City Council
Cody Bass, Mayor
Vacant, Mayor Pro Tem
Scott Robbins, Councilmember
David Jinkens, Councilmember
Keith Roberts, Councilmember
Mission of the City Council
We provide responsive and effective local
government by maintaining a safe, livable, and
well-managed city through smart investment,
reliable services, and thoughtful planning.
City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council and South Tahoe Redevelopment Successor
Agency
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 5:30 pm
City Hall - Council Chambers - 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe Public Participation
City Council meetings are held in person at the time and location listed on this agenda. Meetings are live-streamed on Channel 21, City website at www.cityofslt.us, YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3LYne8Ih-kTPLnnuyJW9SQ/live and via ZOOM at this link https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87996851108
A public agenda packet is available for review at City Hall, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, on the City’s Website at www.cityofslt.us, or by contacting the City Clerk's Office, (530) 542-6005 or [email protected] Providing Public Comment:
In Person: Every agenda for regular meetings provides an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body (City Council), on any item of public interest which is within the jurisdiction of the City Council during Public Communications. For items on the agenda or in connection with any item which the City Council will consider, the public is given the opportunity to comment before or during the City Council's consideration of the item [Government Code Section 54954.3(a)].
Remote Participation: If you are joining the meeting via ZOOM and would like to make a comment, press the "raise a hand" button. If you are joining the meeting via Channel 21 or live stream and would like to make a comment, please call (530) 542-6500. The Webinar ID is: 879 9685 1108. Press *9 to indicate a desire to make a comment. Press *6 to unmute your phone. The Clerk will call you by the last three digits of your phone number when it is your turn to speak. Note: The Mayor reserves the right to conduct the meeting with in-person public participation only, if there is a technology malfunction that precludes the use of remote public participation.
In Writing: Written comments received by 3 p.m. the day before the meeting will be distributed to City Council prior to the meeting. Written public comment regarding any item on this agenda may be sent to [email protected]. When emailing comments, identify the agenda item number in the subject line to which your comments relate. Any such comment that is a public record and is emailed to 1 1. City Council Vacancy
2. 2026 Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem Selection
[email protected] or otherwise provided to a majority of the City Council before the meeting will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the City Clerk's Office located at City Hall, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe [Government Code Section 54957.5(b)]. Written comments will not be read out loud during the meeting.
The City Council Chambers meeting facility is accessible to people with disabilities. Every reasonable effort will be made to accommodate any person needing special assistance to attend this meeting.
Contact the City Clerk at (530) 542-6005 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting for assistance [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II and Brown Act Government Code Sections 54953.2, 54954.1, 54954.2, and 54957.5].
Spanish Interpretations: The public may access Spanish interpretation using the ZOOM link listed on the front of the Agenda from an internet device (smartphone, laptop, tablet, home computer) with audio capabilities and selecting the Spanish language option. Persons without an internet device may attend the meeting in-person and a device will be provided while supplies last. Requests for interpreter services to offer public comment may be made by contacting the City Clerk.
Land Acknowledgement
Land Acknowledgement - The City of South Lake Tahoe acknowledges the lands we occupy today are the lands and home of the Wašíšiw, the people from here known today as the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, a sovereign nation. Since the beginning of time and for thousands of years before the arrival of any other people, the Washoe lived here and cared for this place, with values and intention that we can all learn from. On behalf of the City Council, I would like to acknowledge, thank, and honor the Indigenous Washoe Tribal Communities that are the past, present, and future stewards of the Lake Tahoe Basin.
Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Closed Session Report
Public Communications
This is the public's opportunity to speak on any topic NOT LISTED on this agenda. Comments shall be limited to four (4) minutes. In accordance with the Brown Act, the City Council cannot deliberate or vote on any matter raised under public communications, but may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed. (Government Code Sections 54954.2)
City Commission Reports
Reorganization of City Council
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: 1) Pass a Resolution calling for a special municipal election for the election of a Councilmember to fill a vacancy, and requesting that the Board of Supervisors of the County of El Dorado approve consolidation of said election with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on June 2, 2026; or 2) Pass a Motion to fill the vacancy by appointment from the applicant list.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Item 1- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report-City Council Vacancy.docx
02-Resolution-Consolidated Special Election.docx
03-Applicant List.docx
04-EDC Elections Candidate Calendar
2 3. Black Bear Management in South Lake Tahoe
4. City Council Meeting Minutes and Meeting Minute Amendment
5. Fiscal Year 2024-25 Quarterly Financial Status Report - Quarter Ending September 2025
6. Transfer of Unclaimed Check Funds
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion selecting a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem for the year 2026.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Item 2- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report-Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem Selection 2026.pdf Presentations
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Receive a presentation from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and either: 1) Pass a Motion directing staff to make certain changes to enforcement of existing ordinance or adoption of new ordinances; or 2) Take no action at this time.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police, and Heather Stroud, City Attorney Item 3- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report - Black Bear Management.docx
02 - CDFW Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan.pdf 03 - CDFW 2022 Black Bear Policy with 2024 Addendum 1.pdf 04 - Letter from CDFW.pdf
05-SLT City Council Meeting Oct 2025.pptx
Consent Agenda
Public Comment - This is the public's opportunity to speak on any topic listed on the Consent Agenda.
Comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes per item and six (6) minutes total per speaker.
The consent agenda consists of items of a repeating or routine nature considered under a single action.
Any Councilmember may have an item on the consent agenda removed and considered separately upon request.
Pass a Motion to adopt the Consent Agenda in one motion except as indicated at each item.
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion approving the minutes from the November 18, 2025, City Council meeting. Receive and file amendment to Item 20 on the November 4, 2025, meeting minutes, removing "...to continue to pursue the Heavenly area annexation" from the motion.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Michelle Davis, Assistant City Clerk and Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Item 4- Executive Summary.pdf
11 18 2025 City Council Meeting Minutes.pdf
11_04_2025_City_Council_Meeting_Minutes - signed.pdf
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Receive and file.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Andrew Black, Financial Services Supervisor Item 5- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report - FY 2024-25 Quarterly Budget.docx
02-FY 2024-25 Qtrly Budget Report Sept 2025.pdf
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution authorizing the transfer of unclaimed check funds from their respective fund(s) to the General Fund pursuant to California Government Code sections 50050 through 50057.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Akemi Nishimura, Accountant I Item 6- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report - Unclaimed Check Funds.docx
02-Resolution - Unclaimed Check Funds.docx
3 7. Investment Portfolio Report - September 30, 2025
8. Approval of City Salary Table and California Minimum Wage Increase
9. Agreement with AARP Tax-Aid for Senior Tax Assistance at the Recreation Center.
10. Agreement with the Public Health Institute for Fellowship Donation for the CivicSpark Program
11. Boat Safety and Enforcement Equipment Purchase
12. Ratification of Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Walker Telecom to extend the Term to December 31, 2026.
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Receive and file.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Item 7- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report Investment Report Sep 2025.pdf
02-Operations Cash September 2025.pdf
03-Fiscal Agent 09 30 2025.pdf
04-Graph 09 30 2025.pdf
05-Cash September 2025.pdf
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass Resolution raising the minimum wage for City employees to $16.90, effective January 1, 2026, as required by State law.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Ember Buckman, Human Resources Manager Item 8- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report Approval of City Salary Table - Minimum Wage Increase.docx 02-Resolution - Approval of City Salary Table and California Minimum Wage Increase.docx 03 - City Salary Schedule 12092025 (Exh A to Reso).pdf
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute a fee waiver and Agreement with AARP Tax-Aid for Senior Tax Assistance at the Recreation Center.
CEQA Determination: This action is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15323 (normal operations of facilities for public gatherings).
Responsible Staff Member(s): John Stark, Director of Parks & Recreation Item 9- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report - Agreement with AARP Tax-Aid.docx
02-Resolution - Agreement with AARP Tax-Aid Program.docx 03-Agreement with AARP Tax Aid Program (Exh. A to Reso).docx Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute an Agreement with the Public Health Institute for the donation of an 8-month fellowship for the CivicSpark Program for a total amount of $17,500.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager Item 10- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report-Civic Spark Fellow Program
02-Donation Approval Form
03-CivicSpark Service Agreement
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion authorizing the purchase and installation of two Mercury Verado 350 HP Outboard motors for the Police Department patrol boat from North Tahoe Marina, Inc. using existing budget appropriations up to $106,926.01.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Lt. Russell Liles
Item 11- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report - Boat Safety and Enforcement Equipment .docx 02-Planet bids PD Boat.pdf
03-RO37815 South Lake Police Repair Order.pdf
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute Ratification of Amendment No. 3 to Professional Services Agreement C-167-2020 to 4 13. Three-Party Professional Services Contract with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and Ascent Environmental Inc. for Environmental Analysis of the Mid-Town Area Plan
14. Purchase of Chevrolet 2500HD 4WD Crew Cab for the Parks Department
15. Type I Fire Engine Purchase
16. Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) Fiscal Year 2026-2027 extend the term to December 31, 2026.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police Item 12- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report - Walker Telecom Contract Extension.docx 02-Amendment No. 3 to Agreement with Walker Telecom.docx 3-Walker Telecom Revised Exhibit A 2025.docx
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute a three-party professional services contract with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and Ascent Environmental Inc. for Environmental Analysis of the Mid-Town Area Plan.
CEQA Determination: This action is statutorily exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15262 (feasibility and planning studies).
Responsible Staff Member(s): Anna Kashuba, Senior Planner Item 13- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report - Mid-Town Area Plan Agreement.docx
02 - Mid-Town Area Plan Boundary.jpg
03-Three-Party Agreement for Environmental Analysis
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a Purchase Order for One (1) Chevrolet 2500 HD in the amount of $63,400.80.
Responsible Staff Member(s): John Dickinson, Interim Director of Public Works, and Phil Harwood, Maintenance Manager
Item 14- Executive Summary.pdf
01- Staff Report - Truck
02- Invoice
03- BidSummary 2500 Parks.pdf
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute a purchase agreement with Goldenstate Fire Apparatus and Pierce Manufacturing for the purchase of one Type I Fire Engine for a total cost of $1,193,098.73.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Jim Drennan, Fire Chief
Item 15- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report - Fire Engine Purchase.docx
02-South Lake Tahoe Proposal Package - 17 Nov 25.pdf
03-HGAC Contract FS12-23 South Lake Tahoe PUC Pumper.pdf Consent Agenda (South Tahoe Redevelopment Successor Agency) Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Acting as the South Tahoe Redevelopment Successor Agency Board, Pass a Resolution approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177 for the fiscal period commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2027.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Olga Tikhomirova, Finance Director Item 16- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report ROPS 2026-27.DOCX
02-Resolution STRSA ROPS 2026-27.DOCX
03-ROPS 2026-27 (Exh. A to Resolution).pdf
04-Sponsoring Entity Loan Repayment ROPS 2026-27 (Exh. B to Resolution).pdf 05-2004 City Loan Statutory Amortization Schedule.pdf
5 17. South Tahoe Refuse 2026 Interim Year and Senate Bill 1383 Rate Increase
18. Agreement with Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership for On-Street Parking and Amendments to Parking Restrictions in the Heavenly Valley Neighborhood
19. City Council Assignments to Boards and Commissions
20. Update to City Council Protocols
Public Hearing
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: (1) Conduct a Majority Protest Public Hearing; and if no majority protest is received; (2) Pass a Motion approving South Tahoe Refuse Interim Year Rate Increase of 5.10 percent and Senate Bill 1383 Increase of 5.08 Percent (totaling an increase of $4.38 per month for residential customers and $5.01 per cubic yard for commercial customers), effective January 1, 2026.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Sara Letton, Sustainability Coordinator Item 17- Executive Summary.pdf
01 - Staff Report South Tahoe Refuse 2025 Rate Adjustment.docx 02 - Rate Setting Manual.pdf
03 - Public Notification.pdf
04 - Rate Review Report.pdf
05 - 2025 - 26 Clean Tahoe Budget.pdf
06 - Clean Tahoe Final Report.pdf
Regular-Unfinished Business
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: 1) Pass a Motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute the Agreement with Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership for On-Street Parking; and 2) Pass a Resolution amending the seasonal parking restrictions on certain streets in the Heavenly Valley Neighborhood (replaces Resolution 2025-059).
CEQA Determination: This action is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Responsible Staff Member(s): Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager Item 18- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report-Heavenly Parking Agreement.docx
02-Heavenly Parking Agreement
03-Resolution 2025-XX Parking Restrictions in Heavenly Neighborhood Regular-New Business
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Discuss and select City Council appointment(s) to various Boards, Commissions, and Subcommittees. Council may also establish new subcommittees, such as an ad hoc Regional Housing Policy Subcommittee and ad hoc Sign Ordinance Subcommittee.
City Council is asked to: 1) Pass a Motion establishing any new subcommittees desired by City Council; 2) Pass a Motion approving City Council appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Subcommittees; and 3) Pass a Motion appointing a City Council Representative to each of the following: El Dorado County Commission on Aging (one-year term), and the El Dorado County Community Action Council (one-year term).
Responsible Staff Member(s): Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Item 19- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report-Assignments to Commissions and Boards
02-Draft 2026 Assignment list.docx
03-Notice of Solicitation - Council Representative
04-Messina Application
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion approving amendments to City Council Protocols to: (1) update the regular meeting calendar; and (2) addition of a provision allowing remote participation as a reasonable accommodation for a disability. City Council may request 6 21. Amended and Restated Purchase and Sale Agreement with NDC Lake Tahoe, LP for Affordable Housing Project at 3900-3908 Lake Tahoe Boulevard
22. Agenda Planning Calendar
additional changes to the City Council Protocols be brought forward at a future meeting.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Item 20- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report-Protocols 2026.docx
02-2026 City Council Protocols (redline)
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: 1) Pass a Resolution authorizing the Finance Director to appropriate $1,000,000 from the General Fund Undesignated Excess Reserves into the expense budget line item for the donation to NDC Lake Tahoe, LP for the purchase of the property at 3900- 3908 Lake Tahoe Boulevard; and 2) Pass a Motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute the Amended and Restated Purchase and Sale Agreement Amendment with NDC Lake Tahoe, LP.
CEQA Determination: This project is statutorily exempt from CEQA under Senate Bill 35.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli, Housing Manager and Crystal Plotner, Assistant Housing Planner
Item 21- Executive Summary.pdf
01 - Staff Report - Amended and Restated Agreement with Novin.docx 02-Resolution - Budget Appropriation.docx
03 - Novin Request Letter.pdf
04 - Agreement of Purchase and Sale of 3900 and 3908 LTB 05 - Amended and Restated Purchase and Sale Agreement.pdf 06 - Predevelopment Loan Agreement
07 - First Amendment to Predevelopment Loan Agreement
Agenda Planning Calendar
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Identify, with consent of at least two Council Members, any desired future agenda items, and/or modify the Agenda Planning Calendar as desired.
Responsible Staff Member(s): Susan Blankenship, City Clerk, and Joseph Irvin, City Manager Item 22- Executive Summary.pdf
APC - 12 04 2025.pdf
Updates and Announcements (City Attorney, City Clerk, City Manager) Councilmember Reports and Comments - Assignments to Boards, Committees, and Commissions
Adjournment
I, Susan Blankenship, City Clerk for the City of South Lake Tahoe, declare that the foregoing agenda for the Tuesday December 9, 2025, City Council meeting was posted and available for review on Thursday, December 4, 2025, at City Hall, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. The agenda was also available on the City's website at https://www.cityofslt.us.
Signed December 4, 2025
\\sb\\ Susan Blankenship, Elected City Clerk
7 City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: December 9,
2025
Agenda Item #:1
Agenda Item: City Council Vacancy
Executive Summary: As of October 13, 2025, there exists a vacancy on City Council. Pursuant to Gov.
Code 36512(b), “If a vacancy occurs in an elective office provided for in this chapter, the council shall, within 60 days from the commencement of the vacancy, either fill the vacancy by appointment or call a special election to fill the vacancy.†City Council shall fill the vacancy by calling a special election or by appointment before December 12, 2025.
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: 1) Pass a Resolution calling for a special municipal election for the election of a Councilmember to fill a vacancy, and requesting that the Board of Supervisors of the County of El Dorado approve consolidation of said election with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on June 2, 2026; or 2) Pass a Motion to fill the vacancy by appointment from the applicant list.
Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Reviewed and Approved By: Heather Stroud, City Attorney Attachments:
01-Staff Report-City Council Vacancy.docx
02-Resolution-Consolidated Special Election.docx
03-Applicant List.docx
04-EDC Elections Candidate Calendar
8 Council Agenda Report- December 9, 2025 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: December 9, 2025
Title: City Council Vacancy
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Background: On October 13, 2025, former Mayor Tamara Wallace submitted her resignation to the City Clerk, effective immediately.
Pursuant to Gov. Code 36512(b), “If a vacancy occurs in an elective office provided for in this chapter, the council shall, within 60 days from the commencement of the vacancy, either fill the vacancy by appointment or call a special election to fill the vacancy.” Pursuant to Gov. Code 36512 (1) “If the council calls a special election, the special election shall be held on the next regularly established election date not less than 114 days from the call of the special election. A person elected to fill a vacancy holds office for the unexpired term of the former incumbent.”
At their October 21 meeting, Council directed the City Clerk to solicit applications to fill the vacancy by appointment.
At their November 18 meeting, Council interviewed twenty-two applicants but were unbale to come to a consensus on filling the vacancy by appointment or calling a Special Election.
Issue and Discussion: The Council has until December 12, 2025, to fill the vacancy by appointment or call a Special Election to fill the vacancy. The person appointed or elected to fill the vacancy will hold office until the end of the term of the former incumbent’s office, December 2026.
City Council may: 1) Pass a Resolution of the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe, County of El Dorado, Calling for the Holding of a Special Municipal Election for the Election of a Councilmember to Fill a Vacancy as Required by the Provisions of the Laws of the State of California Relating to General Law Cities, and Requesting that the Board of Supervisors of the County of El Dorado approve consolidation of said election with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on June 2, 2026. or 2) Pass a Motion to fill the vacancy by appointment from the applicant list.
Financial Implications: The cost for City Council Compensation for a limited appointment or the cost to hold a special election would come from existing City Council Budget. 9 Council Agenda Report- December 9, 2025 Page 2 of 2
Environmental Considerations: This action is not a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) (organizational or administrative activities that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment).
Policy Implications: The appointment to office or calling a Special Election conforms to Government Code.
10 Resolution 2025-XXX December 9, 2025 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2025-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
December 9, 2025
Resolution Calling for a Special Municipal Election for the Election of a Councilmember to Fill a Vacancy, and Requesting that the Board of Supervisors of the County of El Dorado approve consolidation of said election with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on June 2, 2026
BACKGROUND
A. A vacancy in the office of Councilmember was created by the resignation of Tamara Wallace on October 13, 2025.
B. Under Government Code section 36512(b), if a vacancy occurs in an elective office provided for in this chapter, the council shall, within 60 days from the commencement of the vacancy, either fill the vacancy by appointment or call a special election to fill the vacancy.
C. Under Government Code section 36512(b)(1), if the Council calls a special election, the special election shall be held on the next regularly established election date not less than 114 days from the call of the special election. A person elected to fill a vacancy holds office for the unexpired term of the former incumbent.
D. The term of office in which the vacancy occurs ends December 2026.
E. Under South Lake Tahoe City Code section 2.01.030 and California Elections Code section 10403, the City Council is requesting that the Special Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on June 2, 2026.
BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe:
1. Pursuant to the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities, calls and orders to be held in the City of South Lake Tahoe, County of El Dorado, a Special Municipal Election to be consolidated with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, for the election of one (1) Council Members.
2. Requests that the Board of Supervisors of the County of El Dorado approve consolidation of said Special Election with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on June 2, 2026.
3. Acknowledges that the consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in California Elections Code section 10418.
4. Directs the City Clerk to file a certified copy of this resolution with the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors and the El Dorado County Recorder Clerk-Elections Division.
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on December 9, 2025 by the following vote:
Yes:
No:
Absent:
Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
11 Resolution 2025-XXX December 9, 2025 Page 2 of 2
Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
12 Applicant List
Dyna Boen
Andrew Contreras
Bobby Gonzales
Alberto Manfredi
Gared Moses
Nerissa Murin
Christopher Neal
Joe Soave
Samantha Turle
Melissa Soderston
Francois Inshaw
Dustin Kieschnick
Heather Horgan
Erika Gonzalez
Aimi Xistra
Heather Cade-Bauer
Manuel Jimenez
Douglas Williams
Peter Fink
Grant McCracken
Veronica Morales
Johnathon Springer
13 From: Linda Webster
To: Susan Blankenship
Cc: Rena L. Russell
Subject: Re: June 2 Election
Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 9:56:31 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Outlook-z4yfr2bj.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sue,
The date to submit a resolution calling the election would be January 28, 2026, this is 125 days prior to the June election. Candidate filing period would be February 9 through March 6, 2026.
Linda
Linda Webster
Registrar of Voters
County of El Dorado
[email protected]
530-621-7480
From: Susan Blankenship <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 9:42 AM
To: Linda Webster <[email protected]>
Subject: June 2 Election
Hi Linda, if the City adds onto the June 2 Election with a Special Election for 1 City Council Candidate, how soon to you need our resolution of consolidated election? 14 Susan Blankenship, CMC (she/her)
City Clerk
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
o/(530) 542-6005
c/(530) 318-0496
f/(530) 542-7411
[email protected]
http://www.cityofslt.us
Please note that email correspondence with the City of South Lake Tahoe, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
WARNING: This email and any attachments may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments) by other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments. 15 RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DESCRIPTION
12/11/2025
2/4/2026
1/26/2026
2/4/2026
2/5/2026
2/9/2026
2/2/2026
3/4/2026
PRIMARY ELECTION
CANDIDATE CALENDAR
JUNE 2, 2026
The information contained in this calendar is the research and opinions of the County of El Dorado Election's staff. Any questions regarding legal interpretations contained herein should be reviewed with the appropriate public counsel.
