the department must structure its technical and public engagement work.
Deadline and submission protocol
The department must submit the completed roadmap to the Legislature’s relevant budget and policy committees, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and the commission by June 30, 2028, and publish it online. The submission must comply with Government Code Section 9795, which governs certain legislative reports; this ties the roadmap into formal legislative and fiscal review processes and enables legislative oversight of projected costs and implementation plans.
Preconditions required before any reintroduction
SB 1305 prohibits authorization of reintroduction until several concrete conditions are met: authoritative scientific findings on the feasibility of a self‑sustaining population, documented consultation with tribes and public engagement with local communities, adoption of procedures to minimize human safety and property risks, adoption of procedures to promote bear welfare, and promulgation of regulations that define when and how taking may be authorized. This makes reintroduction a contingent, regulated process rather than an immediate executive action.
Code exemptions, funding authority, and non‑limitation of CES Act powers
Subdivision (e) lists specific statutory sections that, 'as they relate to bears,' shall not apply to grizzly bears—creating legal exceptions that the department will need to interpret during implementation. Subdivision (f) expresses legislative intent that the department and commission receive sustainable funding and explicitly authorizes the department to accept funds from any source and expend them subject to appropriation. Subdivision (g) clarifies that nothing in this chapter limits authorities under the California Endangered Species Act, preserving existing statutory responsibilities and enforcement tools.
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
- California Native American tribes — the bill prioritizes tribal consultation and requires the roadmap to incorporate cultural, spiritual, and ecological tribal values, which advances tribes’ formal role in planning and could restore cultural relationships with the species.
- Conservation scientists and the University of California system — the roadmap mandates scientific assessments, population modeling, and independent peer review, creating research, monitoring, and advisory roles for academic institutions.
- Wildlife conservation organizations — the policy and roadmap formalize restoration as a state objective, providing a platform for NGOs to secure funding, participate in planning, and implement habitat and coexistence projects.
- Ecosystems and associated native species — restoring an apex/umbrella species aims to reestablish ecological functions (vegetation structure, nutrient cycling, trophic dynamics) that benefit biodiversity across landscapes.
- The department and commission (administrative capacity) — the bill authorizes acceptance of funds and signals legislative support, positioning agencies to build programs, hire staff, and develop regulations tied to a clear policy mandate.
Who Bears the Cost
- Ranchers and livestock owners near reintroduction areas — increased exposure to predation risk and compliance with conflict‑mitigation protocols could result in incremental costs and operational changes.
- Local governments and counties — the roadmap requires community engagement and likely support for public safety, infrastructure adjustments, emergency response, and coordination that will impose planning and fiscal burdens at the local level.
- Private landowners and residents in proposed sites — potential restrictions on land use, altered recreation management, and new coexistence requirements may reduce flexibility and create liability or insurance questions.
- The state Department and commission — preparing the roadmap, conducting monitoring and outreach, carrying out translocation logistics, and implementing regulations will require staff time and budgetary resources, especially if appropriations lag.
- Livestock insurance providers and state compensation programs — if grizzly reintroduction leads to increased depredation claims, insurers and state indemnity schemes could face higher payouts or pressure to expand coverage.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is restoring a culturally and ecologically significant apex predator to enhance ecosystem function and honor tribal relationships, while simultaneously protecting public safety, private property, and local land‑use practices; the bill mandates science and consultation to bridge that gap but leaves the politically and technically difficult trade‑offs to future regulations and funding decisions.
SB 1305 stitches together high‑level policy, scientific requirements, tribal consultation, and a near‑term deliverable, but it leaves many consequential implementation choices for future regulation and funding decisions. The statute requires scientific determinations and peer review but does not define precise scientific thresholds (e.g., minimum viable population size, genetic diversity benchmarks, or disease‑screening standards), leaving those critical technical thresholds to the department and reviewers.
That delegation creates room for rigorous science but also for controversy over what standards will be used and who gets to set them.
The bill privileges tribal consultation and cultural values while also mandating consultation with local communities, landowners, and stakeholders. Those two priorities can collide in practice: tribes may favor restoration in ancestral areas where modern residents oppose reintroduction.
The statute requires community engagement but does not provide mechanisms to resolve intractable local opposition, nor does it define compensation or liability frameworks for property or public‑safety impacts. Funding language authorizes acceptance of public and private funds and expenditure subject to appropriation, but the bill contains no specific appropriation.
That exposes implementation to fiscal politics: the roadmap could identify measures that are technically feasible but unfunded, or conversely, receive private funds that come with conditions.
Finally, the bill excludes a list of existing code provisions "as they relate to bears," which may create legal ambiguity during implementation. It also preserves California Endangered Species Act authority, producing potential regulatory overlap with state and federal endangered‑species laws and with local ordinances.
Key unresolved operational issues include sourcing translocation animals (disease and genetic considerations), liability and compensation for damages, enforcement of coexistence rules, and realistic modeling of human‑bear interaction outcomes under varying land‑use scenarios.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.