Recently, an article published by SF GATE ran with a sensational headline painting Assembly Bill 1038 as a carte blanche for unleashing dogs to “attack” bears. In reality, AB 1038 focuses on restoring a humane and effective method—pursuit by trained hounds—to help manage California’s rapidly growing black bear population, prevent dangerous human-bear conflicts, and maintain ecological balance. Below, you’ll find a thorough correction of the misinformation and alarmist takes from the SF GATE piece, highlighting the science-driven goals of AB 1038 and addressing the inaccuracies perpetuated by certain anti-hunting groups. Read on to discover the facts behind this crucial wildlife management legislation.
1. Misrepresenting the Purpose of AB 1038
Article’s Claim
The article says the bill is purely about “letting hunting dogs attack bears,” implying an open season on bears driven to treetops for easy kills.
Correction
AB 1038 is about reintroducing dog pursuit under tightly regulated conditions—primarily to haze bears and restore their natural fear of humans. This includes a pursuit-only season where bears are neither harmed nor killed. If science-based harvest numbers are needed (as determined by the updated Bear Management Plan), the bill also allows for a carefully regulated hunting season using dogs. It’s not a free-for-all, and it specifically aims to reduce dangerous encounters in both rural and developed areas.
2. Outdated or Selective Population Data
Article’s Claim
Groups like the Bear League and the Humane Society suggest that black bear numbers haven’t significantly grown and are stable at lower estimates.
Correction
The latest CDFW data, referenced in the draft Black Bear Conservation Plan for California, places bear numbers between 65,000 and 80,000—far exceeding older estimates. Indeed, groups like HSUS previously claimed California had only 10,000 bears (if I remember correctly, but it may have been lower) when they petitioned to end bear hunting in 2022, a figure now shown to be grossly inaccurate. AB 1038 relies on the CDFW’s new research, ensuring that decisions about hunting or hazing seasons reflect the current reality, not outdated numbers.
3. “Attack” vs. “Haze”: Conflating Terminology
Article’s Claim
The article frequently uses terms like “attack” or “sic” when describing how hounds interact with bears, conjuring images of mauling or cruelty.
Correction
Dog pursuit for bears—often referred to as “hounding”—is typically about chasing and treeing a bear. In a pursuit-only context, the bear is hazed and not harmed. Properly trained hounds are used to reintroduce a fear of canines and humans into bear populations that have become overly bold or habituated to human areas. The notion of “attacking” is misleading; if the goal is hazing, the dogs do not physically engage the bear, and hunters do not kill the treed bear.
4. Non-Lethal Management Tool vs. “Easy Kill”
Article’s Claim
The piece frames dog pursuit as merely a convenient way for hunters to kill bears “easily.”
Correction
AB 1038 has two components:
-
Pursuit-Only Seasons for hazing bears and reducing conflicts without lethal force.
- A possible hunting season (guided by real-time data) if the updated Bear Management Plan shows bear populations are unsustainably high.
Yes, dog pursuit can be used to facilitate selective harvest. Historically, it’s also proven to be the most efficient and ethical method to manage bear numbers without high wounding rates. Furthermore, in nonlethal pursuit scenarios, the point is to safely haze bears away from populated areas, not to create “easy kills.”
5. Improperly Characterizing Where Hazing Occurs
Article’s Claim
Critics argue that hounds will only chase bears “in the wilderness,” and that no hazing would happen near neighborhoods, suggesting this policy can’t reduce urban conflicts.
Correction
Bears do not adhere to arbitrary lines between “forest” and “town.” Those that venture into suburban or urban areas often roam from adjacent wildlands, especially if they’ve lost their natural wariness. Reestablishing that fear—even outside immediate residential zones—can deter bears from returning to human-inhabited areas. Moreover, under AB 1038, trained dogs and hunters could assist in targeted hazing where necessary and legal, consistent with wildlife agency regulations.
6. The Real Impact on Public Safety
Article’s Claim
Statements suggest that hounding might even drive more bears into neighborhoods.
Correction
A primary factor causing bears to linger in communities is food availability (trash, unsecured bins, etc.), not being hazed in the wilderness. Historically, hazing with dogs has been used to push bears out of areas where they shouldn’t be. Bears that learn to associate humans, dogs, and developed areas with stress are less likely to rummage through trash or break into homes. This is precisely why AB 1038 references hounding as a form of “non-lethal wildlife management” and a proven conflict deterrent.
7. A Balanced Approach—Not a Blanket “Attack”
Article’s Claim
The piece relies heavily on anti-hunting rhetoric, asserting cruelty and painting a picture of dogs mauling bears or forcing them into easy kills.
Correction
AB 1038’s language clearly delineates a pursuit-only season and sets the stage for a science-based hunting season if needed. This approach is neither “cruel” nor “unsporting” when properly regulated:
-
Humane: Using dogs often results in a more humane harvest (when harvesting is necessary) with fewer wounded animals.
-
Selective: Hunters can assess the bear’s size, condition, and health before deciding to harvest, minimizing the chance of taking sows with cubs.
-
Regulated: The Fish and Game Commission will set strict guidelines, bag limits, and seasons based on updated CDFW data to ensure ecological balance.
8. Reality Check on “Cruel and Unsporting”
Article’s Claim
Points from a 2012 bill (SB 1221) claim that using dogs is “cruel and unsporting.”
Correction
That argument was largely emotion-driven and ignored input from wildlife professionals who noted that dog pursuit is one of the safest, most selective, and least wounding methods for hunting bears. It also keeps bears wary of humans, thereby reducing conflict. The success rate with or without hounds is not a measure of “sportsmanship” but of efficiency in targeted population management.
The article “California is considering letting hunting dogs attack bears” leans more on sensational anti-hunting narratives than on the updated science and goals behind AB 1038. California’s new data from CDFW indicates a significantly higher black bear population (65,000 to 80,000) than what was believed a decade ago. AB 1038 provides a measured response:
-
Non-lethal hazing to maintain a healthy distance between bears and people,
-
Evidence-based harvest if population control becomes necessary, and
-
Strict oversight informed by an updated Bear Management Plan.
In short, AB 1038 is far from a blanket license to “attack bears.” It’s a return to balanced, science-driven wildlife management that simultaneously addresses public safety, the well-being of our black bear populations, and the health of interconnected species like deer and mountain lions.
SUPPORT THIS SCIENCE-BASED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BILL HERE