Candidates/
Registrar of
Voters
Date
PETITION IN-LIEU OF FILING FEE - ALL CANDIDATES
(E.C. §§ 8061, 8105, 8106)
Forms may be obtained from the County Election Official during this period. Petition forms may be obtained to secure signatures in-lieu of all or a portion of the filing fee. Signatures submitted on the in-lieu petition may also be applied to the signature requirements for offices on the nominating petition.
Candidates/
Registrar of
Voters
DECLARATION OF INTENT OF JUDICIAL CANDIDATES
(E.C. §§ 8023, 8105)
Every candidate for a judicial office shall file with the County Elections Official a written and signed declaration of his or her intention to become a candidate for Superior Court Judge and designate the seat number they are seeking. Nonrefundable filing fees must be paid at the time the declaration of intent is filed.
Candidates/
Registrar of
Voters
EXTENSION OF DECLARATION OF INTENTION - JUDICIAL
(E.C. §§ 8023, 8105)
If the incumbent for a judicial office does not file a Declaration of Intention to succeed to the same office by the end of the Declaration of Intent filing period, qualified persons other than the incumbent may file a Declaration of Intention for that office during the extension period. Nonrefundable filing fees must be paid at the time the Declaration of Intent is filed.
Registar of
Voters/
District
Secretary
PUBLISH NOTICE OF ELECTION
(E.C. §§ 12109, 12112, 12113)
Publish a single Notice of Election between these dates containing the following:
√ Date of Election
√ Name of each office for which candidates may file
√ Qualifications required for each office
√ Location where Declaration of Candidacy may be
obtained
√ Office in which completed declarations are to be
filed
√ Statement that appointment(s) to office will be
made if there are insufficient nominees and no
petition is filed requesting the election be held
√ Location of Central Ballot Counting
16 RESPONSIBLE
PARTY DESCRIPTION DATE
2/9/2026
3/6/2026
2/9/2026
3/6/2026
3/7/2026
3/16/2026
2/9/2026
3/6/2026
2/9/2026
3/6/2026
3/6/2026
Candidates/
Registrar of
Voters
LAST DAY TO WITHDRAW CANDIDATE STATEMENT
(E.C. § 13307)
Last day to withdraw candidate statement, unless there
is an extension of the nomination period. Withdrawal of candidate statement must be in writing.
3/9/2026
Candidates/
Registrar of
Voters
CODE OF FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES
(E.C. § 20400 et seq.)
Candidates are issued the Code of Fair Campaign
Practices at the same time nomination papers are
issued. Filing is voluntary and may be filed any time
prior to the election; and, is available for public
inspection until 30 days after the election.
Candidates/
Registrar of
Voters
LAST DAY TO FILE DECLARATION OF CANDIDACY OR
WITHDRAW CANDIDACY
(E.C. § 8020)
Last day for candidates to file their Declaration of Candidacy and Candidate Statements with the Registrar of Voters no later than 5 p.m. (unless there is an extension of the nomination period).
STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST
(G.C. §§ 87200 et seq., 87300 et seq.)
A Statement of Economic Interest must be filed for all candidates with the Registrar of Voters by the close of the nomination period.
Candidates/
Registrar of
Voters
DECLARATION OF CANDIDACY AND NOMINATION PAPERS
(E.C. §§ 8020, 10510, 13107)
Between these dates candidates may obtain and file a
Declaration of Candidacy with the Registrar of Voters.
The ballot designation worksheet must be filed at the
same time as the Declaration of Candidacy.
The Registrar of Voters will issue the Declaration of Candidacy.
No candidate whose Declaration of Candidacy has been filed for any primary election may withdraw as candidate at that primary election.
Candidates/
Registrar of
Voters
CANDIDATE STATEMENT
(E.C. §§ 10540, 13307, 13309, 1311, 18351)
If office sought requires nomination papers, candidate
statement is due at the time of filing nomination paperwork.
Candidate statement are confidential until the deadline for filing has passed.
PUBLIC EXAM OF CANDIDATE STATEMENTS
(E.C. §§ 13313)
During this 10-day period the Registrar of Voters will make candidates' statements available for public examination. 17 RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DESCRIPTION DATE
3/6/2026
3/11/2026
LAST DAY TO WITHDRAW CANDIDATE STATEMENT
(EXTENSION)
(E.C. §§ 8024, 10516, 13307)
In the event there is an extension of the nomination
period, candidates may have until 5 p.m. on March 12
to withdraw their candidate statement. Withdrawal
must be in writing.
3/12/2026
3/12/2026
3/21/2026
Registrar of
Voters/
NOTICE OF WHETHER ELECTION WILL BE HELD
(E.C. § 10515)
If there are insufficient nominees for the offices to be filled, and a petition requesting the election be held has not been presented to the officer conducting the election, then the election shall not be held.
The Registar of Voters shall request the Board of Supervisors to appoint the qualified candidate(s) to such office. If there are no candidates, the Board shall appoint a qualified person to each office. Persons appointed shall qualify, and serve as if elected. 4/6/2026
5/19/2026
Candidates/
Committees/
Registrar of
Voters
LAST DAY TO FILE 1ST PRE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN STATEMENT
(G.C. 84200.8)
Covers period 01/01/2026 through 04/18/2026.
4/23/2026
Candidates/
Committees/
Registrar of
Voters
LAST DAY TO FILE 2ND PRE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN STATEMENT
(G.C. 84200.8)
Covers period 04/19/2026 through 05/16/2026.
5/21/2026
3/27/2025
Candidates/
Registrar of
Voters
EXTENSION OF NOMINATION PERIOD
(E.C. §§ 8022, 8024,10510, 10516)
If the incumbent does not file by 5 p.m. on the last day of the nomination period March 6, any eligible person, other than the incumbent, shall have until 5 p.m. on March 11 to file a Declaration of Candidacy. The nomination extension does not apply where there is no incumbent to be elected. If this section is applicable, a candidate may withdraw his or her Declaration of Candidacy up until 5 p.m. on March 11. Candidates may file a candidate statement with the Registrar of Voters no later than 5 p.m. March 11.
PUBLIC EXAM FOR EXTENSION
(E.C. § 13313)
During this 10-day period the Registrar of Voters will make candidates' statements available for public examination.
Candidates/
Registrar of
Voters
NOMINATION PEROD FOR WRITE-IN CANDIDATES
(E.C. §§ 8600, 8601 et seq.)
Nomination papers for write-in candidacy will be available beginning April 6 and must be filed with the Registrar of Voters no later then 5 p.m. on May 19.
18 City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: December 9,
2025
Agenda Item #:2
Agenda Item: 2026 Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem Selection
Executive Summary: The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem shall serve a (1) one-year term of office. Pursuant to City Code section 2.05.050(A) and City Council Protocols VII (1) the City Council shall, at its first meeting, select a mayor and mayor pro tempore. The newly selected Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem will commence their terms of office immediately.
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion selecting a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem for the year 2026.
Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Reviewed and Approved By: Heather Stroud, City Attorney Attachments:
01-Staff Report-Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem Selection 2026.pdf 19 Council Agenda Report December 9, 2025 Page 1 of 1
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: December 9, 2025
Title: 2026 Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem
Selection Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Background: In accordance with South Lake Tahoe City Code section 2.05.050(A) and City Council Protocol VII(1) Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem Term of Office, at its first meeting the City Council shall select a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem. The Mayor’s duties under the South Lake Tahoe City Code and City Council Protocols include presiding over and facilitating discussion at City Council meetings, signing written contracts and instruments, and acting as the City Council’s ceremonial representative at public events and functions. The Mayor Pro Tem assumes the Mayor’s responsibilities in the Mayor’s absence.
Issue and Discussion: The City Council is asked to deliberate and pass a Motion selecting a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem for 2026.
Financial Implications: There are no financial obligations associated with this action.
Environmental Considerations: The selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem is not a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) (organizational or administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment).
Policy Implications: The selection of a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem conforms to City Code and Protocols.
The newly selected Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem will commence their terms of office immediately. 20 City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: December 9,
2025
Agenda Item #:3
Agenda Item: Black Bear Management in South Lake Tahoe
Executive Summary: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will give a presentation on black bear management in South Lake Tahoe, and staff will discuss potential options for coordinating with CDFW, prioritizing enforcement of existing City ordinances to mitigate bear-human conflicts, and potential adoption of additional ordinances within the City's authority.
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Receive a presentation from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and either: 1) Pass a Motion directing staff to make certain changes to enforcement of existing ordinance or adoption of new ordinances; or 2) Take no action at this time.
Responsible Staff Member: Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police, and Heather Stroud, City Attorney Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Black Bear Management.docx
02 - CDFW Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan.pdf 03 - CDFW 2022 Black Bear Policy with 2024 Addendum 1.pdf 04 - Letter from CDFW.pdf
05-SLT City Council Meeting Oct 2025.pptx
21 City Council Report December 9, 2025 Page 1 of 4
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: December 9, 2025
Title: Black Bear Management in South Lake Tahoe
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Members: Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police; Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Background: On August 12, 2025, Councilmember Roberts requested, and Councilmember Jinkens seconded, that staff bring back this report with legal analysis of the city’s authority over bear management and opportunities for policy advocacy. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), as the state agency charged with wildlife management, has agreed to provide a presentation on their policies and procedures for bear management as part of this item. Under California Fish & Game Code section 1802, CDFW “has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species.” A copy of CDFW’s Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California (Apr. 14, 2025) is included. One of the main goals of this Plan is to conserve and manage black bear populations that are ecologically functional including conserving and enhancing black bear habitat. Section 3.9 of the Plan includes a discussion of human-black bear conflict. Also attached is a copy of CDFW’s Black Bear Policy (issued Feb. 16, 2022, as updated Feb. 28 2024), which includes detailed information about managing human-bear conflicts including sections specific to the Lake Tahoe Basin where a Trap/Tag/Haze Pilot Management Project has been implemented.
While the resolution of issues with nuisance bears that have become habituated to humans and bears causing public safety concerns has been the exclusive domain of the CDFW, the City Police Department also responds on a regular basis to calls into dispatch involving bears. Most of the calls the Police Department responds to involve calls of a bear in a house, whether the bear is alone or with the occupants inside, the goal of which is to resolve this incident without injury to human or bear. The Police Department has historically hazed the bears to train (or attempt to train) them that interaction with humans is detrimental to their well-being and remaining wild. The Police Department has responded less frequently to traffic collisions with a bear and the aftermath of bear injury, as Caltrans or Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care generally are the lead on those calls, or to calls for bears getting into trash. The Police Department has not been involved in euthanizing conflict bears or public safety bears.
CAD data shows the following bear calls from 2020-2025:
2020 190
2021 344
2022 390
2023 280
2024 145
22 City Council Report December 9, 2025 Page 2 of 4
2025 196 (as of 9/15/25)
Total 1545
EDSO (Tahoe Valley Campground):
2021 1
2022 15
2023 3
2024 4
2025 5
Total 28
Bear Traffic Collisions: 8 from Dec 15, 2022- Sept 15, 2025 Bears euthanized: 1 from traffic collision injuries
The following data was provided by CDFW and depicts the number of physical contact encounters between a bear and a human on the California side of the Tahoe basin and in South Lake Tahoe.
According to CDFW, the actual number may be greater as people may not report all incidents to CDFW or may report late, leading to physical evidence no longer being present or viable.
Tahoe Basin
Total
South Lake Tahoe
Only
2020 2 1
2021 2 1
2022 2 1
2023 4 3
2024 1 0
2025 2 2
Issue and Discussion:
While the City lacks authority to directly regulate wildlife management, there are actions that the City can take to prevent bears from becoming habituated to humans and causing human conflict and public safety issues: (1) coordination with CDFW; (2) prioritizing enforcement of existing City ordinances; and (3) considering adoption of additional ordinances within local authority. (1) Coordination with CDFW:
The Police Department understands there is misinformation about the management of Black Bears in South Lake Tahoe. Because of this, and the fact that CDFW has ongoing scientific research regarding bears habitation, migration, and habituation in South Lake Tahoe; the CDFW and the SLTPD met with the following takeaways:
- CDFW is going to call SLTPD for safety assistance anytime they need to go out to a home for official business.
- The City will provide public messaging pertaining to bear proofing homes, rather than either intentionally or unintentionally inviting irreversible bear behavior into our neighborhoods. o Bears learning their food source is at homes in neighborhoods, rather than in the wild is bad.
23 City Council Report December 9, 2025 Page 3 of 4
- SLTPD to focus on trash management enforcement (not having overflowing trash cans, trash bags left out in the open next to trash cans, trash cans out on days other than trash day).
- CDFW has more steps and higher threshold for bear mitigation in the Tahoe Basin than it does elsewhere.
o CDFW policy mandates DNA matches to a specific bear at house break ins prior to any bear management (Tahoe Basin specific).
- Electronic bear mats can be beneficial for bears to receive a negative message when attempting to enter a home.
(2) Prioritizing Enforcement of Existing Ordinances
The City has several ordinance on the books already that may help to mitigate human-bear conflict issues, namely South Lake Tahoe City Code chapter 4.150 (Solid Waste, Recycling, and Organic Materials), Section 3.50.440 (Conditions of operation) of Article V (Vacation Home Rentals) of Title 3 (Finance), and Section 4.05.490 (Feeding of wild domestic animals or nondomesticated animals).
The City’s trash management regulations require residential and commercial trash to be stored, secured, and set out for collection in a manner to prevent access by animals including bears.
Applicable provisions include requirements to:
Use approved and appropriately sized containers with closed and secured lids. SLTCC §
4.150.140 (Commercial containers); 4.150.110 (Residential containers). Mandatory weekly collection for residential properties and commercial establishments generating food waste. SLTCC § 4.150.140 (Commercial containers); SLTCC § 4.150.110 (Residential containers).
Placement of containers for collection at the curb no earlier than 6:00am on collection day (residential) or 6:00pm the day before collection (commercial). SLTCC § 4.150.210 (Placement of residential containers for collection purposes); SLTCC § 4.150.220 (Placement of commercial containers for collection purposes). Enforcement tools include the ability to issue citations and fines, bring a public nuisance action, or for repeat offenders to require larger containers, more frequent collection, mandating safety-improved dumpsters with tight-fitting or animal-resistant lids, or require a bear box for residential properties. SLTCC § 4.150.510 (Violations of chapter declared a nuisance); SLTCC § 4.150.150 (Repeat offendors).
o Citation amounts for trash violations range from $150 to $300 for a first violation.
For enforcement of these regulations, the City works with its franchisee, South Tahoe Refuse (“STR”) and its subcontractor Clean Tahoe. STR’s drivers are trained to report all incidents that they come across during the course of collection where there is a trash mess or the cart is overloaded. They check the trash cart to be sure it locks correctly, note the incident on their onboard tablet, and the incident is then recorded into our Customer Account system. In response to each of those incidents, STR Customer Service contacts the account holder to notify them of the issue and provide education. These incidents are compiled in monthly reports. From April-June 2025, STR documented 39 such incidents in the City (an area with nearly 11,000 customers). STR reports a customer to the City for code enforcement after three incidents/attempts at education.
Since implementing the 3-cart program in September 2024, STR has not had any customers with more than 3 incidents.
24 City Council Report December 9, 2025 Page 4 of 4
Clean Tahoe also receives reports from residents about containment problems and animal messes and responds to each report. When Clean Tahoe comes across a violation, they have a similar process as STR and issue a notice to the homeowner. They also report repeat offenders to City Code Enforcement. From April-June 2025, Clean Tahoe addressed 89 incidents of animal access to trash in the City. Clean Tahoe also carefully tracks education efforts and notices they provide. Since September 2024, Clean Tahoe has issued 1,004 notices for improper setout/containment. Both STR and Clean Tahoe report a dramatic improvement in trash containment since issuing the locking animal-resistant carts.
The City’s Vacation Home Rental (“VHR”) regulations include additional trash requirements for VHRs, namely, the requirement to use an animal-resistant recycling cart for storing recycling if no bear box is installed, and if a bear box is installed, that it be sized to fit a minimum number of trash cans based on the size of the home. These requirements are in SLTCC section 3.50.440(R).
Violations of the VHR rules are subject to citations and substantial fines ($1500 for a first violation, $3000 for a second violation within a year, and $5,000 for a third violation within a year).
The City Code also includes a provision prohibiting feeding wildlife. Section 4.05.490(A) states:
“No person shall knowingly feed or in any manner provide access to food to any feral or nondomestic mammalian animal. Violations of this section shall be deemed an infraction.” Thus, the Police Department could issue a criminal citation or an administrative citation and fine, which would currently be $250 for a first violation.
Prioritizing enforcement of these existing code provisions could be achieved by considering increasing fine amounts (except for VHRs which are at the maximum allowed under state law) and shifting code enforcement resources to violations of these provisions. (3) Consideration of Enacting New Ordinances
The City Council could direct staff to bring back one or more ordinances establishing new regulations to reduce bear-human conflicts. Potential areas within the City’s authority include:
A requirement to install a bear mat and/or electric wiring in certain circumstances such as repeated bear break-ins.
Review trash regulations to address any loopholes (i.e. open trash cans used for outdoor public disposal at businesses, allowing commercial customers to set out trash at 6pm the night before collection).
Require Bear Aware educational materials be provided at VHR check-in.
Financial Implications: None.
Environmental Considerations: Receiving this report and providing direction on coordination, enforcement, and potential future regulation is not a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) (general policy and procedure making).
Policy Considerations:
This report supports 2025-2030 Strategic Priority Three: Ensure Public Safety 25 Black Bear Conservation and
Management Plan for California
APRIL 2025
26 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 2 Authors and Acknowledgements
EDITORS:
ARJUN DHEER, Statewide Black Bear Coordinator
BRETT FURNAS, Science Support and Big Game Conservation Supervisor MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP:
MARIO KLIP, Game Conservation and Connectivity Program Manager SCOTT GARDNER, Wildlife Branch Chief
CHAD DIBBLE, Wildlife and Fisheries Division Deputy Director CHARLTON BONHAM, Director
27 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 3 This document was produced through the efforts of a variety of contributors spanning a vast range of expertise. CDFW’s Black Bear Program expresses its deep gratitude to CDFW management and leadership, headquarters and regional staff, scientific aids, and volunteers. Many organizations dedicated to black bear and wildlife conservation and management play a pivotal role in the conservation and management of California’s black bears, contributing expertise, money, and time towards this document. Collaborating agencies—National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Defense, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Department of Transportation—have been critical to making this work possible. Moreover, multiple universities have greatly enhanced CDFW’s black bear monitoring and research capacity. CDFW’s Black Bear Program also expresses its thanks to internal, peer, public, and Tribal reviewers who took the time to review, provide feedback, and contribute to this Plan, surpassing 5,000 comments in total. The conservation and management of black bears in California is a collaborative effort and will always continue to be so.
Recommended Citation:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2025. Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California. Sacramento, California, USA.
28 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 4 Statement from CDFW Director
There are few wildlife species in California more iconic than black bears (Ursus americanus). While they are widely recognized and appreciated for their intrinsic and ecological value, opinions sometimes differ on how best to manage black bears in our state. Today, 40 million people share California’s diverse habitats with an estimated 60,000 black bears, one of the largest bear populations in the United States. These factors make California bear management and conservation a complex and intricate undertaking.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife is proud to present a Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California that aims to balance the complex viewpoints about this species.
Over the past few years, the plan was developed through accelerated research coupled with extensive outreach and input from the public, scientists, hunting and non-hunting organizations, Tribes and other important partners. We received and attempted to address over 5,000 comments on this plan, a testament that Californians care deeply about bears and want the best possible outcomes for them, ecosystems and for our communities. The plan sets forth a framework for using the best available science to inform future regulatory recommendations about hunting and other actions using an adaptive management approach. It also provides a roadmap of how the department intends to rigorously monitor bear populations throughout the state and addresses the premier conservation challenges facing bears including how monitoring data can be best leveraged to inform effective management decisions.
Conserving and managing ecologically functional black bear populations invariably involves other wildlife species. Given the keystone role bears play in the ecosystems they inhabit – as predators, seed dispersers, scavengers, and more – their interactions with other wildlife species are critically important to understand. This plan accounts for these intricacies and aims to better understand them. Moreover, we are in a time of substantial global change with ongoing environmental pressures including climate disruption, persistent periods of drought, megafires and habitat fragmentation.
This plan also underlines the need to understand how these factors affect black bears.
It is imperative that we use the best available science to conserve and manage our state’s impressive biodiversity and that we are focused on engaging and including all Californians in this process. We invite you to join us as we seek to advance black bear conservation and management through the implementation of this plan.
Charlton H. Bonham
Director, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
29 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 5 Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................8 Chapter 2. Black Bear Biology and Ecology ..................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Physical Characteristics..................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2 Denning .................................................................................................................................................................. 14
2.3 Reproduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
2.4 Mortality.................................................................................................................................................................. 15
2.5 Food Habits............................................................................................................................................................ 16 Chapter 3. Conservation and Management Framework............................................................................ 17
3.1 Ecologically Functional Populations............................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Habitat..................................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Genetic Diversity and Connectivity .............................................................................................................. 22
3.4 Disease..................................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Animal Welfare...................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.6 Regulated Hunting.............................................................................................................................................. 24
3.7 Viewing.................................................................................................................................................................... 30
3.8 Black Bear Interactions with other Wildlife................................................................................................. 30
3.9 Human-Black Bear Conflict .............................................................................................................................. 32
3.10 Climate Change, Wildfire, Drought, and Land Use................................................................................ 36
3.11 Tribal Authority and Perspectives............................................................................................................... 38
3.12 Rulemaking Process......................................................................................................................................... 40 Chapter 4. Population Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 42
4.1 Bear Conservation Regions.............................................................................................................................. 43
4.2 Integrated Population Model.......................................................................................................................... 45
4.3 Other Population Indicators and Harvest Metrics................................................................................... 52 Chapter 5. Other Data for Informing Conservation and Management............................................... 53
5.1 Genetic Diversity.................................................................................................................................................. 54
5.2 Movement Ecology and Connectivity.......................................................................................................... 54
5.3 Disease..................................................................................................................................................................... 55
5.4 Animal Welfare...................................................................................................................................................... 55
5.5 Human Interactions with Black Bears........................................................................................................... 56 30 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 6 Chapter 6. Adaptive Management....................................................................................................................... 58
6.1 Conserving and Managing Ecologically Functional Black Bear Populations and their Habitats................................................................................................................................................................ 59
6.2 Conserving and Managing Genetically Diverse Black Bear Populations......................................... 61
6.3 Conserving and Managing Disease-Resilient Black Bear Populations............................................. 61
6.4 Providing Black Bear Hunting Opportunities............................................................................................ 61
6.5 Managing Human-Black Bear Conflict and Consideration of Animal Welfare............................... 61
6.6 Communication and Outreach About Black Bears.................................................................................. 62
6.7 Co-management of Black Bears with Tribes and other Partners........................................................ 62
6.8 Periodic Review and Updating of the Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California ................................................................................................................................................................. 63 Chapter 7. Research, Resources, and Organizational Support Required for Plan Implementation .................................................................................................................................................. 64
7.1 Data Collection..................................................................................................................................................... 65
7.2 Data Management.............................................................................................................................................. 65
7.3 Data Analysis......................................................................................................................................................... 66
7.4 Collaboration and Co-management............................................................................................................. 66 Literature Cited.............................................................................................................................................................. 67 Appendix 1: Glossary .................................................................................................................................................. 85 List of Figures
Figure 1. Commonness and rareness of wildlife species...................................................................................... 18 Figure 2. Black bear range map for California........................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3. California black bear hunting map............................................................................................................. 26 Figure 4. Plot showing the number of human-black bear conflict reports submitted to CDFW’s Wildlife Incident Reporting system each year from 2017-2023 .......................................................... 32 Figure 5. Number of CDFW-issued black bear depredation permits issued and numbers of black bears killed each year from 2017-2023............................................................................................................. 34 Figure 6. Low and high burn severity amounts in California through time based on analysis of the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity database (methods described in Eidenshink et al. 2007) from 1984-2019....................................................................................................................... 37 31 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 7 Figure 7. Bear Conservation Regions (BCRs) ..............................................................................................................43 Figure 8. An example of age and sex structure data for black bears in California........................................45 Figure 9. A flowchart showing the components and framework of the integrated population model (IPM) .............................................................................................................................................................................47 Figure 10. Preliminary estimated population trends in all California Bear Conservation Regions where hunting occurs based on the integrated population model (IPM) each year from 2014-2024 49 Figure 11. Prior and posterior distributions of five black bear vital rate parameters from the integrated polulation model (IPM) across the five Bear Conservation Regions (BCRs) ...............................51 Figure 12. Analysis of emotional sentiments expressed within black bear social media posts from California from 2010-2022...........................................................................................................................57 Figure 13. Adaptive management framework for using population data, and other information, to inform black bear conservation and management in California..........................................60 List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of black bear comments, interests, and views expressed by California Native American Tribes...................................................................................................................................39 Table 2. Administrative process and general timeline for adopting California Code of Regulations Title 14 regulations affecting black bear hunting, conservation, and management...................................41 Table 3. Average estimated black bear population sizes in nine bear conservation regions (BCRs) across California between 2020-2024..............................................................................................................48 32 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
33 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 1 9 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
The black bear (Ursus americanus) is an iconic species that garners a high degree of public interest in California, as it does across North America (Graber and White 1983, Klip 2012). The relationship between black bears and people is complex, however, and public attitudes and opinions concerning black bears are diverse (Siemer et al. 2023). Black bears are highly valued for various reasons. For example, black bears are culturally significant to many Native American Tribes, are a favored game species to many hunters, are sought after for viewing and photography opportunities, and are widely recognized for their intrinsic value and ecological role as an omnivorous predator. Black bears can also be a source of conflict when they use areas of high human activity (i.e., they become habituated to people), seek out anthropogenic food sources and cause property damage (i.e., they become food-conditioned), prey upon livestock, contribute to reducing ungulate populations (Monteith et al. 2014, Wittmer et al. 2014) below desired management thresholds, or threaten public safety through aggressive or predatory behavior (Hopkins et al. 2010). Given the diverse array of values surrounding black bears, a comprehensive statewide plan guiding their conservation is necessary.
It is difficult to define the differences between wildlife conservation and management (Appendix 1). The former terminology is broader than the latter, such that conservation can partly include some aspects of management. Further, Fish and Game Code (FGC) section 1801 declares wildlife “conservation” a policy for California. For these reasons, this document is referred to as a “conservation and management plan” (Plan) which considers both passive and active management strategies for maintaining black bear populations throughout California while mitigating humanblack bear conflict (HBC).
The previous black bear “management plan” of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) was developed more than two decades ago [California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1998] when black bear population size estimates were based on less contemporary methods than what is currently available. Until recently CDFW applied an indirect population modeling approach using age information inferred from tooth samples collected annually by hunters (Fraser 1976). While annual age data collected from hunter harvested tooth samples remain an important source of information, this modeling approach has long been recognized to be error prone, especially when there are changes in hunter effort and other analytical assumptions (Harris and Metzgar 1987). At an April 2022 meeting of the California Fish and Game Commission (“Commission”), CDFW presented preliminary results of an updated, more accurate, integrated population modeling approach to make better use of black bear age data and other data sources (CDFW 2022b) and committed to revise its management plan to include details about improved black bear population monitoring.
CDFW is the state trustee agency responsible for the conservation of wildlife and their habitats (FGC § 1802). It is charged with implementing and enforcing regulations set by the Commission, as well as providing biological data and expertise to inform Commission decision-making on a wide variety of issues affecting wildlife. The Commission enacts wildlife regulations in a manner that considers information on populations, habitat, food availability, and animal welfare (FGC § 200-203). Issues of 34 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 1 10 regulation include recreational harvest, use of protected areas, permitting of wildlife rehabilitation facilities, and listing of species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), among others.
State policy set by the legislature recognizes a balance between protecting wildlife for their intrinsic and ecological values; providing for beneficial and recreational uses including regulated hunting; and mitigating economic, human safety, and public health damages caused by wildlife (FGC § 1801). An essential concept recognized in this policy is that wildlife is a renewable resource and that, through regulated management, abundant and thriving populations can be perpetuated.
Through California Executive Order B-10-11 (2011), state policy reaffirmed that California Native American Tribes have sovereign authority over their territories and activities, and thus crossjurisdictional issues require effective government-to-government consultation between state agencies and Tribes. The policy of CDFW is to notify and consult with Tribes regarding proposed activities affecting fish, wildlife, and plant resources and other Tribal interests, and to encourage collaborative relationships resulting in co-management of resources, such as black bears (CDFW 2014).
Black bears are classified as a game mammal in California (FGC § 3950) such that regulated hunting of the species includes licensing, fees, harvest season and area, and other restrictions (Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 365, 366, 367.5, FGC § 4750-4763). CDFW also manages black bears associated with HBC, which may include issuing lethal depredation permits when non-lethal efforts to address problems prove ineffective (FGC § 4181, CDFW 2024a). The current decisionmaking process for addressing HBC and other related issues such as animal welfare is described in a policy developed by CDFW (2024a).
Regulated hunting has been a central component of wildlife conservation in California and throughout North America for over a century (Geist et al. 2001, Organ et al. 2012). For example, CDFW conservation and management activities that benefit both game and non-game species alike (e.g., population monitoring, research, land acquisition, habitat improvement, law enforcement etc.) are substantially funded by revenues generated from hunting license fees and from taxes on firearms and ammunition pursuant to the Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (see Section 3.6). Additionally, partnerships between CDFW and hunting-focused non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play important roles in habitat creation and protection that benefit a wide variety of species. Specific to black bears, hunters also provide CDFW with tooth samples from harvested animals (over 1,000 samples annually). Age estimates from these samples constitute a key source of scientific data that is critical to efficient estimation and monitoring of black bear populations throughout California.
Changing societal views towards hunting highlight the need for wildlife managers to ensure they are adequately considering the perspectives of non-hunters (Peterson and Nelson 2017). Wildlife managers have also been criticized for undervaluing the perspectives and contributions of Native Americans—both those that hunt and those that do not—to wildlife conservation (e.g., Hessami et al. 2021). Recognizing these concerns, the Commission has a policy statement addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion that acknowledges prejudices and barriers experienced by historically 35 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 1 11 marginalized and underserved communities regarding access to nature and regulatory decisionmaking processes. This policy commits the Commission to a set of actions for correcting these inequities. CDFW shares this goal; it will seek to broaden input beyond traditional constituencies while continuing to value hunting as an important tradition and conservation and management tool.
In consideration of the background and history summarized above, CDFW’s goals for black bear conservation and management apply to both black bears and people:
Black Bear Conservation and Management Goals:
1. Conserve and manage black bear populations that are ecologically functional, diseaseresilient, and genetically diverse statewide and regionally, and conserve and enhance their habitats.
2. Provide opportunities for black bear hunting, viewing, and public education; minimize human-bear conflict; consider animal welfare in black bear conservation and management; and be inclusive of all Californians in black bear conservation and management decisions.
CDFW’s approach to achieving these goals includes monitoring black bear populations and using these data in an adaptive and structured decision-making process to inform conservation actions and policies about hunting, other human interactions with black bears, and responses to climate change, land use, and other conservation stressors. This Plan includes background on black bear biology (Chapter 2) and the ecological and social framework for black bear conservation and management (Chapter 3), describes the monitoring and modeling approach for tracking black bear populations (Chapters 4 and 5), explains how this information will be applied in decision making (Chapter 6), and lists the resources and next steps needed to successfully implement the Plan (Chapter 7). Specific recommendations about hunting rules (e.g., tag quotas, season dates, methods of take) for black bears will not be made in this Plan. However, the information in this Plan and the implementation thereof will inform future regulations to establish or adjust hunting seasons for black bears (FGC § 302). Additionally, those rule changes generally require changes to CCR Title 14 regulations by the Commission or statutory changes to FGC by the California Legislature.
This Plan was written and developed by two primary editors along with considerable input from a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) comprised of internal CDFW staff with subject matter expertise across a variety of fields and geographical locations relevant to black bear conservation and management in California. A team of statistical modelers and data scientists developed the population modeling framework presented within the Plan and CDFW management and leadership reviewed the Plan’s contents. The Plan also underwent Tribal (January 2024 – March 2024), peer (January 2024 – March 2024), and public (April 2024 – June 2024) review periods. Nine California Native American Tribes, three peer reviewers, and over 5,000 public commenters provided feedback on the Plan. In addition, two listening sessions were held with California Native American Tribes in May 2023 to understand their perspectives on black bear conservation and management and comanagement of black bears between CDFW and Tribes. Updates on the status and the contents of 36 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 1 12 the Plan while it was being developed were given at several Commission and Wildlife Resources Committee meetings which provided opportunities for the public to discuss and comment on the Plan. Moreover, an informational public meeting was held in May 2024. In the interest of transparency and being inclusive of all Californians pursuant to FGC section 1801, comments received during the public review period have been published along with the contents of this Plan. 37 CHAPTER 2
BLACK BEAR BIOLOGY
AND ECOLOGY
38 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 2 14 CHAPTER 2. BLACK BEAR BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY
2.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Black bears are large, powerfully built mammals. Adult females typically weigh between 45 and 90 kg, and adult males typically weigh between 70 and 160 kg, with some individuals exceeding 220 kg (Lariviere 2001). Bears in excess of 300 kg have been found in places where anthropogenic food sources are abundant. Pelage color is generally mostly uniform and ranges from off-white, cinnamon, tan, brown, to black. Pale patches can occur on the chest (Lariviere 2001).
2.2 DENNING
Black bears typically hibernate during the winter months in response to a seasonal shortage of food.
In contrast to other winter-hibernating mammals that reduce their metabolic rate by >90% and body temperature to near 00 C (e.g., rodents), black bears only reduce their metabolic rate by 20-50% and maintain a near normal body temperature, which allows them to quickly react to danger (Hellgren 1998, Stenvinkel et al. 2013). Other hibernating mammals are slow to arouse because they must gradually warm themselves.
During hibernation, black bears remain inactive without eating, drinking, urinating, or defecating.
This too differs from other hibernating mammals, which must arouse every 4-10 days to feed, defecate, and urinate (Folk et al. 1976, Hellgren 1998). Hibernating animals recycle waste products (e.g., urea), preserve muscle and bone mass, and do not acquire bed sores—adaptations that are of interest to medical practitioners seeking to improve human health in areas such as heart and kidney disease, muscle wasting, obesity, and osteoporosis (Stenvinkel et al. 2013, Berg von Linde et al. 2015).
Under the constraints of hibernation, adult female black bears also experience the physiological demands of gestation, parturition, and lactation, which other hibernating mammals generally do not experience.
Though hibernation is an adaptive response that allows black bears to avoid thermal extremes and food shortages, it does not come without risk. Black bears can be vulnerable to anthropogenic disturbance, excessive snowfall, flooding, and inter- and intra-specific predation while denning (Beckmann and Lackey 2018, Linnell et al. 2000, Kurth et al. 2024). Occasionally, black bears will abandon their dens in response to such disturbances (Rayl et al. 2014).
Most black bears in California hibernate each year, but if sufficient food resources are available some black bears, particularly males, may remain active all winter (Graber 1989). Typically, females enter their dens earlier and emerge later than males do (Long et al. 2024). Black bear dens are often in tree cavities, rock or brush piles, underground burrows, or open-ground beds (Lariviere 2001). In California, other common documented den sites are talus slopes and cavities in downed logs or at the base of trees (Graber 1982, Koch 1983, Braden 1991, Stafford 1995). Occasionally, black bears den in anthropogenic structures (e.g., crawl spaces and under decks, Schafer et al. 2018). 39 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 2 15
2.3 REPRODUCTION
Litters typically comprised of 1-4 cubs are born in January-February. Mothers and cubs typically emerge from their dens during April-May. Cubs remain with their mothers through the following winter, and then separate prior to the breeding season (e.g., June-July). In total, cubs remain with their mothers for approximately 16 months (Lariviere 2001). Black bears have been shown to be capable of social learning in foraging behaviors from their mothers (Mazur and Seher, 2008) but are a solitary species (Suraci et al. 2017).
Reproductive success in female black bears is related to abundance and availability of quality food (Elowe and Dodge 1989, Costello et al. 2003). As adult female nutrition increases, reproductive parameters likely change in the following order: litter size increases, age of first reproduction decreases, yearling survival increases, cub survival increases, and interbirth interval decreases (Noyce and Garshelis 1994).
Adult females generally breed every other year but may breed in consecutive years if a litter is lost.
Reproductive parameters of black bears in California are generally unknown outside of Yosemite National Park, where Graber (1982) and Keay (1990) reported mean litter sizes ranging from 1.6 to 2.0, a mean age of first reproduction of 4.2 years, and a mean interbirth interval of 2.5 years.
2.4 MORTALITY
Mortality rates for black bears are relatively high during the first few years of life (18-47%; Kolenosky 1990) and common causes of death include cannibalism, infanticide, starvation, and abandonment (LeCount 1987, Elowe and Dodge 1989). Once adulthood is reached, mortality rates decrease substantially, in part because adult black bears have few natural predators and are relatively unaffected by parasites and disease (Rogers 1983). Anthropogenic causes of mortality (e.g., hunting, vehicle collisions, management removals) are the dominant causes of mortality for adult animals in both areas where harvest is allowed and where it is not, but overall rates of mortality are generally low and sustainable (Gantchoff et al. 2020). Adult female mortality rates are usually lower than those of adult males. Estimates of black bear survival rates and causes of mortality in California have not been reported in recent years. Black bears can live to an age of 30 years or longer, though in the wild, most die before they are 20 years old (Powell, Zimmerman, and Seaman, 1997). The longest-lived wild black bear ever recorded died at an age of 39.5 years, in Minnesota (Garshelis et al., 2020b). 40 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 2 16
2.5 FOOD HABITS
Black bears are omnivores, and their teeth are adapted for feeding on both plant and animal matter.
They are highly opportunistic and will eat nearly anything edible. Black bear food habits vary widely with season and location. In general, following emergence from winter dens in spring, black bears forage on green grasses and forbs, insects, and carrion. Black bears shift to eating berries when they become available (Graber 1982, Grenfell and Brody 1983) and focus on mast crops such as acorns (Quercus spp.) in the fall. Where present, manzanita berries (Arctostaphylos spp.) are an important food resource during late summer and fall (Kelleyhouse 1980), as are sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) seeds (Mazur et al. 2013). While the diet of black bears is mostly comprised of vegetation, they may prey upon newborn ungulates in the spring (Zager and Beecham 2006, Monteith et al. 2014) and scavenge the kills of mountain lions (Puma concolor) and other predators year-round, including during the winter (Elbroch et al. 2015, Allen et al. 2021). The opportunistic foraging behavior of black bears often brings them into conflict with people, as black bears will damage property such as homes, storage sheds, and vehicles while seeking out human food and garbage, damage agricultural crops, and occasionally kill livestock (CDFW unpublished data). 41 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 17 CHAPTER 3
CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT
FRAMEWORK
42 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 18 CHAPTER 3. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
The framework for black bear conservation and management in California includes a mix of ecological and social factors. This chapter summarizes background information relevant to the conservation and management goals introduced in Chapter 1.
3.1 ECOLOGICALLY FUNCTIONAL POPULATIONS
It is a goal of CDFW to conserve and manage ecologically functional black bear populations because of their ecological role among the wildlife species that inhabit California. Ecologically functional populations have the abundance or density, and the appropriate population structure, that allow their ecological interactions, roles, and functions to take place (Conner 1988; Appendix 1). The maintenance of ecologically functional wildlife populations is necessary for ecosystem balance and health and is inclusive to entire ecological communities (Akçakaya et al. 2019; Ebenman et al. 2017; Grace et al. 2021). Thus, conserving and managing ecologically functional black bear populations provides a broader and more cohesive goal than putting forth an abundance target would. In California, ecologically functional black bear populations are generally abundant and common.
Abundant, common species such as black bears tend to have large, widespread ranges (Lawton 1993), and there usually tend to be relatively few common species versus many rare species within ecological communities (Preston 1948, Fig. 1). CDFW aims to use its population modeling approach to determine what abundance levels are consistent with the goal of conserving and managing ecologically functional black bear populations in California.
Figure 1. Commonness and rareness of wildlife species. As illustrated in this simulated example, ecological theory and empirical data demonstrate that there are usually a few common, abundant species versus many rare, less abundant species. In California, black bears are an example of an abundant, common species. 43 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 19 Black bears are widespread and common throughout most forested habitats of California; they are one of the most commonly occurring large mammal species in California forests (Furnas et al. 2022).
Occupancy modeling is a statistical approach for analyzing the proportion of locations a species occurs at to assess its relative abundance with respect to other species (MacKenzie et al. 2006). The geographical range of black bears in California covers 40% of the state’s land area and the average probability of black bear occurrence at any point within the 2009 range for a month sampling period is estimated at 63% based on occupancy analysis of detections from camera surveys at 2,954 locations (Furnas et al. 2022). In comparison, examples of less widespread and common species in California include Pacific fisher (Pekania pennanti, range=29%, occupancy<20%) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes, range=16%, occupancy<1%) (CDFW unpublished data).
Black bear densities, however, are not evenly distributed throughout their range in California.
Roughly half of the statewide black bear population resides in the North Coast and Cascade regions (see Fig. 7 for regional locations). Studies indicate that black bear densities typically range from 38 to 96 black bears per 100 km2 (Piekielek and Burton 1975, Kelleyhouse 1977, CDFG 1993) in these regions. About 40% of the black bear population inhabits the Northern and Southern Sierra Bear Conservation Regions (BCRs). Density is lower than in the North Coast and Cascades BCRs, with estimates of 19 to 38 black bears per 100 km2 (Sitton 1982, Grenfell and Brody 1983, Koch 1983).
Fusaro et al. (2017) reported that density within the town of Mammoth Lakes (38 black bears per 100 km2) was 3 times greater than in a nearby wildland study area, Slinkard Wildlife Management Area.
The remainder of the black bear population inhabits other areas of the state including the South Coast region, where densities are probably less than 10 black bears per 100 km2 (Stubblefield 1992, Novick et al. 1981, Moss 1972). The highest reported recent black bear densities from California are 156 black bears per 100 km2 near Klamath in Del Norte County (Arias 2007), 133 black bears per 100 km2 on the west side of the Hoopa Valley Reservation (Matthews et al. 2008), and 84 bears per 100 km2 in the Lake Tahoe basin (Owens-Ramos et al. 2022). These densities are among the highest recorded for black bears across their range, with the Klamath estimate exceeding the second-highest reported density across the species’ range, from Alaska (155 black bears per 100 km2; Peacock et al. 2011). Based on this, California may be home to the densest recorded population of black bears in the world.
Common species, such as black bears in California, have substantial effects on the broader ecological community such that the conservation and management of common species should be considered alongside concerns about rare species (Gaston and Fuller 2007). The abundance of black bears in California is likely driven by their diverse, omnivorous diet and ability to use many different habitat types and seral stages as a generalist species, and their adaptability to varied environmental conditions over time (Garshelis et al. 2020b). Due to their abundance and ecological role, black bears may serve as a potential indicator species for guiding wider conservation and management efforts as demonstrated by their foraging ecology (Steenweg et al. 2023), use of large woody debris (Mitchell and Powell 2003), association with wildfire (Furnas et al. 2022), and habitat associations with many other species (Cox et al. 1994, Simberloff 1999). For all of these reasons, it is important that black bears remain ecologically functional throughout their range in California. 44 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 20 Sustained and systematic monitoring of black bear abundance at statewide and regional scales is essential to effective conservation and management of black bears and other wildlife in California.
Quantifying a target population abundance of black bears is not solely a scientific question, because it depends on both the ecological status of black bears and the needs of human society in a state of nearly 40 million inhabitants in 2023. On one hand, ecological considerations can be used to estimate the biological carrying capacity of how many black bears available habitats can support, although this number would be expected to fluctuate up and down from year to year with environmental cycles (McClelland et al. 2021). On the other hand, the needs and desires of people may define a different, social carrying capacity of how many black bears human society is willing to tolerate on the landscape (Decker and Purdy 1998, Cleary et al. 2021). As part of its mission, CDFW is charged with balancing these potentially conflicting goals. As such, CDFW intends to meet an ecological goal of maintaining ecologically functional black bear populations by ensuring that black bears remain common and widely distributed within secure, well-connected habitats, and are not experiencing any long-term population declines of conservation concern pursuant to either FGC section 1801 or CESA. Additionally, CDFW intends to use the population modeling framework described in Section 4.2 to identify ecological carrying capacities statewide and regionally. CDFW would use these estimates, in conjunction other information on species interactions (e.g., prey and other species), human dimensions (e.g., HBC) and other factors (e.g., disease), to guide conservation and management actions via the adaptive management process described in Chapter 6.
3.2 HABITAT
Black bears occupy most mountain ranges in California outside of the Mojave and Sonoran deserts, and most of the 145,000 km2 of forested habitat that is biologically suitable for them. This Plan provides the first updated range map (Fig. 2) for black bears in California since 2009 using expert opinions from CDFW scientists and research grade records from iNaturalist and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (iNaturalist contributors 2025, CDFW unpublished data). The range layer was created from a base layer called “EcoHUC” which combines United States Forest Service (USFS) Ecoregion Subsections and HUC12s. Black bears continue to occupy the distribution first mapped by Grinnell (1937), and expanded populations now also exist in areas where black bears were formerly rare or absent, such as the Central Coast, much of Northeastern California, and the San Bernardino and San Gabriel mountains of Southern California. Range expansion in Southern California is the result of a translocation of black bears from Yosemite National Park to the San Bernardino mountains in the 1930s, which resulted in a persistent population (Brown et al. 2009).
More recently, black bears appear to have expanded into other areas of California where they were previously rare or absent, such as the Warner Mountains in Modoc County and the Mayacamas Mountains of Sonoma and Napa Counties (Fusaro et al. 2017, CDFW unpublished data). Range expansion has continued outside of California as well. In the 1980s, black bears originating in California began recolonizing habitat in the Carson Front of Nevada, where black bears had been absent for >80 years (Lackey et al. 2013, Malaney et al. 2018, Sultaire et al. 2023). 45 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 21 Figure 2. Black bear range map for California. This map was developed in 2024 using local CDFW biologists’ expert feedback, verified records from iNaturalist and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, and created from a base layer called “EcoHUC” combining USFS Ecoregion Subsections and HUC12s. The map displays resident populations, i.e., cases of black bear sightings that were deemed to be transient or unverified were not included.
Over half of the suitable black bear habitat in California is in public ownership, managed primarily by the USFS and National Park Service (NPS). Approximately 10% of California’s black bear habitat is managed as either wilderness or designated park. These areas represent large blocks of undeveloped habitat and core areas within their habitat where black bears encounter few humans. The abundance of black bear habitat in public ownership where development is restricted provides an important buffer against habitat loss. Because black bears are highly adaptable to living in human-modified environments, human development along the wildland-urban interface (WUI) in areas such as the Lake Tahoe Basin is more of a concern for management of HBC than it is for habitat loss and/or fragmentation negatively impacting black bear populations. However, habitat enhancement using fire management and other methods may serve to mitigate HBC (see Section 3.9). 46 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 22
3.3 GENETIC DIVERSITY AND CONNECTIVITY
Overall, black bear populations appear to be genetically diverse throughout California. Brown et al. (2009) identified 3-4 genetic clusters in a study of 504 black bears from across California collected by hunters and researchers. The occupation of black bears in the Central Coast region was hypothesized to have occurred relatively recently following a release from competition with extirpated brown bears (Ursus arctos), and a range expansion of black bears from the Southern Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi mountains, rather than from Southern California (Sherman and Ernest 2015).
Black bears in Northwestern California had the highest levels of genetic diversity, probably as a result of connectivity with black bear populations in Oregon and throughout the Pacific Northwest.
Similarly, there was evidence of high genetic diversity and gene flow among the interconnecting populations in Northern California and the Sierra Nevada mountains. Black bears in the Southern California and Central Coast regions were geographically isolated from larger populations to the north, but still maintained a similar level of genetic diversity as other North American black bear populations (Brown et al. 2009, Clarke et al. 2001, Paetkau et al. 1998, Paetkau and Strobek 1994).
More recently, Sherman and Ernest (2015) studied the genetic diversity of black bears in San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties. Genetic diversity in these areas was found to be lower than in other populations in California but because the area had only recently been colonized by black bears expanding from elsewhere, the authors concluded that management intervention was not warranted.
3.4 DISEASE
Black bears are susceptible to many infectious and non-infectious diseases, most of which do not significantly impact black bear populations. While there is no evidence that disease is an important factor in California black bear population dynamics or population health, there are some diseases of concern to monitor. These include emerging diseases like sarcoptic mange (Niedringhaus et al. 2019) with an unknown risk to California’s black bear populations, zoonotic diseases that could affect people like trichinellosis (Schellenberg et al. 2003), or diseases that could increase the likelihood of HBC like idiopathic encephalitis (Alex et al. 2020). As such, disease, and health in general, is important for black bear conservation and management at both the level of the individual black bear and the population.
CDFW veterinarians investigate potential diseases in black bears opportunistically through mortality investigations and actively through specific disease surveillance projects or programs. Disease and mortality investigations consist of either a full necropsy with postmortem workup and ancillary testing, or through targeted sample collection and testing, depending on the situation. Currently, CDFW maintains an active research and surveillance program for encephalitis in black bears. This emerging condition in California and Nevada black bears potentially has more than one cause. It tends to affect young black bears, often orphaned cubs of the year or yearlings. Clinical signs range from mild changes in behavior and mentation that often mimic habituation, to overt neurologic changes including head tilt, ataxia, tremors, and seizures. The disease is often seen in black bears 47 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 23 involved in conflict situations. CDFW also supports active surveillance of Yersinia pestis by providing samples from black bears and other species to the California Department of Public Health for serologic surveillance. Moreover, CDFW continues both active and opportunistic surveillance for pesticides like anticoagulant rodenticides, organophosphates, carbamates, and bromethalin in black bears. Pesticides can be direct sources of mortality for black bears and public health risks to hunters as some can accumulate in consumable portions like meat and fat.
In addition to ongoing mortality investigations and active surveillance projects in black bears, there have been and continue to be several serology-based surveillance projects. These projects utilize archived serum collected either from hunter harvest, depredation, or management actions and measure antibody prevalence to various pathogens in one or more of California’s black bear populations. These projects confirm that California’s black bears are variably exposed to multiple different pathogens including, but not limited to, Toxoplasma gondii, Borrelia burgdorferi, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Trichinella spiralis, canine distemper virus, canine adenovirus type 1, Yersinia pestis, Trypanosoma cruzi, and Francisella tularensis (Mortenson 1998, Stephenson et al. 2015, CDFW unpublished data). While serologic surveillance for antibodies is an important tool for disease and pathogen surveillance, it is only informative about exposure to pathogens—not the presence or absence of disease associated with pathogens.
CDFW continues to perform mortality investigations to support Law Enforcement and HBC programs, and to investigate abnormal mortalities. Common causes of death include trauma (thermal burns, gunshot, vehicle strike, or conspecific aggression being the most common), infections (viral, fungal, bacterial, and parasitic), and neoplasia or cancer. Infections are more commonly diagnosed in young black bears, especially cubs and yearlings. Idiopathic encephalitis, canine adenovirus type 1, and generalized dermatophytosis have been the most commonly diagnosed infections in recent years (CDFW unpublished data). Generalized dermatophytosis is often indistinguishable from sarcoptic mange and may be either a primary disease or secondary to some other infection (e.g. Ursicoptes sp. or Sarcoptes sp. mite infestation) or immunosuppression (Clothier et al. 2022). Trauma, particularly from vehicle strikes or gunshot wounds (e.g., sustained due to depredation or other conflict behavior, or from poaching) or infections secondary to trauma are more commonly seen in prime age adult black bears. With increasingly severe wildfire activity associated with climate change, black bears with thermal burns from wildfires are being seen more commonly, affecting young and old black bears alike. Neoplasias are more commonly diagnosed in old black bears, and older sows may be particularly susceptible to mammary gland tumors (CDFW unpublished data).
3.5 ANIMAL WELFARE
Animal welfare for black bears is defined in CDFW Bulletin Number 2022-01 Black Bear Policy in California: Public Safety, Depredation, Conflict, and Animal Welfare (henceforth Black Bear Policy; CDFW 2024a) as “the physical, psychological, social, and environmental well-being of an animal.” It is CDFW’s responsibility to consider animal welfare whenever managing black bears. In implementing this policy, CDFW follows Bulletin Number 2018-02 Department of Fish and Wildlife Animal Welfare Policy, which states that:
48 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 24 • Research, surveys, and experiments involving free-ranging and captive invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, birds, and mammals shall consider:
o Whether the use of animals is necessary;
o The number of animals needed to obtain valid scientific data; and o Methods to avoid or minimize pain, discomfort, and distress consistent with sound research design and practice.
• Animals shall be housed under conditions that are species-appropriate in environments that are safe and secure for animals and staff.
• Methods of euthanasia shall be consistent with current recommendations of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Panel on Euthanasia, unless alternatives have been justified and approved by the appropriate CDFW Program (Wildlife Branch, Fisheries Branch, or Marine Region).
One prominent example of how animal welfare concerns are addressed with black bears is the care and rehabilitation of injured and orphaned black bears. In the absence of being taken into captivity, most of these black bears would die. While these deaths will not result in changes to black bear population health, the experiences of the black bears themselves prior to their death would be unpleasant and there is substantial demand from the public for wildlife managers to intervene in these situations (Beecham et al. 2016). Options include non-intervention; humane euthanasia; reuniting black bears with their biological mothers; fostering black bears to wild, adoptive females; transporting black bears to a permanent captive facility; and transporting black bears to a rehabilitation facility for eventual release (Beecham et al. 2015). CDFW veterinarians work with regional staff to identify individual black bears that have been injured or orphaned and determine appropriate interventions.
Animal welfare is also an important consideration in wildlife field research. Examples include decisions regarding whether to externally mark (e.g., ear tags) and/or remotely monitor (e.g., GPS collars) black bears, what types of traps to use, what types of chemical immobilization drugs to use, etc. In these cases, actions taken by researchers to better understand black bear ecology have the possibility of causing distress, pain, or behavioral changes to black bears. Thus, it is important that the negative impacts are weighed against the benefits. Consequently, prior to initiating any research or monitoring program for black bears, capture plans are developed and reviewed by CDFW veterinarians.
3.6 REGULATED HUNTING
The use of black bear meat and other black bear resources through hunting by humans dates back to prehistory across much of the species’ range (McLaren et al. 2005, Ramsey 2013). Black bear meat provides a healthy and sustainable protein source to hunters as well as valuable non-meat resources 49 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 25 including rendered fat, hides, skulls, and claws (Unger et al. 2013, Waselkov 2020). Hunters also report physical , psychological, and emotional health benefits experienced when hunting black bears (Dunk 2002, Gundrum 2019, Hristienko and McDonald 2007).
In the United States, hunting regulations (e.g., the setting of seasons and methods of take, bag limits, etc.) are the product of municipal, state, and federal laws that began as early as 1646, when the colony of Rhode Island established a season for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) hunting and enforced penalties for hunting out of season (Organ et al. 2012). However, expectations regarding how, when, and why wildlife was harvested were implemented by indigenous people for thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans (Eichler and Baumeister 2018).
Outside of NPS lands such as Yosemite and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, where the hunting and trapping of any species has been prohibited since the late 1800s, the first formal regulations governing black bear hunting in California were enacted in 1948, when black bears became classified as game animals. A license became required for hunting and trapping, and a bag limit of two black bears per hunter was established. Over time, regulations have generally become increasingly restrictive, both to ensure black bear harvests are sustainable and to reflect changing public attitudes. For example, recreational trapping was prohibited in 1961, the bag limit was reduced to one in 1968, harvest of cubs or females with cubs was prohibited in 1972, a quota limiting the number of black bears harvested annually was initiated in 1990, and the use of dogs to hunt black bears was prohibited in 2013.
Since 1957, successful black bear hunters have been required to submit report cards that describe sex and age class of harvested black bears, along with the location and date of harvest. Beginning in 1982, report cards became required of all tag holders, regardless of success, and hunters were required to bring harvested black bears to CDFW for tag validation and removal of a premolar tooth, which is used to determine the black bear’s age in years. As discussed in Chapter 4, these samples are the key source of data utilized by CDFW for estimating and monitoring black bear populations and their vital rates. As demonstrated in California and elsewhere, the public (including hunters who provide age and sex information on black bears) contributes to conservation and management through scientific data collection that supports population monitoring efforts (Cretois et al. 2020, El Bizri et al 2020, Candler et al. 2022). While black bears are widespread in California, hunting is not permitted in all areas that black bears inhabit (Fig. 3). Collectively, areas without hunting can function as sanctuaries that provide a reservoir of adult females with relatively high survival rates that produce dispersing offspring and contribute to hunted populations (Beringer et al. 1998).
However, protection from hunting may not necessarily result in greater survival, and consequently, population growth rates. For example, in unhunted black bear populations near carrying capacity, cub and yearling survival may decrease in association with density dependent natural causes of death, such as starvation, intraspecific competition, and predation (Schwartz et al. 2006, Obbard and Howe 2008, Czetwertynski et al. 2007). These unhunted populations may also have high rates of HBC (Fusaro et al. 2017).
50 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 26 Figure 3. California black bear hunting map. This map shows the existing single black bear hunt zone for California as of April 2025. The black bear hunt zone was developed based on deer hunt zone boundaries. There are resident black bear populations in areas outside the hunt zone.
Regardless of the difference in population dynamics in hunted vs unhunted populations, researchers generally agree that hunting can be either an additive or compensatory form of mortality in black bears depending on the bear’s age and sex class (Gantchoff et al. 2020; Raithel et al., 2017). This, combined with their low reproductive rates, indicates that unless management objectives call for population reduction, harvest should be conservative to prevent overexploitation. Under optimal survival and reproductive rates, the maximum sustainable annual hunting mortality rate for black 51 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 27 bears has been estimated to be as high as 15.9% (Miller 1990), although Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin have reported increasing or stable black bear populations with harvest rates >20% (Hristienko and McDonald 2007).
Based on current best estimates of black bear populations statewide and regionally, hunters harvest less than 5% annually of the bears present in any BCR of the state, and under 3% overall (see Section
4.2). This harvest rate is considerably lower than the maximum sustainable harvest rates discussed above and is also lower than recent harvest rates in nearby states such as Oregon (ODFW 2022) and Washington (WDFW 2022). In some BCRs, the actual harvest rate may be as low as 1% of the black bear population. Harvest reduced substantially since the use of dogs for bear hunting was prohibited starting with the 2013 season. Since then, spot-and-stalk (Appendix 1) has been the only method of take for bears in California, with no ability for hunters to use bait, dogs, a second tag, or a spring season. Most harvest occurs in Northern California where bear densities are highest (i.e., Humboldt, Mendocino, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Trinity Counties), which typically accounts for 35-40% of the overall state harvest (CDFW 2021, CDFW 2024b, CDFW unpublished data).
Over the last 10 years (2014-2023), an average of 29,245 black bear tags were sold annually which generated $13.3 million in revenue, ranging from $1.0 million to $1.7 million per year. Additionally, pursuant to the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, a federal tax on firearms and ammunitions sales allocates between $10 and $30 million per year to wildlife and wildlife habitat conservation in California. CDFW uses a portion of these funds to staff its conservation and hunting programs for black bears and other game species. For example, over the last 10 years (2014-2023), the amount of these state and federal funds that CDFW has used annually for staff, contracts, and procurement of equipment such as GPS collars has varied between $500,000 and $4 million. These funds have also been used for a variety of black bear research projects including some of the local density studies listed in Section 4.2 that CDFW is integrating into its updated population monitoring approach.
Additionally, a portion of the revenue from bear tags is allocated to law enforcement, administration, regulatory development, and lands management.
The California State Legislature established the Big Game Management Account in 2010 (FGC § 3953) to ensure that funds generated through the purchase of pronghorn, elk, mule deer, wild pig, black bear, and bighorn sheep tags are used for acquiring land, completing projects, implementing programs to benefit these species, expanding public hunting opportunities, and related public outreach, and supporting administrative and enforcement costs. FGC section 3953 also mandates a public advisory committee, as determined by CDFW, that includes “interested nonprofit organizations that have goals and objectives related to the management and conservation of big game species” and primarily represent the interests of persons licensed to hunt in California (FGC § 3031). This public advisory committee serves in an advisory capacity to review and provide comments to CDFW on all proposed projects funded through the Big Game Management Account. 52 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 28 Since at least the 19th century, hunting and wildlife conservation organizations have promoted hunter ethics in North America. This includes concepts of fair chase, appreciation of nature, humane killing methods that avoid unnecessary pain and suffering, and avoiding waste of harvested animals (Organ et al. 1998). CDFW promotes ethical hunter behavior through hunter education programs, which hunters are required to take prior to obtaining hunting licenses.
California’s first hunter education law was enacted in 1954. Classes are offered throughout the State by more than 1,000 certified volunteer instructors, often CDFW game wardens. Along with curricula focusing on understanding firearm equipment, shooting and hunting skills, and safety, there is additional emphasis on being a responsible and ethical hunter. Students discuss (and perhaps debate) the concept of fair chase, which is defined by law, regional differences in ethical standards (e.g., hunting seasons and methods of take vary by US state) and learn how and why hunting laws are passed. Hunting ethics, which generally covers behavior that has to do with issues of fairness, respect, and responsibility not covered by laws are also discussed. Students learn that not everyone will agree on what is considered ethical hunting and thus it is important for each individual to develop their own personal code of conduct. To aid in this development, discussions might include questions the law does not address such as (1) at what distance should a shot be taken, considering the distance, hunter skill level, and personal convictions regarding whether the shot is a fair one? (2) is shooting birds on the ground, on water, or in trees acceptable? or (3) how much should one share with strangers about the locations of quality hunting locations on social media (i.e., hotspotting)? Collectively, discussions about hunting ethics can be summarized by the statement, “Just because you can, does not mean you should.”
Beyond basic hunter education courses, CDFW promotes ethical hunter behavior through advanced hunting clinics that are specific to the game being targeted (e.g., turkey, upland game, waterfowl, and big game). Topics covered in each clinic include type of firearm, ammunition, importance of sighting in the firearm, gauging distance, scouting, tracking, field dressing, shoot-don’t shoot scenarios, hunter ethics, landowner-hunter relationships, conservation, and safety. The goal of this series of hunting clinics is to develop ethical, conservation-minded, successful hunters through education, taking the hunter a step beyond the basic hunter education course.
Examples of regulations that have attempted to address ethical hunter behavior with respect to black bears include prohibition of (1) the use of traps (FGC § 3011), (2) the use of bait (CCR Title 14 § 365), and (3) the harvest of cubs and females accompanied by cubs (CCR Title 14 § 365). Many regulations are in place that describe requirements for firearms and archery equipment that promote humane harvest and fair chase (e.g., centerfire rifle cartridges are required, shotguns may hold no more than 3 shells, there are draw weight requirements for bows, etc.) (CCR Title 14 § 353 and 354).
Other examples of regulations promoting fair chase include hunting and shooting hours restrictions (CCR Title 14 § 352), prohibition on taking big game with the aid of artificial light (CCR Title 14 § 353), and regulations related to the use of motorized equipment while hunting (FGC § 3003.5, CCR Title 14 § 251). To avoid needless waste, hunters are prohibited from leaving any portion of meat normally eaten by people in the field (FGC § 4304). Because the sale of black bear parts is considered both unethical and unlawful, the possession of >1 black bear gall bladder is considered “prima facie 53 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 29 evidence that the bear gall bladders are possessed for sale” (FGC § 4758). To address issues related to poaching, unlawful sale of black bear parts, and other potential threats to black bear populations, CDFW’s Law Enforcement Division (LED) has a confidential witness program called CALTIP which encourages the public to provide CDFW with factual information leading to the arrest of poachers.
CDFW’s Black Bear Program will continue to work with LED to combat black bear poaching and assess how it influences the long-term conservation and management of the species in California.
Cultural, societal, and demographic changes have resulted in a declining participation in hunting and fishing in California since the 1970s. Recognizing the importance of sustaining interest in the hunting tradition, CDFW began state-wide participation in the federal Recruitment, Retention, and Reactivation (R3) program in 2017, with the aim of increasing statewide hunting and fishing participation by collaborating with diverse stakeholders to transform barriers into opportunities (CDFW 2019). In addition, the opportunity to purchase discounted Junior Resident Bear Tags beginning in 2020 appears to have contributed to increased hunter retention (CDFW unpublished data). Groups cooperating with CDFW in this program include Tribes, non-governmental organizations, clubs, media, industry, educators, and members of the public. An important component of the R3 program is to address barriers to participation, focusing beyond traditional hunter education and community outreach efforts that have existed for decades, by becoming socially relevant and creating spaces where both traditional hunting and fishing identities are celebrated, and new identities, inclusiveness, and difference are embraced. CDFW’s Black Bear Program is working with the R3 program to provide additional outreach and collaboration efforts with hunting and wildlife conservation organizations on black bear conservation and management.
Currently, California has the largest estimate black bear population size in the contiguous United States and one of the lowest harvest rates among the 34 U.S. states with regulated black bear hunting (current as of April 2025; CDFW unpublished data, pers. comm.). However, it is important to note that not all states (or jurisdictions outside the United States) use the same method to estimate black bear population size (CDFW unpublished data). While California’s black bear harvest has averaged 1,219 over the past 5 years, the harvest rate is only 1.7%-2.5% due to the state’s large black bear population size (Table 3). Among the 34 U.S. states with regulated black bear hunting, 26 have an annual bag limit of 1, one has an annual bag limit of 2, one has an annual bag limit of 3, and six have an annual bag limit that varies by specific hunt zone, license type, or other factors. In terms of bait, 21 do not allow the use of bait for black bear hunting, 10 allow the use of bait for black bear hunting, and three allow or disallow the use of bait for black bear hunting based on specific hunt zone, license type, or other factors. 27 states do not have a spring black bear season, six have a spring black bear season, and one has a spring black bear season based on specific hunt zone, license type, or other factors. 18 states do not allow the use of dogs for black bear hunting, 12 allow the use of dogs for black bear hunting, and four allow the use of dogs for black bear hunting based on specific hunt zone, license type, or other factors. All 34 states have an archery season for black bear hunting and/or allow archery equipment for hunting black bears. Only one state allows trapping of black bears for hunting, specific only to certain zones. Finally, 10 states do not require meat retrieval for black bears, 22 do, and two do based on specific hunt zone, license type, or other factors.
54 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 30
3.7 VIEWING
Black bear viewing has long been a popular activity with visitors to National Parks in California, such as Yosemite and Sequoia and Kings Canyon. As described by Graber and White (1983) in a study of black bear food habits in Yosemite, “The sight or sound of a 100 to 200 kg beast poking around one’s camp in the gloom of night has provided a thrill tinged with varying degrees of terror to generations of tourists.” Black bear viewing has been associated with terms such as ecotourism or sustainable tourism, which is often considered an important way to increase tourism through encouraging the public to visit local environments and natural surroundings with a focus on environmental education and ecological conservation (Stronza et al. 2019, Streimikiene et al. 2021). Most black bear viewing in California likely occurs in largely undeveloped National Parks, but some semi-urban areas such as the Lake Tahoe Basin and Mammoth Lakes, are popular destinations for black bear viewing as well (Klip 2012). Wildlife (including black bear) viewing can provide substantial economic benefits to National Parks and other areas with charismatic species and accessible terrain (Gunther et al. 2018). In addition to providing economic benefits, black bear viewing has also been positively associated with educational and psychological benefits (Curtin 2013, Siemer et al. 2023).
In contrast to hunting, black bear viewing is considered a non-consumptive activity. However, as with hunting, black bear viewing can still have negative consequences for both black bears and people if not managed appropriately. Black bears inhabiting areas popular for black bear viewing have frequent benign encounters with people, which can cause them to become habituated to human presence and show no overt reaction to people (Penteriani et al. 2017). Habituated black bears are often a significant management concern because they are at an increased risk of becoming foodconditioned, either through being directly fed by people or by finding human food themselves (Hopkins et al. 2010). While food-conditioning is common both inside and outside of protected areas, habituation is probably more common in parks and other areas where hunting (i.e., a potential form of negative conditioning) is restricted (McCullough 1982).
3.8 BLACK BEAR INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER WILDLIFE
Black bears are important predators of neonate ungulates and can have significant impacts on ungulate population dynamics (Linnell et al. 1995, Bowyer et al. 1998, Zager and Beecham 2006; Popp et al. 2018). Within California, Monteith et al. (2014) found neonate mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) born west of the Sierra Crest, where black bear densities are higher than east of the Sierra Crest, were >6 times more likely to die of black bear predation than any other cause. High rates of black bear predation were thought to limit deer abundance in this area by causing a reduction in the proportion of deer that migrate to summer range, as deer trade off obtaining superior nutritional benefits to avoid predation (Monteith et al. 2014). Black bear predation is also a common cause of mortality for black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) fawns in the Mendocino National Forest (Forrester and Wittmer, 2019, Wittmer et al. 2014). The conservation, restoration, maintenance, and utilization of California’s wild deer populations is a policy of the State Legislature (FGC § 450).
Within the Mendocino National Forest, black bears frequently displaced mountain lions from their kills, a behavior called kleptoparasitism. Elbroch et al. (2015) found black bears at 77% of 55 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 31 mountain lion kills, and black bears displaced mountain lions from them 72% of the time. Black bear kleptoparasitism caused mountain lions to increase their kill rates substantially to recoup energetic losses to black bears (Elbroch et al. 2015, Allen et al. 2021) and mountain lion ungulate kill rates in this system were the highest reported for the species across their range (Allen et al. 2021, Cristescu et al. 2022). Collectively, high rates of predation on fawns and kleptoparasitism of mountain lion kills by black bears have likely contributed to declining deer population size in this area (Wittmer et al. 2014, Marescot et al. 2015). Coyotes have also been suggested to be significant predators of fawns across different parts of North America (Murphy et al. 2023, Whittaker and Lindzey, 1999) and in California (Furnas et al. 2020).
Black bear interactions with gray wolves (Canis lupus) can be lethal or kleptoparasitic. Packs of gray wolves are known to displace black bears from carcasses or predate on black bears themselves (Ballard et al. 2003). In areas without gray wolves, black bears may exhibit a release of predation and/ or competition (Frey et al. 2022), In California, these interactions are not yet well understood and impacts on survival and prey selection are yet to be quantified. With gray wolves re-establishing themselves in California, CDFW aims to assess black bear-gray wolf interactions to better understand their dynamics ranging from interspecific predation to kleptoparasitism and scavenging.
In addition, black bears are also potential predators of desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) (Lovich et al. 2014), which are listed as threatened under CESA. While even a single black bear could have negative effects on small populations, such interactions are likely extremely rare because black bears and desert tortoises have very different habitat preferences.
More indirectly, black bears interact with other wildlife by dispersing seeds that they consume. Black bears often swallow fruits whole, and the seeds remain intact once excreted. Given their large home ranges, black bears can be even more effective than birds in seed dispersal (Harrer and Levi 2018), and the movement of seeds contributes to the maintenance of food and cover for many wildlife species. Some plant species even germinate better after being digested and deposited in black bear scats than if seeds do not go through this process (Rogers and Applegate 1983, Auger et al. 2002). Secondary seed dispersers, such as small mammals, can become involved in multiple ways.
Small mammals can experience nutritional benefits by obtaining concentrated food sources from deposited scats. Black bear scats can contain thousands of seeds containing enough energy to meet the daily calorie requirements of >90 mice (Shakeri et al. 2018). Additionally, while long-distance seed dispersal by black bears is important for plant propagation, some species may not germinate well within scats because of high predation rates, competition, or an inadequate temperature and moisture environment. Small mammals can disperse seeds a second time from black bear scats and then bury them in safer locations, making the combined effect of black bears and small mammals for seed dispersal greater than each species would have alone (Enders and Vander Wall 2011). 56 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 32
3.9 HUMAN-BLACK BEAR CONFLICT
With a population of almost 40 million people, conflicts between people and black bears are common and management of these conflicts is a high priority for CDFW. HBC appears to have been increasing for decades due to increasing spatial overlap between people and black bears (i.e., increased human development and recreation in black bear habitat and expansion of black bear distribution). The vast majority of HBC involves the intersection of black bears and attractants, such as food, garbage, and livestock.
Records of HBC are managed by CDFW staff. More standardized statewide recordkeeping began in 2017, when the existing Wildlife Incident Reporting (WIR) system was expanded so that both CDFW staff and the public can submit reports to it (Fig. 4). CDFW staff respond to the reports.
From 2017-2023, excluding reports of black bear sightings in which no conflict occurred, there were 7,219 HBC reports submitted through the WIR. In descending order of frequency, reports were of depredation and property damage (59%), nuisance behavior (28%), and potential human conflicts (12%). Reports of HBC averaged 1,031/year from 2017-2023. Hotspots of HBC reports included the Lake Tahoe Basin, Pine Mountain Club, and the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains.
Figure 4. Plot showing the number of human-black bear conflict reports submitted to CDFW’s Wildlife Incident Reporting system each year from 2017-2023. Reports are classified by type (Depredation, Nuisance, and Potential Human Conflict). Reports can be submitted by CDFW staff and the general public, and CDFW staff respond to the reports.
57 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 33 While documenting the frequency, location, and severity of HBC is commonly used by management agencies to track trends through time and evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies, caution is warranted in interpreting the data. Trends in reports may not accurately reflect actual trends in HBC. For example, we observed a substantial increase in HBC reports during 2021 and 2022, but the degree to which these increases reflect an actual increase in HBC or an increase in reporting is unclear, but it is likely that an increase in reporting was an important factor during 2022 at least.
In February of that year, CDFW began implementing its Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a), which increased staff awareness of the WIR system by requiring its use for all incidents requiring a response by CDFW. The expansion of CDFW’s Human-Wildlife Conflicts Program including the onboarding of dedicated limited term staff across the state to respond to conflict situations may have also played a role in the observed increase of HBC reports.
Additionally, public reporting behavior can be biased in different ways. Howe et al. (2010) thought that increases in HBC reports in Ontario, Canada were more likely the result of public dissatisfaction with a controversial decision to end the spring black bear hunt, rather than actual increases in HBC.
Similarly, Wilbur et al. (2018) found that in Colorado, the people most displeased with black bear management had the highest HBC reporting rates. Other factors that were predictive of a resident’s decision to report HBC included their prior experience with black bears and attitudes related to tolerance of black bears. Recognizing these potential biases is important because public attitudes are often geographically clustered, meaning that spatial patterns of HBC reports may not reflect actual HBC (Wilbur et al. 2018).
In addition, environmental variables may influence HBC trends. For example, drought and climate change can amplify human-wildlife conflict (Calhoun et al. in review). CDFW aims to continue to monitor HBC trends in relation to conflict mitigation efforts, public behavior, environmental variables, and other factors.
California is currently a member of BearWise, a program developed and managed by biologists from multiple jurisdictional natural resource agencies (member agencies of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies) to provide consistent information and messaging about coexisting with black bears. It promotes education and preventative action as the most effective tools for reducing HBC.
Informational resources on black bear biology, behavior, and conflict prevention can be found on the BearWise website.
CDFW staff provide assistance to landowners experiencing HBC in the form of education and advice on corrective actions to prevent re-occurrence (e.g., hazing; eliminating unnatural food or attractants by removing trash and bear-proofing food storage areas; enclosing animal pens; installing fencing or electric fencing, motion lights and sprinklers, noise machines, guard animals; or securing and blocking access to crawl spaces or other potential denning sites). Depredation permits may also be issued (Fig. 5), typically after other non-lethal management options have been exhausted in accordance with the Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a).
58 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 34 Figure 5. Number of CDFW-issued black bear depredation permits issued and numbers of black bears killed each year from 2017-2023. CDFW’s Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a) was implemented in February 2022 and prioritizes non-lethal conflict mitigation before issuing permits for lethal take.
During 2017-2023, there was a declining trend in both the number of black bear depredation permits issued total (lethal and non-lethal permits combined) and the numbers of black bears killed under the permits (Fig. 5). The number of black bears killed under depredation permits has decreased annually from 100 in 2017 to 16 in 2023. Moreover, there has also been an annual increase in the percentage of permits issued that do not result in black bears being killed, from 69.7% in 2017 to
87.3% in 2023. Though these trends may partly reflect changes in human attitudes toward black bears, there was also a significant policy shift in 2022 that is likely influencing recent patterns in depredation permit issuance and outcomes. CDFW’s Black bear Policy (CDFW 2024a) prioritizes nonlethal conflict mitigation measures before issuing permits for lethal take when possible. Permits for hazing black bears have been issued, although these are still classified as depredation permits.
Key predictors of HBC include the availability of both natural foods and anthropogenic foods, proximity of black bear habitat to humans, and black bear abundance and density (Garshelis et al. 2020a). CDFW does not support diversionary feeding practices, and modifying the availability of natural foods is generally infeasible because periods of scarcity are driven by uncontrollable weather events such as drought, wildfires, late spring frosts, etc. However, maintaining a diversity of habitat types through prescribed fire and other sylvicultural practices may be beneficial (Weaver 2000). 59 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 35 Hunting black bears at a rate high enough to reduce their growth rates and abundance across a large spatial scale can be effective for reducing HBC (Garshelis et al. 2020a). Spring hunting seasons in particular have been highlighted as potentially providing mechanisms to reduce HBC (Hristienko and McDonald 2007) and may have relatively minor effects on population dynamics given that spring harvest is generally very male-biased (Hristienko et al. 2004). Whether hunting would be an effective mechanism to reduce HBC in California remains unclear, however, given that harvest rates over the past decade have been very low (e.g., less than 3% annually of the statewide population) despite an increase in tag sales (CDFW 2024b). There is also substantial public opposition to increasing black bear harvest to a rate that would be effective in controlling populations (CDFW 2022b). It should be noted, however, that the framing and positioning of questions related to hunting (i.e., whether the question specifies that hunting is regulated and used for meat) may strongly affect public acceptance (Duda and Nobile 2010). Regardless, encouraging the public to minimize black bear access to human foods has been the primary tool used to manage HBC recently, in conjunction with non-lethal methods designed to temporarily remove animals from conflict situations (e.g., hazing), and targeted lethal removal of individuals involved in conflicts by CDFW or through the issuance of depredation permits. CDFW’s Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a) governs CDFW’s response to HBC.
Reducing black bear access to human food can be effective for reducing HBC (Johnson et al. 2018), but black bear resistant containers and associated infrastructure are often cost-prohibitive for individuals and municipalities alike (McCarthy and Seavoy 1994). Even when present, black bear resistant containers are often not used correctly (Lewis et al. 2015). Therefore, planning and coordination at local and state levels will be critical for reducing HBC linked to anthropogenic food sources. Research from North America suggests that availability of anthropogenic food sources may increase bear reproductive and recruitment rates, thereby contributing to increased bear population density on the wider landscape (McLean and Pelton 1990, Gould et al. 2021). Alternatively, there is also evidence that low survival rates in urban environments due to HBC outweigh any increases in fecundity and lead to an “ecological trap” in which wildland bears disperse into urban environments and reduce overall bear density through source-sink dynamics (Beckmann and Lackey 2008, BaruchMordo et al. 2014). This information suggests that reducing access to anthropogenic food sources may reduce both HBC and local black bear densities by reducing either recruitment or immigration rates. Reducing black bear access to anthropogenic food also supports human safety (Herrero et al. 2011). Food-conditioned black bears can be potentially dangerous to humans and domestic animals. The first-ever reported human fatality caused by a black bear in California occurred in 2023 in Downieville, Sierra County.
Black bears can have large home ranges and often travel long distances to locate seasonal food sources. Consequently, they frequently cross roads where they are susceptible to vehicle collisions.
An average of 111 black bears were reported killed on California roads annually during 2016-2020 (University of California 2021). While reporting rates of black bear-vehicle collisions are probably higher than they are for species that are more commonly killed on roads, such as birds and small mammals (Paul et al. 2014) and black bear carcasses are more likely to be detected by highway workers, it is unknown how these incidental reports compare to the true number of black bears 60 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 36 killed, which is likely higher, as there is no formal reporting structure to document black bear-vehicle collisions. In addition, age and sex information are generally not collected from road-killed black bears, which further limits the ability of these data for informing the impacts of vehicle collisions on black bear populations. CDFW’s Black Bear Program is looking into ways to opportunistically collect and include these data in its population monitoring framework. At a population-level scale, vehicle collisions have not been reported to be influential in population dynamics, but at local scales vehicle collisions can have pronounced effects (Brandenburg 1995, Laufenberg et al. 2018).
While further study of the impacts that vehicle collisions have on black bear populations may be warranted, black bear-vehicle collisions are a management concern nonetheless for several reasons. First, they pose a substantial safety risk to people. Between 4-10% of vehicle collisions with large mammals result in human injury (US Department of Transportation 2008). Second, they are financially costly. The average cost of a collision with a deer, including vehicle repair, medical bills, towing and law enforcement, monetary value of the animal and carcass disposal is estimated at $6,700 (US Department of Transportation 2008). Finally, black bear-vehicle collisions generate concern about animal welfare (see Section 5.4), particularly when cubs become orphaned or when animals experience prolonged suffering prior to death or severe injury without death.
3.10 CLIMATE CHANGE, WILDFIRE, DROUGHT, AND LAND USE
The global climate is changing at a faster pace than previously anticipated (Smith et al. 2015, Xu et al. 2018) and scientists expect cumulatively deleterious impacts to wildlife (Pimm et al. 2014, Ceballos et al. 2017, Spooner et al. 2018). In California, climate change is expected to 1) alter vegetation composition of wildlife habitats forcing species to either shift their geographical ranges or otherwise adapt, 2) increase wildfire extent and severity, 3) increase variation in precipitation leading to both extended droughts and periods of severe flooding, 4) create phenological mismatches between wildlife species and their habitat and foraging resources, and 5) exacerbate land use impacts and other anthropogenic stressors on biodiversity (Parmesan 2007, Mann and Gleick 2015, Williams et al. 2019, Huang and Swain 2022).
Wildfires and droughts can impact black bear habitat by altering vegetation structure and/or composition, which black bears rely on for cover, denning, and food. In the short-term following wildfires, black bears may continue to use all areas of a burn, even those burned with high severity (Crabb et al. 2022). Conversely, black bears may avoid burned areas until vegetation recovery occurs (Bard and Cain 2020), and reduced food availability may result in low cub recruitment (Cunningham and Ballard 2004). Either way, wildfires with substantial areas of high burn severity have not been found to be catastrophic for black bears (Crabb et al. 2022, Koel et al. 2019). In the long term, low intensity wildfires generally have positive effects and mosaics of burn ages and intensities produce diverse habitat conditions that provide black bears with necessary cover and forage resources (Young and Beecham 1986, Stratman and Pelton 2007, Crabb et al. 2022).
In particular, low severity fire can diversify food resources for omnivorous mammals such as black bears and thereby possibly mitigate HBC (Weaver 2000, Crabb et al. 2022). These fires can also create 61 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 37 logs and other structural features for denning while maintaining forest cover. Overall, research from California shows that low severity burning at an average annual rate of 2% across forested landscapes benefits black bears and other species (Furnas et al. 2022). The current rate of low severity fire is much lower than this threshold, and it is also lower compared to the mixed severity fire regime that shaped the structure and heterogeneity of California forest over millennia prior to climate change, fire suppression, and other anthropogenic impacts (Taylor and Skinner 2003, Millar et al. 2007).
Nonetheless, even in an era of increasing megafires, there is still more low severity than high severity fire in California forests (Fig. 6). As demonstrated by California Native American Tribes and others, prescribed burning can be an effective management tool and surrogate for naturally occurring wildfire that benefits black bears and other wildlife (Connor et al. 2022, Furnas et al. 2022).
Figure 6. Low and high burn severity amounts in California through time based on analysis of the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity database (methods described in Eidenshink et al. 2007) from 1984-2019. Wildfire severity is displayed as both acres burned per year and the percent of California’s total land area burned.
Climate change in conjunction with the availability of human food sources is expected to reduce the average duration of bear hibernation thereby extending the active bear season and potentially exacerbating HBC in some places (Johnson et al. 2017). In systems with little human development, natural food shortages, often associated with droughts, may cause declines in reproduction (Rogers 1976, Elowe and Dodge 1989) but generally do not impact adult survival (Kasbohm et al. 1996, Clark et al. 2005). In these circumstances, food shortages have limited effects on black bear populations (Laufenberg et al. 2018). In developed areas however, natural food shortages may induce black bears to shift their foraging to human foods, increasing their exposure to human-caused mortality (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2014, Laufenberg et al. 2018). For one black bear population near Durango, Colorado, a natural food shortage was associated with the most severe black bear population 62 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 38 decline ever documented over a 1-year period, which was suspected to be the result of much higherthan-normal human-caused mortality rates, primarily vehicle collisions (Laufenberg et al. 2018).
Although black bear populations are likely to be resilient to climate change due to their remarkable adaptability to changing environmental conditions (Garshelis et al. 2020b), they may face declines due to interactions between climate change and forest management-induced food shortages and anthropogenic pressures (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2014, Laufenberg et al. 2018, Rettler et al. 2021).
3.11 TRIBAL AUTHORITY AND PERSPECTIVES
Since time immemorial California has been home to a great diversity of Native American Tribes.
Although these Tribes vary considerably in terms of language and culture, they share a strong ecological, cultural, and spiritual connection to the land (Rawls 1984). This includes a long history of using fire and other tools to manage habitats for the plant and wildlife resources which supported Tribal peoples in California (Anderson 2005).
European settlement of California severely impacted Tribal populations, their cultures and livelihoods, and their tenure over the land (Rawls 1984, Starr 2005). Yet, approximately 180 distinct Tribes remain active in the state today. Many are providing leadership in wildlife science, conservation, and management (Matthews et al. 2008, Ramos 2022, Connor et al. 2022). This includes a Tribal management plan for black bears (Higley et al. 2006). Black bears are an especially important animal to many California Tribes to which many people ascribe kinship. For example, an annual ceremonial “bear dance” honoring this bond is still practiced by some Tribes. Based on comments provided at the listening sessions described below, the names for black bear in various California Tribal languages include Virusur, Cher’ere, Wah’ima, and Sa:ts’ among many others.
In Executive Order B-10-11 and reaffirmed in Executive Order N-15-19, the State of California recognizes the sovereign authority of California Tribes over their ancestral territories and activities.
Additional actions by the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) to integrate the historical knowledge of Tribes support efforts to further incorporate tribal perspectives in scientific and policy discussions. Further, it is the policy of CDFW to notify, consult, and promote collaboration and comanagement with Tribes on proposed activities affecting black bears and other wildlife species (CDFW 2014). In June 2022, CDFW notified all California Tribes of our intention to revise this black bear conservation and management plan and requested their input via consultation. After further notification, two online listening sessions were held with Tribes in May 2023. In total, CDFW received and heard comments, interests, and views pertaining to black bears from nine Tribes, which are summarized below (Table 1). The nine Tribes were the Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians, the Hoopa Tribe, the Karuk Tribe, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Pit River Tribe, the Quartz Valley Indian Community, the Resighini Rancheria, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, and the Yurok Tribe.
63 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 39 Table 1. Summary of black bear comments, interests, and views expressed by California Native American Tribes.
Comments were received during the Tribal review process from January – March 2024 and during two listening sessions held in May 2023. While this table includes summaries of comments received from California Native American Tribes that provided comments on this Plan, we acknowledge that it may not represent the full breadth of perspectives on black bear conservation and management held by all California Native American Tribes.
SUMMARY OF BLACK BEAR COMMENTS, INTERESTS, AND VIEWS EXPRESSED
BY CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES
1. California Native American Tribes are diverse, representing a variety of perspectives with respect to black bear conservation and management, however, overall black bears and humans are viewed as intrinsically connected spiritually, culturally, and ecologically.
2. Tribes expressed concerns about the ecological health of habitats supporting black bears and other species and provided recommendations for using prescribed fire to restore those habitats.
3. Tribes expressed concerns about the need for improved human infrastructure to enable successful non-lethal responses to human-black bear conflict (HBC). This included discussion of the affordability and availability of secure garbage containers.
4. Tribes noted the need for clarifying the applicability of Tribal ordinances to non-Tribal persons who hunt on Tribal lands.
5. Tribes noted a desire to streamline a process facilitating Tribes to recover black bears that are killed in collisions with vehicles. This included discussion that black bears are important culturally and spiritually to many California Native American Tribes.
6. There is a diversity of views among Tribes pertaining to the ethics of black bear hunting, but sport and subsistence hunting of black bears is not common among California Native American Tribes.
There is greater (but not widespread) support for killing black bears, in some circumstances, as part of management to mitigate HBC.
7. One Tribe expressed concern about bear hunting in southern California mountain ranges that overlap their ancestral territories. They requested that CDFW prohibit hunting in any areas where population density is low.
8. There is interest in combining CDFW wildlife research activities with Tribal youth environmental education programs.
9. There is also interest in increased collaboration and co-management regarding conservation and management of black bears and other wildlife species. This included discussion about the value of supporting, sustaining, and expanding the capacity of Tribal wildlife research and management departments, and developing agreements for data sharing. It also included discussion of interest in developing approaches for increasing opportunities for Tribal hunting and subsistence use of game species, but this interest was focused on species other than black bears.
10. One Tribe expressed concern about CDFW’s Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a), the Wildlife Incident Reporting system, and the integrated population model. It also requested that CDFW focus on educating communities on how to avoid conflict with black bears and to encourage biologists to be responsive to rural Californians.
64 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 40
3.12 RULEMAKING PROCESS
The California State Legislature has delegated a variety of powers to the Commission. These powers are delegated within California Statutes that comprise FGC). The FGC establishes the basis of fish, wildlife, and native plant management and protection in California, and can only be established and modified by the State Legislature. The FGC more specifically establishes the Commission’s authority in fish and wildlife rules, regulations, and policy making, whereas CDFW is designated as the trustee for fish and wildlife resources. CDFW is charged with implementing and enforcing regulations set forth by the Commission, as well as providing biological data and expertise to inform the Commission’s decision-making process. Under administrative law, the CCR codifies general and permanent rules and regulations to be enacted by the agency responsible for implementation. The Commission and CDFW work within CCR Title 14 - Natural Resources. Regulations routinely addressed under CCR Title 14 include general harvest regulations including harvest quota, season dates, and hunt zone boundaries. Management features can be adopted, amended, or repealed via the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) rulemaking process. The APA is a requirement by law that allows the public to participate in the adoption of state regulations to ensure that the regulations proposed are clear, necessary, and legally valid.
CDFW provides recommendations for adopting, amending, or repealing regulations based on inventory and monitoring of resources, as well as both biological and social conditions. To change hunting regulations for any species, an additional parallel document is required through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires all public agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of projects, including regulation changes which may have potential to significantly affect the environment. CDFW has prepared Environmental Documents for each harvested species, including black bear, on behalf of the Commission. This document serves as a guide for periodic harvest adjustment recommendations within the APA process.
The APA process for enacting new CCR Title 14 regulations generally requires a 12–18-month timeline composed of several public meetings (Table 2). The process generally begins with 2 initial discussion meetings at public meetings of the Wildlife Resources Committee (WRC) which is chaired by one member of the Commission. An initial scoping meeting of the WRC is typically held in May to discuss general rulemaking needs and is followed by a recommendation meeting of the WRC in September to approve or reject moving the rulemaking under consideration forward to present to the Commission. If a rulemaking is approved to move forward by the WRC, the proposed regulation change is presented to the Commission at a public notice hearing in December. A public comment period follows this meeting. In February, a public discussion hearing is held, where the details of the proposed changes are discussed by the Commission and the general public and comments are responded to by CDFW staff. Adoption hearings would then be held in April, where final recommendations are presented by CDFW staff – formed in part by public comments and inquiry and discussion with the Commission. The regulatory framework is a public process that provides multiple opportunities for the public to engage with the Commission and CDFW to manage our shared resources effectively. The Commission has final approval authority to adopt, amend, repeal, 65 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 41 or reject proposals set forth by CDFW or the general public. If a new regulation is approved, CDFW is responsible for implementation. Generally, this occurs in the fall when hunting seasons open.
Table 2. Administrative process and general timeline for adopting California Code of Regulations Title 14 regulations affecting black bear hunting, conservation, and management.
ACTION GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TIMEFRAME
Initial scoping Wildlife Resources Committee May, year 1 Recommendation to proceed Wildlife Resources Committee September, year 1 Notice hearing Fish and Game Commission December, year 1 Public discussion Fish and Game Commission February, year 2 Adoption vote Fish and Game Commission April, year 2
Implementation California Department of Fish and Wildlife June-November, year 2 66 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 42 CHAPTER 4
POPULATION
MONITORING
67 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 43 CHAPTER 4. POPULATION MONITORING
4.1 BEAR CONSERVATION REGIONS
Due to California’s geographical size and ecological diversity, black bear populations throughout the state differ in terms of abundance, density, genetic diversity, disease susceptibility, and interactions with humans. Therefore, CDFW intends to monitor black bear populations separately within nine BCRs representative of these potential differences.
Black bear hunting generally runs concurrent with the deer hunting seasons, and the area open to black bear hunting is largely delineated by deer hunt zones. For these reasons CDFW is adopting BCRs conforming to groups of deer zones (Fig. 7). These BCRs also generally conform to different ecological regions and CDFW administrative regions.
Figure 7. Bear Conservation Regions (BCRs). Boundaries are based on the existing black bear hunt zone map, which in turn is based on existing deer hunt zone boundaries. BCRs were delineated based on California’s diverse biogeography and ecoregions. Both hunt and no-hunt BCRs are displayed, as well as deer hunt zone boundaries within which population trends would be monitored and harvest limits set. Solid patterns represent BCRs where hunting currently occurs, and dashed patterns represent BCRs where there is currently no hunting. 68 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 44 The 56,931-km2 North Coast BCR lies mostly in CDFW Region 1, overlaps the Northern California Coastal Ranges and Klamath Mountains ecoregions, and includes deer zones B1— B6, and portions of the A North Unit.
The 29,640-km2 Cascade BCR lies mostly in CDFW Region 1, overlaps the Southern Cascades ecoregion, and includes deer zones C1—C4, X1, X4, and portions of X3a.
The 34,463-km2 Northern Sierra BCR lies mostly in CDFW Region 2, overlaps the Sierra Nevada ecoregion, and includes deer zones D3—D5, X7a, X7b, X8, and portions of X6a and X6b.
The 53,437-km2 Southern Sierra BCR lies mostly in CDFW Regions 4 and 6, overlaps the Sierra Nevada ecoregion, and includes deer zones D6—D9, X9a, X9b, X10, and X12.
The 32,046-km2 Transverse Ranges BCR lies mostly in CDFW Regions 5 and 6, overlaps the Transverse Ranges ecoregion, and includes deer zones D10, D11, D13, D14, and portions of D15, D17, and the A South Unit.
The 16,165-km2 Northeastern California BCR lies entirely in CDFW Region 1, overlaps the Modoc Plateau ecoregion, and includes deer zones X2, portions of X3a, X3b, portions of X4, X5a, X5b, and portions of X6a and X6b.
The 68,284-km2 Central Coast BCR lies mostly in CDFW Regions 3 and 4, overlaps the Central California Coast and Great Valley ecoregions, and includes portions of the A North Unit and A South Unit.
The 93,355-km2 Inland Deserts BCR lies mostly in CDFW Region 6, overlaps the Mojave Desert and Sonoran Desert ecoregions, and includes deer zones D12, D17, and X9c.
The 24,746-km2 South Coast BCR lies in CDFW Regions 5 and 6, overlaps the Southern California Coast and Southern California Mountains and Valleys ecoregions, and includes deer zones D16 and D19 and portions of D15.
Although CDFW intends to monitor black bear populations at the BCR scale, regulatory changes approved by the Commission would be required to modify the statewide annual harvest limit (e.g., currently 1,700 black bears) so that separate limits apply within each BCR. CDFW also plans to monitor black bear populations in unhunted areas to inform conservation and management in these areas and to understand any potential range expansion.
69 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 45
4.2 INTEGRATED POPULATION MODEL
Black bear age and sex structure (i.e., percent of black bears by each year of age for each sex, Fig. 8) is a key source of data that CDFW uses to monitor black bear populations in California. CDFW can use this information to evaluate the effects of hunting and other factors on the statewide black bear population. For over two decades, hunters have provided tooth samples from harvested black bears, a critical data source for CDFW’s Black Bear Program. CDFW sends these teeth to a laboratory that counts annual rings visible in each tooth to determine the age of each harvested bear. For many years, CDFW used these data in a mathematical model that estimated the total statewide black bear population size each year by comparing the age structures of males and females to the total number of harvested black bears (Fraser 1976). As males are more frequently harvested than females, there is a greater proportion of them in the younger age classes of harvested bears. This effect dissipates with older bears, so the sex ratio approaches 1:1 at a given age (Fig. 8). The age at which this occurs was then used as a parameter for estimating the total population size. However, a key accuracy assumption of the model was violated when hunter effort and success changed in 2013, when the use of dogs to hunt black bears was discontinued (Harris and Metzgar 1987, CDFW 2022b).
Figure 8. An example of age and sex structure data for black bears in California. Hunters provide a premolar tooth from each harvested bear (n~1,300 each year) from which the age can be estimated by a laboratory by counting cementum annuli. Males (boars) generally comprise the majority (~60%) of annual take.
Integrated population models (IPMs) are powerful tools to efficiently combine different types of available information (e.g., population surveys, age and sex structure, survival, and reproductive rates) to better monitor population sizes and trends and understand the drivers of trends (Arnold et al. 2018, Zipkin and Saunders 2018). Recent advances in computing speed and Bayesian algorithms to solve complex problems have led to the increased application of IPMs and other types of advanced hierarchical models in wildlife ecology (Schaub and Kery 2012, Kery and Royle 2021). In 70 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 46 particular, Bayesian models facilitate incorporating multiple sources of data including through the use of “informative priors”. Put in other words, final estimates combine inferences from the data being modeled and prior information from other studies. In 2022, CDFW began the process of adapting a black bear IPM originally developed in Wisconsin for use in California (Allen et al. 2018a). The new IPM for California black bears combines the age and sex structure information from tooth sampling with additional information on vital rates (e.g., reproduction and survival) and other factors (e.g., non-reporting rate for hunter harvest) (Connor et al. in review). For the time being, most of the information included in the IPM on vital rates comes from published studies throughout North America. It includes some California information on hunting season adult survival which is expected to be higher in California than in Wisconsin where the IPM was first applied. The California black bear IPM also includes local information on the harvest non-reporting rate based on available data for deer. CDFW does not currently have the non-reporting rate for black bears but will be prioritizing the collection of those data. In the meantime, CDFW is using the deer non-reporting rate due to the substantial overlap between California’s deer and black bear hunters.
CDFW also used information from local black bear density studies and species distribution modeling from camera traps to calculate informative priors on the initial value of black bear population size in each BCR (Fig. 9, Fig. 10). The IPM then applies an algorithm called Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to compute statistical probabilities which it uses to estimate the most likely final values (i.e., posterior distributions) of the population sizes and other model parameters, given the totality of information considered in the model. To get these priors, CDFW used a special type of occupancy model (Royle and Nichols 2003) to estimate how relative abundance varies spatially with covariates (e.g., elevation and forest cover) across the state at thousands of camera trap locations. CDFW then calibrated the camera modeling against black bear densities independently estimated from 11 local studies that used various methods ranging from counts of GPS collared bears to spatial capture-recapture modeling (Arias 2007, Matthews et al. 2008, Fusaro et al. 2017, Owen-Ramos et al. 2022, Peterson 2023, CDFW unpublished data).
71 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 47 Figure 9. A flowchart showing the components and framework of the integrated population model (IPM). Solid lines indicate direct inputs or outputs. Dashed lines indicate modifying or scaling effects. RN refers to the RoyleNichols occupancy models that are used to predict black bear abundance using camera trap data. IPM refers to the integrated population model which estimates black bear population size and structure. This flowchart depicts the current IPM structure and outputs, but these aspects will be iteratively refined and improved by CDFW’s Black Bear Program.
Using the IPM with currently available data, CDFW estimates a total statewide black bear population (5-year average, 2020–2024) of 59,851 (90% credible interval (CI): 49,412–70,611, Table 3). It is expected that the accuracy and precision of population estimates will improve further as CDFW begins to regularly collect local information on vital rates. In addition, CDFW will be able to better understand the drivers of population dynamics and interactions between black bears and ecological variables as additional data are collected. Nevertheless, CDFW considers the current estimate reliable because it is based on multiple sources of information and a modeling framework that has been shown to be robust to inaccuracies about vital rates (Allen et al. 2018a). 72 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 48 Table 3. Average estimated black bear population sizes in nine Bear Conservation Regions (BCRs) across California between 2020-2024. Hunter harvest numbers and estimated harvest rates are also presented for hunt BCRs. 90% CI refers to the 90% credible interval.
BEAR CONSERVATION REGION POPULATION ESTIMATE
(90% CI)
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
HARVEST
AVERAGE ANNUAL
HARVEST RATE
HUNT
North Coast
Cascade
Northern Sierra
Southern Sierra
Transverse Ranges
22,555 (16,845–28,196)
13,147 (9,735–16,524)
10,076 (7,592–12,657)
7,860 (6,032–9,649)
1,645 (1,142–2,143)
442
189
265
268
55 1.6%–2.6%
1.1%–1.9%
2.1%–3.5%
2.8%–4.4%
2.6%–4.8%
NO-HUNT*
Northeastern California
Central Coast
Inland Deserts
South Coast
2,225 (1,223–3,192)
1,631 (1,076–2,184)
230 (122–337)
481 (291–666)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Statewide 59,851 (49,412–70,611) 1,219 1.7%–2.5%
*Population estimates in no-hunt BCRs are currently based on spatial predictions from the camera trap-based Royle-Nichols occupancy model (Royle and Nichols 2003) scaled to results from an age-at-harvest-based integrated population model. Thus, estimates in no-hunt BCRs should be interpreted cautiously.
The IPM also provides strong preliminary evidence that black bear populations have been stable in California over the past decade (Fig. 10). One caveat is that the current modeling approach allows CDFW to extrapolate black bear population size in the no-hunt BCRs using occupancy modeling of camera trap surveys, but the lack of age distribution data outside of hunted regions currently precludes evaluation of population trend in the no-hunt BCRs. This issue could be rectified through the analysis of additional camera trap data and expansion of the age distribution and vital rates monitoring from areas where no hunting currently occurs. 73 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 49 Figure 10. Preliminary estimated population trends in all California Bear Conservation Regions where hunting occurs based on the integrated population model (IPM) each year from 2014-2024. Trends will become more accurate and precise as additional vital rates data are collected from the field and integrated into the IPM.
In addition, CDFW fit a second statewide IPM to age-at-harvest data dating back to 1990 to evaluate evidence of longer-term population trends. Because spatial information on harvest was not available before 2013, the data needed were grouped and the model was fit statewide. Additionally, because there were minimal supplementary data and studies to inform population size in 1990, a broad, uninformative prior between 0 and 100,000 was used for initial population size. There was large uncertainty and limited chain convergence in the population size estimates in the early years of the IPM, and no statistically significant evidence of any trend (negative or positive) in black bear population size over the study period. There was also no evidence of a detectable temporal trend in the percent females harvested and median age of harvested females, the raw harvest metrics previously used as management thresholds. That said, given the relatively low proportion of black bears harvested in California and limited amount of supplemental data and studies before 2013, this estimate of population trend since 1990 should be interpreted with caution.
Regarding the population estimate and associated 90% CI, it is important to note that the population estimate (a point estimate) is a single value that represents a single best estimate of the average 74 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 50 population size over the last five years based on the current data and model. However, because full censuses of wildlife populations are generally infeasible and statistical models that estimate their total size from samples always contain some level of uncertainty, the point estimate is accompanied by a 90% credible interval. This interval represents a range within which the true population size is likely to fall, given the current data and assumptions, with a 90% probability. Essentially, while the point estimate is our best single estimate, the credible interval reflects the relative uncertainty around that estimate and the range within which the actual population size is likely to fall. It is also important to understand that these estimates population size and the associated 90% credible interval are just that – estimates – and as new data, such as vital rates information, additional harvest data, and the effects of environmental variables, are incorporated into the IPM, both the point estimate and the credible interval are likely to shift. This is an expected outcome of CDFW’s iteratively improving understanding of black bear populations over time. Changes in estimates or trends should not be a cause for alarm but rather a reflection of the dynamic nature of black bears populations and the increasing precision of the science used to study them. CDFW’s focus is on continually refining these estimates to better inform and guide black bear conservation and management into the future.
Based on the age distributions and other sources of data included in the IPM, the model is estimating a hunting season survival rate that is higher and more precise than the prior information CDFW included in the modeling (Fig. 11). The updated posterior estimate makes sense considering that there is less hunting pressure in California than in other regions of North America. The current modeling approach, however, highlights the need for designated local study areas throughout California to monitor black bear vital rates and other information, to complement the age and sex structure data used in the IPM. The locations of these study areas should be chosen to represent the range of black bear habitats across California and within BCRs. Vital rates (metrics of population dynamics such as mortality and recruitment per unit time, Kohyama et al. 2018) within study areas could be monitored through a combination of GPS telemetry collars, den checks, camera grids, hair snares, fecal DNA, and other methods. Vital rates could also be estimated outside of these study areas using the thousands of camera traps surveyed in California each year, through analyzing how the number of cubs per adult female photographed changes each month. Additionally, CDFW intends to explore options for gathering information about pregnancy status inferred from the same tooth samples used to estimate ages of harvested bears. Thinner tooth cementum annuli rings are often a signal of pregnancy in female bears, but methodological uncertainties will need to be formally addressed if the data are included in the IPM (Allen et al. 2017). 75 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 51 Figure 11. Prior and posterior distributions of five black bear vital rate parameters from the integrated polulation model (IPM) across the five Bear Conservation Regions (BCRs) where hunting occurs. The survival rate values come from the second year of the model run (2014), while the fecundity parameters do not vary annually in the model.
Posteriors for the different BCRs are depicted in different colors with transparency for ease of visualizing overlapping distributions. As additional vital rates data are collected from the field and integrated into the IPM, the estimates will become both more accurate and precise.
Another source of potential bias in the IPM is that the age structure data are based on the ages of harvested black bears. While the age structure of harvested bears may not be fully representative of the age structure in the total population, the IPM can account for different harvest rates faced by different sex and age classes by estimating age, sex, and year-specific hunting season survival rates (Allen et al. 2018a). Following the recommendations of Allen et al. (2018b), CDFW made additional adjustments to priors included in the IPM to offset the effects of expected age distribution bias in the black bear harvest. Additionally, CDFW aims to develop independent methods to sample the ages of non-harvested black bears. CDFW intends to compare the age distributions of harvested and nonharvested black bears, and use this comparison to adjust the IPM, if necessary (e.g., double sampling, Cochran 1977). CDFW expects that this adjustment would require a substantially smaller sample of non-hunted black bears with respect to the large amount of age data provided by hunters. 76 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 52 Spatial capture-recapture (SCR) modeling using field collection of genetic samples is a powerful method for robustly estimating bear abundance (Royle et al. 2013). CDFW does not need to rely on this method for black bears as much as for other species such as deer (Furnas et al. 2018), because of the age distribution data available for both sexes used in the IPM. CDFW did use SCR from local genetic studies (e.g., Owen-Ramos et al. 2022) for providing prior information on bear densities used in the IPM. To improve precision and accuracy of the IPM, CDFW plans to periodically conduct additional genetic surveys among the designated local study areas for updating local densities used as priors in the IPM.
CDFW intends to develop a Black Bear Monitoring Plan for California following completion of this Plan. It will provide greater detail on the data inputs and structure of the IPM, and protocols, timelines, and logistics for collecting all the necessary data statewide and within local study areas.
This will be crucial to make sure appropriate data are being collected for use in the IPM.
4.3 OTHER POPULATION INDICATORS AND HARVEST METRICS
Monitoring how black bear population size varies by BCR and year (i.e., using the IPM) is the primary scientific information CDFW needs to conserve the species throughout the state and ensure regulated hunting is sustainable. Vital rates (e.g., recruitment and survival) are key inputs into the IPM which will also provide CDFW with the ability to better understand the potential causes of any population trend. Some of the methods to estimate vital rates will involve deploying GPS collars on adult black bears, using GPS data to locate and monitor dens, and using camera traps to estimate litter size and cub recruitment.
In combination with population and vital rates estimates, CDFW intends to use other metrics to inform its adaptive management of black bears as described in Chapter 6. These metrics include those CDFW previously used in the absence of robust population estimates: 1) the average (or median) age of female bears ascertained from the same age distribution data used in IPM, and 2) the percentage of harvested bears that are females ascertained from harvest success reporting required of hunters (CDFG 1998). When possible, CDFW staff will confirm reported bear sex when handling bears to extract teeth. This approach of using harvest-based metrics to guide sustainable levels of hunter harvest has been used by many other state wildlife agencies throughout North America (IDFG 1999, WGFD 2007, NYDEC 2014, Allen et al. 2018a, Allen et al. 2018b).
CDFW maintains a database of harvest statistics of annual black bear tags sold and the mandatory reporting information on harvest locations and dates. Besides using this information to inform population monitoring, the information is used to assess factors affecting hunter success at the BCR scale.
77 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 53 CHAPTER 5
OTHER DATA FOR
INFORMING CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT
78 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 5 54 CHAPTER 5. OTHER DATA FOR INFORMING CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT
5.1 GENETIC DIVERSITY
Brown et al. (2009) found that genetic diversity among California black bears is substantial and similar to that of other states (Brown et al. 2009, Clarke et al. 2001, Paetkau et al. 1998, Paetkau and Strobek 1994). However, given the age of this study, these estimates require an update. CDFW is currently collaborating with the University of California, Santa Cruz to conduct a statewide genomic study (the California Conservation Genomics Project) to assess genetic diversity, population structure, and adaptive differentiation of black bears. This study will serve as a baseline assessment that can be used to evaluate genetic diversity in subsequent years. Given the substantial genetic diversity, minimal population structure, and high connectivity among California black bears, there are currently few conservation concerns regarding genetics. Given the time lag between when a population may experience anthropogenically induced reductions in size and/or connectivity versus when the genetic effects of such events become detectable, statewide efforts to re-estimate genetic diversity should occur every 10-20 years. On that schedule, CDFW scientists should estimate standardized measures of genetic diversity (e.g., heterozygosity, allelic richness, etc.), as well as re-evaluate genetic population structure. Both can provide insights regarding whether anthropogenic activities have significantly fragmented available habitat or reduced population size. To facilitate these updates, CDFW will continue to build and maintain a DNA archive for black bears throughout the state.
5.2 MOVEMENT ECOLOGY AND CONNECTIVITY
California Assembly Bill 2344 (Safe Roads and Wildlife Protection Act) was enacted in 2022 and provides new authority and funding to support the evaluation of wildlife connectivity across roads, and other barriers, to benefit wildlife populations and reduce vehicle collisions. In part in response to these priorities, CDFW will develop a Black Bear Monitoring Plan for California to guide how to most efficiently deploy GPS collars on black bears to better understand their spatial ecology and vulnerability to vehicle collisions. For example, autocorrelated kernel density estimators can be used to estimate bear home range sizes and understand factors associated with differences in those ranges (Fleming et al. 2015), and GPS collar data will also allow for detailed analyses of black bear movement and habitat selection through methods such as Brownian bridge movement models and integrated step selection functions (Koehler and Pierce 2003, Thurfjell et al. 2014). Results from these analyses will allow for better predictions of where black bears cross roads and where vehicle strikes are most prevalent , which will help inform mitigation efforts like the installation of wildlife road crossings (Zeller et al. 2020).
A secondary purpose of the GPS collars will be to estimate survival rates, and how they change over space and time. As noted in Section 4.2, vital rates are a key source of information included in the IPM to monitor black bear populations.
79 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 5 55 Additionally, in 2022, CDFW initiated a project to document the space use of black bears involved in HBC and cubs released from rehabilitation facilities. Over the next 3-5 years, fine-scale habitat use data (i.e., 12-24 fixes per day) will be collected from up to 250 black bears fitted with GPS collars.
Collars fitted to adults will be scheduled for automatic drop-off for 2 years and collars fitted to yearlings or small juveniles will last for 9 months to accommodate increase in body size. This data can be used to inform habitat selection in relation to environmental factors (e.g., forest cover, riparian areas, fires, droughts, etc.), improve understanding of black bear road crossings, and evaluate the ability of non-lethal management tools for altering conflict behavior.
CDFW and other researchers are increasingly placing cameras at wildlife crossings below or above roads to document and evaluate the effectiveness of these structures for facilitating wildlife connectivity (Ng et al. 2004, Caldwell and Klip 2020). Cameras in these settings provide information on the species using connectors, the times of day they are more likely to use these structures, and interactions among species, for instance whether prey species such as deer are at greater risk of ambush by predators such as mountain lions. These data could help inform an expanded assessment of the importance of underpasses and overpasses to reduce vehicle collisions with black bears and the degree to which black bears alter the behavior of other species using these structures.
Roadkill data is also relevant to mitigating traffic collisions and other aspects of wildlife conservation and management (Schwartz et al. 2020). The California Department of Transportation maintains a wildlife roadkill database including species, date, road number, and mile marker location. Further, the UC Davis Road Ecology Center compiles some of these data and other sources of citizen science wildlife roadkill observations in another database (Shilling and Waetjen 2015).
5.3 DISEASE
Collecting biologic samples and associated metadata (age, sex, date, location, etc.), whether for archive or immediate analysis, is important to inform managers about the health, disease status, and HBC involvement of individual animals within the context of populations. If sample collections are from a large and diverse enough subset of one or more populations, results either from a point in time or, better yet, across time can collectively provide significant information on health and disease status of populations. Trends in results could indicate changes in population health. CDFW and its partners maintain multiple tissue sample archives including serum, whole blood, hair, formalinfixed paraffin embedded tissues, and various fresh tissues collected from black bear mortality investigations, management actions, and hunter harvests. CDFW will continue to collect and archive these samples so they will be available for future use. The value of maintaining this archive is that if a health or disease related issue does emerge, samples are available that could be used to assess over space and time, giving managers a better understanding of any potential impacts.
5.4 ANIMAL WELFARE
One of the primary animal welfare concerns of CDFW is the disposition of orphaned black bear cubs. Up to 30 cubs are assessed for care annually by CDFW veterinarians for placement in one of four permitted rehabilitation facilities in the state. Monitoring of these bears following release from 80 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 5 56 rehabilitation facilities with GPS collars began in 2022. Information on short-term (i.e., 9-month) survival, causes of mortality, and conflict behavior of the animals will be compared to that of wild bears to evaluate and/or improve practices for management of orphaned cubs.
5.5 HUMAN INTERACTIONS WITH BLACK BEARS
CDFW intends to continue to maintain and use its WIR database to monitor HBC trends. The public can submit reports online directly to the WIR, or a CDFW staff member can enter a report on the public’s behalf. The report consists of the date the incident occurred, the species of wildlife involved, the address of the property, the approximate GPS coordinates, and a brief description of the incident.
CDFW’s Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a) defines different types (categories) of bear incidents requiring a response:
1) Conflict bear: A catch-all term for any bear that requires response due to its behavior or situation, including animal welfare bears, habituated bears, and “no harm/no foul” bears which may require assistance returning to nearby habitat. 2) Depredation bear: A bear that is threatening to, damaging, or destroying property for which a revocable depredation permit has been requested and can be issued in accordance with FGC.
3) Public safety bear: A bear demonstrating aggressive action that has resulted in physical contact with a human; or a bear exhibiting an immediate threat to public health and safety.
Once a WIR report has been submitted, it is reviewed by a CDFW staff member. If the incident warrants further investigation or action, the staff member will follow up with the reporting party and often performs a site visit to inspect the situation firsthand. For black bears, this may involve providing information on conflict avoidance and mitigation techniques and coexistence. If the incident is a depredation concern, the depredation permit process may be initiated per the steps in the Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a).
Human dimensions studies on the quality of human interactions with wildlife including black bears focus on both the general public, particularly those living in black bear habitat, and California’s black bear hunters. Specifically, understanding the factors influencing effective implementation by the public of preventative measures to reduce HBC will be important for effective conservation (BaruchMordo et al. 2011). Further research on how the California public values black bears will be necessary to better estimate and manage social tolerance levels for the species in different settings and help set conservation goals accordingly (Vaske et al. 2022, Delie et al. 2023). Additionally, understanding the experiences of California’s black bear hunters will be useful for predicting hunter effort, interest in black bear hunting, and evaluating the role of hunter harvest in black bear conservation and management. Such work can help identify the behavior of hunters and the barriers and limitations that hunters face. Hunter satisfaction surveys are the easiest surveys for CDFW to perform because CDFW has the contact information of hunters purchasing a black bear tag or hunting license. For 81 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 5 57 most surveys of the general public, CDFW would need to purchase a survey panel or sample to have a scientifically robust sample. CDFW aims to continue to conduct such surveys of hunters as part of its outreach efforts.
There is a wealth of other social science studies on human and black bear interactions. These studies transcend disciplines and include, but are not limited to, research on the sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, communication, and political science aspects of human and bear interactions. A full review of this literature is beyond the scope of this Plan. Because this research encompasses so many disciplines and requires disparate expertise in so many fields, it is important for CDFW’s Black Bear Program to partner and collaborate with other research institutions. An example of this was a recent collaboration with data science interns at the University of San Francisco to extract and analyze social media posts about black bears from X (formerly known as Twitter) throughout California during 2010-2022. A preliminary analysis of emotional sentiment using data science methods suggests that the predominant sentiments towards black bears were ambivalence (38%), fear (24%), and joy (19%) and that there were seasonal shifts in the relative frequency of these sentiments (Fig. 12, Ai 2023). These projects can serve as templates for future collaborations between CDFW and other researchers to continue to study human and black bear interactions.
Figure 12. Analysis of emotional sentiments expressed within black bear social media posts from California from 2010-2022. Data science methods were applied to remove non-wildlife related tweets (e.g., Black Bear Diner) and to infer emotional content of phrases and sentences. Results suggest negative sentiments peaked during summer when human wildlife conflict incidents are more prevalent (Ai 2023). 82 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 58 CHAPTER 6
ADAPTIVE
MANAGEMENT
83 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 6 59 CHAPTER 6. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
6.1 CONSERVING AND MANAGING ECOLOGICALLY FUNCTIONAL BLACK BEAR POPULATIONS
AND THEIR HABITATS
An ability to estimate and monitor bear population abundances statewide and regionally constitutes the foundation of CDFW’s approach to meeting its conservation management goals for black bears.
CDFW intends to apply population information within an adaptive management framework for guiding, supporting, and communicating decisions affecting hunting, HBC, and other conservation and management actions for black bears (Walters 1986, Fig. 13). This adaptive approach will provide CDFW with the flexibility to adjust its approach to black bear conservation and management based on the most up-to-date data and evidence.
As detailed in Chapter 4, CDFW plans to monitor black bear population totals and their trends within each BCR. Consistent with the goal to maintain ecologically functional black bear populations, if there is a conservation or management concern about population performance, CDFW plans to use the IPM to follow up with an evaluation of vital rates, associations with specific stressors (e.g., harvest, habitat, climate, food availability, fire, etc.), and related conservation metrics (e.g., genetic diversity, disease). If concern remains, CDFW would attempt to apply the IPM to simulate expected future conditions and provide a population viability analysis to help quantify the conservation risk (Penman et al. 2022). Moreover, in addition to using data from GPS collared black bears to monitor vital rates, CDFW is also looking into ways to collect and interpret data from unmarked bears (e.g., mortalities caused by poaching, vehicle collisions, or poisoning) to augment its population monitoring approach. CDFW would rely on findings from these analyses and assessments to inform any recommendations to the Commission about regulatory changes including (but not limited to) hunting quotas, methods, and seasons. CDFW would also use its findings to inform other potential conservation and management responses, including initiating new research and collaborating with external partners (federal and state agencies, tribes, non-government organizations, private landowners) on developing conservation approaches which could include forest and fire management strategies for improving black bear habitat.
As discussed in Section 3.1, there is a goal to maintain ecologically functional black bear populations, which are often abundant and common. This may pose conservation and management challenges, however, because areas where black bears are abundant and common can experience high rates of HBC, adversely impacts to other wildlife species and high incidence of disease (see Chapter 3 and Appendix 1 for greater detail). If there is a concern about black bear overpopulation within a BCR and associated impacts on humans or other wildlife species, CDFW would use its population monitoring approach and adaptive management framework to assess how overabundance contributes to the given concern as it pertains to its conservation and management goals for black bears. CDFW would then evaluate and appropriately implement management actions for addressing the concern. These actions include the application of educational and public outreach approaches included in CDFW’s Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a) and working with local municipalities and other groups to provide expanded access to secure waste disposal and other infrastructure that reduces the availability of 84 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 6 60 anthropogenic food sources to black bears (Johnson et al. 2018). CDFW plans to use its IPM-based population monitoring approach to evaluate whether reduced levels of HBC lead to reductions in recruitment and population size. Specifically, CDFW aims to coordinate vital rates monitoring among groups of black bears representative of different levels of HBC and utilization of anthropogenic food and shelter resources. This will help CDFW assess whether reducing attractant-based HBC leads to either lower regional population size via reduced recruitment or lower local density via reduced immigration. CDFW will continue to evaluate the application of non-lethal strategies for managing the potential effects of black bear predation on ungulates and other species of management or conservation concern. For example, outside of California relocation of black bears off elk (Cervus elaphus) calving grounds has been used to improve calf recruitment (Yarkovich et al. 2011).
As black bears have recently expanded their range in some areas of California (Section 3.2), effecting a potential for increased hunting opportunity and increased HBC, CDFW is prioritizing analysis of occurrence (e.g., cameras) and movement (e.g., GPS collars) monitoring in these areas. If necessary, CDFW will adjust boundaries or create additional BCRs to reflect the changing distribution of black bear populations.
Figure 13. Adaptive management framework for using population data, and other information, to inform black bear conservation and management in California. The framework differentiates between information and action, the former of which provide essential information and data to execute the former using an evidence-based approach and the best available science.
85 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 6 61
6.2 CONSERVING AND MANAGING GENETICALLY DIVERSE BLACK BEAR POPULATIONS By monitoring and reassessing black bear genetic diversity every 10 to 20 years (Section 5.1), CDFW will be able to determine if anthropogenic activities have significantly fragmented habitat and limited gene flow. Should such situations occur, CDFW plans to use other existing and future data sources (e.g., from GPS collared individuals, road-kill surveys, etc.) to identify locations where mitigation projects to improve connectivity (e.g., highway crossing structures, habitat corridor protection and enhancement) could occur.
6.3 CONSERVING AND MANAGING DISEASE-RESILIENT BLACK BEAR POPULATIONS Black bear populations currently appear to be stable and disease-resilient in California. CDFW will continue to opportunistically surveil black bears for emerging health or disease concerns through mortality investigations and routine sample collections from management actions or conflict black bears. In particular, CDFW aims to research idiopathic encephalitis in black bears, which can substantially alter black bear behavior and has been suggested to exacerbate HBC (Sinnott et al. 2022).
6.4 PROVIDING BLACK BEAR HUNTING OPPORTUNITIES
FGC section 1801, CDFW aims to analyze and assess black bear population data, and other sources of information including data on hunter opportunity and success, to inform any recommendations to the Commission about changes to hunting regulations (e.g., tag limits, seasons, methods of take).
CDFW’s primary analytical tool for determining sustainable harvest levels would be the IPM combined with simulation of the future population trajectory under different harvest scenarios.
As CDFW will be monitoring black bear populations at the BCR scale, it makes sense to manage hunting levels, seasons, and methods of take at this scale. Regulatory changes (CCR Title 14) would be required for this to be possible. This is because current regulations set a 1,700 black bear annual harvest limit at the state level.
CDFW intends to continue to promote hunter ethics through hunter education activities.
6.5 MANAGING HUMAN-BLACK BEAR CONFLICT AND CONSIDERATION OF ANIMAL WELFARE Although concerns about HBC and conserving ecologically functional populations are linked (see Section 6.1), management of HBC is a broader issue that is largely addressed in a separate policy (CDFW 2024a).
This policy places a high priority on animal welfare. Specifically, the policy prioritizes use of nonlethal, corrective actions (e.g., eliminating attractants and adding bear-proofing structures) before authorizing depredation permits for killing conflict bears. The annual number of black bears taken under depredation permits has decreased since 2017 and averages around 60 bears per year.
These losses amount to less than 0.1% of the state population and are unlikely to have detectable population level impacts. Additionally, CDFW will continue to coordinate with rehabilitation 86 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 6 62 facilities around the state to ensure humane and effective veterinary care for black bears recovered during wildfires and other circumstances. Further, CDFW veterinarians will continue to lead review of capture plans required for research investigations that include the capture and temporary immobilization of black bears to place GPS collars or for other purposes. These capture plans safeguard animal welfare by specifying methods of capture, proper use of immobilization drugs, and monitoring of the physical and psychological health of captured animals.
CDFW intends to continue to consider animal welfare in its planning activities and regulatory change proposals affecting regulated hunting. Besides conserving ecologically functional, genetically diverse, and disease-resilient black bear populations, and consistent with efforts to promote hunter ethics (see section 6.4), CDFW will consider the effects of hunting seasons and methods of take on animal welfare.
6.6 COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH ABOUT BLACK BEARS
CDFW plans to produce an annual report on the status of California black bear populations at the BCR scale which it will post on its website by September 15th each year. The report will include estimates and trends for population sizes, vital rates, and harvest statistics. The report will discuss emerging conservation or management issues and identify areas requiring new, focused research to further investigate those issues.
Additionally, the CDFW Statewide Black Bear Coordinator regularly leads meetings of Black Bear Working Groups (i.e., CDFW regional biologists and subject area experts) to discuss black bear conservation and management issues and implementation of this Plan.
6.7 CO-MANAGEMENT OF BLACK BEARS WITH TRIBES AND OTHER PARTNERS Consistent with policy (CDFW 2014), CDFW intends to continue to notify and consult with Tribes regarding any regulatory change proposals involving black bears. CDFW also plans to prioritize comanagement opportunities with Tribes including actions that address comments summarized in Table 1. Other potential opportunities include potential funding to help support and sustain Tribal wildlife conservation and research programs and collaboration on population monitoring of black bears.
CDFW will actively seek opportunities to partner with Tribes, federal and state agencies, hunter and animal welfare interest groups, and others to collaborate on 1) research studies, 2) habitat improvement activities (e.g., prescribed fire, forest management, food availability, movement connectivity, climate adaptation), and 3) human infrastructure programs (e.g., increasing access to secure waste disposal, electric fencing, and educational outreach about their proper use) that are likely to benefit stable black bear populations and minimize HBC. 87 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 6 63
6.8 PERIODIC REVIEW AND UPDATING OF THE BLACK BEAR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
CALIFORNIA
CDFW aims to review and update this Plan in its entirety every 10 years and update individual sections as necessary.
88 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 64 CHAPTER 7
RESEARCH, RESOURCES,
AND ORGANIZATIONAL
SUPPORT REQUIRED FOR PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
89 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 7 65 CHAPTER 7. RESEARCH, RESOURCES, AND ORGANIZATIONAL
SUPPORT REQUIRED FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
7.1 DATA COLLECTION
This Plan provides a general summary of the types of data that will need to be collected for use in population modeling and other sorts of analyses to inform effective conservation and management of black bears in California. CDFW will also need to develop a Black Bear Monitoring Plan for California that details the logistics for sustaining collection of these data over time. Such a plan could take multiple years to develop; it would need to include specifics on the locations of the local study areas where recruitment and survival data would be collected and where genetic spatial capturerecapture surveys would occur for validating population estimates from the IPM. The logistical considerations would include equipment, samples sizes, the scheduling of surveys, and CDFW staff in Regions and Headquarters required to administer this work. CDFW would also need to identify suitable and sufficient sources of funding to cover the anticipated actions.
In the first few years of implementing new and expanded black bear population monitoring efforts, CDFW will need to prioritize research of new survey and analytical methods, especially for vital rates and the most efficient design of genetic spatial capture-recapture studies. Currently, CDFW relies on the use of the teeth from harvested bears as the primary source of information on age distribution.
However, the estimation of DNA methylation levels is an emerging and potentially promising alternative method that CDFW plans to investigate. Higher DNA methylation levels, which can be estimated from blood, hair, and tissue samples, are associated with older age in mammals (Nakamura et al. 2023).
7.2 DATA MANAGEMENT
Historically, CDFW and other wildlife agencies have placed greater emphasis on gathering wildlife survey data than on planning for management and analysis of that data once collected (DeWan and Zipkin 2010, Scotson et al. 2017). CDFW has made additional investments in data management and stewardship to manage and quality check these data in a timely manner.
Data storage and workflow management pipelines are also important considerations for ensuring data integrity, security, and ease of use (Brousil et al. 2023). CDFW continues to develop its data science capabilities through contracts to help manage its camera trap data (e.g., Wildlife Insights) and sound recorder surveys for birds and bats (e.g., UC Berkeley). CDFW will also need to investigate similar approaches for telemetry and genetic spatial capture-recapture data. The effectiveness of data sharing practices will also need to be considered (Urbano and Cagnacci 2021), especially since numerous entities outside of CDFW use camera traps and other survey methods (e.g., roadkill counts) that generate data that would likely be instrumental to big game species conservation and management in California. Pooling large data sets for improving statistical modeling will require the development of collaborative relationships that are ultimately formalized through data sharing agreements and memorandums of understanding. For example, it is very likely that the designated 90 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 7 66 black bear study areas under this Plan will require collaboration with Tribes, other state and federal agencies, private landowners, and non-government organizations.
7.3 DATA ANALYSIS
Modern computing allows for more robust modeling and stronger scientific inferences by combining data from multiple sources and adjusting for uncertainties and biases in the sampling methods (Kery and Royle 2016). One of the challenges is that these analyses are often highly complex, requiring advanced statistical expertise. CDFW continues to make investments and is preparing staff to take advantage of new data science tools and computational methods as they develop in order to guide and advise on population modeling of big game species. Additional modeling support may be required to expedite analytical work for black bears and other big game species in a timely manner in response to conservation and management decisions that arise during the adaptive management process (Fig. 13).
Computing speed is often a constraint on the efficiency and effectiveness of solving complex statistical models that include spatial data or multiple sources of data (de Valpine et al. 2017, Turek et al. 2021). It may be necessary to work with university researchers to customize software for improving the efficiency, performance, and scalability of the IPM and spatial capture recapture models (e.g., Nimble package for R software). CDFW also may need to invest in additional computing power for use by staff running complex models.
7.4 COLLABORATION AND CO-MANAGEMENT
The CDFW Statewide Black Bear Coordinator leads collaboration and co-management activities, but support from various other functions are critical to success of these efforts. Co-management of habitat conditions through forest and fire management that require outreach to Tribes, and other state (e.g., CAL FIRE, California State Parks) and federal agencies (e.g., USFS, NPS) are best achieved in consideration with the needs of multiple wildlife and plant species. This highlights the importance of a broader, co-management approach within CDFW that is coordinated across species, habitats, and programs.
Photo: CDFW Ecoregional Biodiversity Monitoring Project, Northern Region. 91 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 67 Literature Cited
Ai, X. 2023. Bears in bytes: Utilizing NLP and ML for insights into human-bear interactions in California. Medium. < https://medium.com/@xinnnnn.ai/bears-in-bytes-1a09cf1fe914 > Accessed March 15, 2024.
Akçakaya, H.R., A. S. Rodrigues, D. A. Keith, E. J. Milner-Gulland, E. W. Sanderson, S. Hedges, D. P.
Mallon, M. K. Grace, B. Long, E. Meijaard, and P. J. Stephenson. 2020. Assessing ecological function in the context of species recovery. Conservation Biology, 34:561-571.
Alex, C. E., E. Fahsbender, E. Altan, R. Bildfell, P. Wolff, L. Jin, W. Black, K. Jackson, L. Woods, B. Munk, T. Tse, E. Delwart, and P. A. Pesavento. 2020. Viruses in unexplained encephalitis cases in American black bears (Ursus americanus). PLos ONE 15: e0244056.
Allen, M. L., B. Kohn, N. Roberts, S. Crimmins, and T. R. Van Deelen. 2017. Benefits and drawbacks of determining reproductive histories for black bears (Ursus americanus) from cementum annuli techniques. Canadian Journal of Zoology 95:991–995.
Allen, M. L., A. S. Norton, G. Stauffer, N. M. Roberts, Y. Luo, Q. Li, D. MacFarland, and T. R. Van Deelen. 2018a. A Bayesian state-space model using age-at-harvest data for estimating the population of black bears (Ursus americanus) in Wisconsin. Scientific Reports 8:12440.
Allen, M. L., N. M. Roberts, and T. R. Van Deelen. 2018b. Age-at-harvest models as monitoring and harvest management tools for Wisconsin carnivores. Final Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, WI W-160-R. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.06417.
Allen, M. L., L. M. Elbroch, and H. U. Wittmer. 2021. Can’t bear the competition: energetic losses from kleptoparasitism by a dominant scavenger may alter behaviors of an apex predator. Basic and Applied Ecology 51:1–10.
Anderson, M. K. 2005. Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and management of California’s natural resources. University of California Press.
Arias, C. N. 2007. Estimating black bear population size and identification of tree-damaging bears in redwood forests. Thesis, California State Polytechnic University, Arcata, USA.
Arnold, T. W., R. G. Clark, D. N. Koons, and M. Schaub. 2018. Integrated Population Models Facilitate Ecological Understanding and Improved Management Decisions. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:266-274.
Auger, J., S. E. Meyer, and H. L. Black. 2002. Are American black bears (Ursus americanus) legitimate seed dispersers of fleshy-fruited shrubs? American Midland Naturalist 147:352–367. 92 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 68 Ballard, W. B., L. N. Carbyn, and D. W. Smith. 2003. Wolf Interactions with Non-prey. Published in L.D.
Mech and L. Boitani, eds. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
Bard, S. M., and J. W. Cain III. 2020. Investigation of bed and den site selection by American black bears (Ursus americanus) in a landscape impacted by forest restoration treatments and wildfires. Forest Ecology and Management 460:117904.
Baruch-Mordo, S., S. W. Breck, K. R. Wilson, and J. Broderick. 2011. The carrot or the stick? Evaluation of education and enforcement as management tools for human-wildlife conflicts. PLoS One, 6:e15681.
Baruch-Mordo, S., K. R. Wilson, D. L. Lewis, J. Broderick, J. S. Mao, and S. W. Breck. 2014. Stochasticity in natural forage production affects use of urban areas by black bears: implications to management of human-bear conflicts. Plos One 9:e85122.
Beckmann, J. P. and C. W. Lackey. 2008. Carnivores, urban landscapes, and longitudinal studies: a case history of black bears. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 2: 168-174.
Beckmann, J. P. and C. W. Lackey, 2018. Lessons learned from a 20-year collaborative study on American black bears. Human–Wildlife Interactions 12: 9.
Beecham, J. J., M. D. G. Hernando, A. A. Karamanlidis, R. A. Beausoleil, K. Burguess, D. Jeong, M. Binks, L. Bereczky, N. V. K. Ashraf, K. Skripova, L. Rhodin, J. Auger, and B. Lee. 2015. Management implications for releasing orphaned, captive-reared bears back to the wild. Journal of Wildlife Management 79:1327–1336.
Beecham, J. J., I. K. Loffler, and R. A. Beausoleil. 2016. Strategies for captive rearing and reintroduction of orphaned bears. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 36:7–16.
Berg von Linde, M., L. Arevstrom, and O. Frobert. 2015. Insights from the den: how hibernating bears may help us understand and treat human disease. Clinical and Translational Science 8:601– 605.
Beringer, J., S.G. Seibert, S. Reagan, A.J. Brody, M.R. Pelton, and L.D. Vangilder. 1998. The influence of a small sanctuary on survival rates of black bears in North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:727–734.
Bowyer, R. T., J. G. Kie, and V. Van Ballenberghe. 1998. Habitat selection by neonatal black-tailed deer:
climate, forage, or risk of predation? Journal of Mammalogy 79:415–425.
Braden, G. T. 1991. Home ranges, habitat use, and den characteristics of black bears in the San Gabriel mountains of southern California. Thesis, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, USA. 93 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 69 Brandenburg, D. M. 1995. Effects of roads on behavior and survival of black bears in coastal North Carolina. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA.
Brousil, M. R., A. Filazzola, M. F. Meyer, S. Sharma, and S. E. Hampton. 2023. Improving ecological data science with workflow management software. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 14:1381– 1388.
Brown, S. K., J. M. Hull, D. R. Updike, S. R. Fain, and H. B. Ernest. 2009. Black bear population genetics in California: signatures of population structure, competitive release, and historical translocation.
Journal of Mammalogy 90:1066–1074.
Caldwell, M. R., and J. M. K. Klip. 2020. Wildlife interactions within highway underpasses. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:227–236.
Calhoun, K. L., J. Smith, M. Tingley, A. Heeren, A. Van Scoyoc, M. Serota, J. Brashares, and B. J. Furnas.
Drought amplifies human-wildlife conflict. In review.
CDFG. 1993. Job Progress Report—Black Bear FY92-93.
Candler, E. M., W. J. Severud, D. E. Beyer, Jr., B. Frawley, and J. K. Bump. 2022. Untrapped potential: Do bear hunter cameras accurately index nontarget species? Conservation Science and Practice 4:e570.
CDFG. 1998. Black Bear Management Plan – July 1998.
CDFW. 2014. Tribal communication and consultation policy. Departmental Bulletin 2014-07.
CDFW. 2019. California Hunting and Fishing: Recruitment, Retention, and Reactivation Action Plan.
CDFW. 2021. Black Bear Take Report 2020.
CDFW. 2022b. Regulation Change Petition No. 2021-027: Request to amend black bear hunting.
CDFW. 2024a. Black Bear Policy in California: Public Safety, Depredation, Conflict, and Animal Welfare.
Departmental Bulletin 2022-01.
CDFW. 2024b. Interim Bear Take Report 2021-2023.
Ceballos, G., P. R. Ehrlich, and R. Dirzo. 2017. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:E6089–E6096.
Clark, J. D., F. T. van Manen, and M. R. Pelton. 2005. Bait stations, hard mast, and black bear population growth in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1633– 1640.
94 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 70 Clarke, C. M., D. Immell, and S. K. Wasser. 2001. Technical considerations for hair genotyping models in black bears. Western Workshop for Black Bear Research and Management 7:24–29.
Cleary, M., O. Joshi, and W. S. Fairbanks. 2021. Factors that determine human acceptance of black bears. Journal of Wildlife Management 85:582–592.
Clothier, K. A., K. D. Watson, A. Mete, F. Giannitti, M. Anderson, B. Munk, S. McMillin, D. L. Clifford, J.
Rudd, N. Shirkey, D. Famini, and L. Woods. 2022. Generalized dermatophytosis caused by Trichophyton equinum in 8 juvenile black bears in California. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 34:279–283.
Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling Techniques, third edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
Conner, R. N. 1988. Wildlife populations: minimally viable or ecologically functional?. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 16:80-84.
Connor, T., E. Tripp, B. Tripp, B. J. Saxon, J. Camarena, A. Donahue, D. Sarna-Wojcicki, L.
Macaulay, T. Bean, A. Hanbury-Brown, and J. Brashares. 2022. Karuk ecological fire management practices promote elk habitat in northern California. Journal of Applied Ecology 59:1874–1883.
Connor, T., A. Dheer, J. Dorcy-Ponce, C. Steinbeiser, J. M. K. Klip, R. Landers, and B. J. Furnas. Estimating wildlife populations and their dynamics using multiple data sources and a hierarchical integrated population model: the case of California’s black bears. In review.
Costello, C. M., D. E. Jones, R. M. Inman, K. H. Inman, B. C. Thompson, and H. B. Quigley. 2003.
Relationship of variable mast production to American black bear reproductive parameters in New Mexico. Ursus 14:1–16.
Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert.1994. Closing the gaps in Florida’s wildlife habitat conservation system. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL 239.
Crabb, M. L., M. J. Clement, A. S. Jones, K. D. Bristow, and L. E. Harding 2022. Black bear spatial responses to the Wallow Wildfire in Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 86: e22182.
Cretois, B., J. D. Linnell, M. J. Grainger, E. B. Nilsen, and J. K. Rød. 2020. Hunters as citizen scientists:
Contributions to biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Global Ecology and Conservation 23:e01077.
Cristescu, B., L. M. Elbroch, J. A. Dellinger, W. Binder, C. C. Wilmers, and H. U. Wittmer. 2022. Kill rates and associated ecological factors for an apex predator. Mammalian Biology 102:291–305.
Cunningham, S. C. and W. B. Ballard. 2004. Effects of wildfire on black bear demographics in central Arizona. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:928–937.
95 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 71 Curtin, S. 2013. The intrinsic motivations and psychological benefits of eco and wildlife tourism experiences. In International handbook on ecotourism:203-216. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Czetwertynski, S. M., M. S. Boyce, and F. K. Schmiegelow. 2007. Effects of hunting on demographic parameters of American black bears. Ursus 18:1–18.
Decker, D. J., and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:53–57.
Dixon, J. D., M. K. Oli, M. C. Wooten, T. H. Eason, J. W. McCown, and M. W. Cunningham. 2007. Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation and loss: the case of the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus). Conservation Genetics 8:455–464. de Valpine, P., D. Turek, C. J. Paciorek, C. Anderson-Bergman, D. T. Lang, and R. Bodik. 2017.
Programming with models: writing statistical algorithms for general model structures with NIMBLE. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 26:403–413.
Delie, J., M. D. Needham, and K. Biedenweg. 2023. Modeling cognitive antecedents of tolerance for black bears: The roles of direct experience, knowledge, and risk perceptions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 28:564-584.
DeWan, A. A., and E. F. Zipkin. 2010. An integrated sampling and analysis approach for improved biodiversity monitoring. Environmental Management 45:1223–1230.
Duda, M. D. and J. L. Nobile. 2010. The fallacy of online surveys: No data are better than bad data.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15: 55-64.
Dunk, T., 2002. Hunting and the politics of identity in Ontario. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 13: 36-66.
Ebenman, B., T. Säterberg, S. Sellman, J. C. Moore, K. S. McCann, P. C. de Ruiter, and V. Wolters, 2017.
Ecologically effective population sizes and functional extinction of species in ecosystems.
Adaptive Food Webs: Stability and Transitions of Real and Model Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 45-62.
Eichler, L. and D. Baumeister. 2018. Hunting for justice: an indigenous critique of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 9:75–90.
Eidenshink, J., B. Schwind, K. Brewer, Z. Zhu, B. Quayle, and S. Howard. 2007. A project for monitoring trends in burn severity. Fire Ecology 3:3–21.
El Bizri, H. R., J. E. Fa, L. P. Lemos, J. V. Campos-Silva, C. F. Vasconcelos Neto, J. Valsecchi, and P. Mayor. 2020. Involving local communities for effective citizen science: Determining game species’ reproductive status to assess hunting effects in tropical forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 58:224–235.
96 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 72 Elbroch, L. M., P. E. Lendrum, M. L. Allen, and H. U. Wittmer. 2015. Nowhere to hide: pumas, black bears, and competition refuges. Behavioral Ecology 26:247–254.
Elowe, K. D., and W. E. Dodge. 1989. Factors affecting black bear reproductive success and cub survival. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:962–968.
Enders, M. S. and S. B. Vander Wall. 2011. Black bears Ursus americanus are effective seed dispersers, with a little help from their friends. Oikos 121:589–596.
Fleming, C. H., W. F. Fagan, T. Mueller, K. A. Olson, P. Leimgruber, and J. M. Calabrese. 2015. Rigorous home range estimation with movement data: a new autocorrelated kernel density estimator.
Ecology 96:1182-1188.
Forrester, T. D. and H. U. Wittmer. 2019. Predator identity and forage availability affect predation risk of juvenile black-tailed deer. Wildlife Biology 2019:1-12.
Fraser, D. 1976. An estimate of hunting mortality based on the age and sex structure of the harvest.
Transactions of the North American Moose Conference Workshop 12:236–273.
Frey, S., D. Tejero, K. Baillie-David, A.C. Burton, and J. T. Fisher. 2022. Predator control alters wolf interactions with prey and competitor species over the diel cycle. Oikos 8:e08821.
Folk, G. E., Jr., A. Larson, and M. A. Folk. 1976. Physiology of hibernating bears. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 3:373–380.
Furnas, B. J., R. H. Landers, S. Hill, S. S. Itoga, and B. N. Sacks. 2018. Integrated Modeling to Estimate Population Size and Composition of Mule Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1429- 1441.
Furnas, B. J., R. H. Landers, R. G. Paiste, and B. N. Sacks. 2020. Overabundance of black-tailed deer in urbanized coastal California. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:979-988.
Furnas, B. J., B. R. Goldstein, and P. J. Figura. 2022. Intermediate fire severity diversity promotes richness of forest carnivores in California. Diversity and Distributions 28:493–505.
Fusaro, J. L., M. M. Conner, M. R. Conover, T. J. Taylor, M. W. Kenyon, Jr., J. R. Sherman, and H. B. Ernest. 2017. Comparing urban and wildlife bear densities with a DNA-based capture-mark-recapture approach. Human-Wildlife Interactions 11:50-63.
Gantchoff, M. G., J. E. Hill, K. F. Kellner, N. L. Fowler, T. R. Petroelje, L. Conlee, D. E. Beyer, Jr., and J. L.
Belant. 2020. Mortality of a large wide-ranging mammal largely caused by anthropogenic activities. Scientific Reports 10:8498.
Garshelis, D.L., K.V. Noyce, and V. St-Louis. 2020a. Population reduction by hunting helps control humanwildlife conflicts for a species that is a conservation success story. PLoS ONE 5:e0237274. 97 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 73 Garshelis, D. L., K. V. Noyce, M. A. Ditmer, P. L. Coy, A. N. Tri, T. G. Laske, and P. A. Iaizzo. 2020b.
Remarkable adaptations of the American Black Bear help explain why it is the most common bear: a long-term study from the center of its range. Bears of the world: ecology, conservation and management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 53–62.
Gaston, K. J. and R. A. Fuller. 2007. Biodiversity and extinction: losing the common and the widespread. Progress in Physical Geography 31:213-225.
Geist, V., S. P. Mahoney, and J. F. Organ. 2001. Why Hunting Has Defined the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 66:175-185.
Gould, N. P., R. Powell, C. Olfenbuttel, and C. S. DePerno. 2021. Growth and reproduction by young urban and rural black bears. Journal of Mammalogy 102(4):1165–1173.
Graber, D. M. 1982. Technical Report No.5: Ecology and Management of Black Blears in Yosemite National Park. Cooperative National Park Resources Unit, University of California, Davis Institute of Ecology.
Graber, D. M., and M. White. 1983. Black bear food habits in Yosemite National Park. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 5:1–10.
Graber, D. M. 1989. Winter Behavior of Black Bears in the Sierra Nevada, California. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:269–272.
Grace, M. K., E. L. Bennett, H. R. Akçakaya, C. Hilton-Taylor, M. Hoffmann, R. Jenkins, E. J. MilnerGulland, A. Nieto, R. P. Young, and B. Long, 2021. IUCN launches Green Status of Species: A new standard for species recovery. Oryx, 55:651-652.
Grenfell, W. E., and A. J. Brody. 1983. Black Bear Habitat Use in Tahoe National Forest, California.
International Conference on Bear Research and Management 6:65–72.
Grinnel, J., J. S. Dixon, and J. M. Linsdale. 1937. Furbearing mammals of California, Vol. 1. University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.
Gundrum, F.A., 2019. Battle Over Black Bears: Investigating Perceptions of the Black Bear Hunting Referendums in Maine. The University of Maine.
Gunther, K. A., K. R. Wilmot, S. L. Cain, T. C. Wyman, E. G. Reinertson, and A. M. Bramblett. 2018.
Managing human-habituated bears to enhance survival, habitat effectiveness, and public viewing. Human–Wildlife Interactions, 12(3), p.7.
Harrer, L. E. F., and T. Levi. 2018. The primacy of bears as seed dispersers in salmon-bearing ecosystems. Ecosphere 9:e02076.
98 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 74 Harris, R. B. and L. H. Metzgar. 1987. Estimating Harvest Rates of Bears from Sex Ratio Changes.
Journal of Wildlife Management 51:802-811.
Hellgren, E. 1998. Physiology of hibernation in bears. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 10:467–477.
Herrero, S., A. Higgins, J. E. Cardoza, L. I. Hajduk, and T. S. Smith. 2011. Fatal attacks by American black bear on people: 1900–2009. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 75: 596-603.
Hessami, M. A., E. Bowles, J. N. Popp, and A. T. Ford. 2021. Indigenizing the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. FACETS 6:1285-1306.
Higley, J. M., D. V, Masters, and J. L. Sajecki. 2006. Black bear management plan (draft). Hoopa Valley Tribe, California.
Hopkins, J. B. III, S. Herrero, R. T. Shideler, K. A. Gunther, C. C. Schwartz, and S. T. Kalinowski. 2010. A proposed lexicon of terms and concepts for human-bear management in North America.
Ursus 21:154–168.
Howe, E. J., M. E. Obbard, R. Black, and L. L. Wall. 2010. Do public complaints reflect trends in humanbear conflict? Ursus 2:131–142.
Hristienko, H., D. Pastuck, K. J. Rebizant, B. Knudsen, and M. L. Connor. 2004. Using reproductive data to model American black bear cub orphaning in Manitoba due to spring harvest of females.
Ursus 15: 23-34.
Hristienko, H., and J. E. McDonald, Jr. 2007. Going into the 21st century: a perspective on trends and controversies in the management of the American black bear. Ursus 18:72–88.
Huang, X. and D. T. Swain. 2022. Climate change is increasing the risk of a California megaflood.
Science Advances 8:eabq0995.
[IDFG] Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1999. Black Bear Management Plan 1999-2010. iNaturalist contributors, iNaturalist (2025). iNaturalist Research-grade Observations. iNaturalist.org.
Occurrence dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/ab3s5x accessed via GBIF.org on 2025-01-17.
Johnson, H. E., D. L. Lewis, T. L. Verzuh, C. F. Wallace, R. M. Much, L. K. Willmarth, and S. W. Breck. 2017.
Human development and climate affect hibernation in a large carnivore with implications for human-carnivore conflicts. Journal of Applied Ecology 55:663–672.
Johnson, H. E., D. L. Lewis, S. A. Lischka. and S. W. Breck. 2018. Assessing ecological and social outcomes of a bear-proofing experiment. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1102–1114.
Jonkel, C. J. and I. M. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the spruce–fir forest. Wildlife Monographs 27. 99 Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 75 Kasbohm, J. W., M. R. Vaughan, and J. G. Kraus. 1996. Effects of gypsy moth infestation on black bear reproduction and survival. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:408–416.
Keay, J. A. 1990. Black bear population dynamics in Yosemite National Park. National Park Service Technical Report Number 39. University of California, Davis, Davis, USA.
Kelleyhouse, D. G. 1977. Habitat utilization of black bears in northern California. Pages 26–31 in Bears—their biology and management. S. Herrero, ed. International Union for Conservation of Nature Publications New Series 23.
Kelleyhouse, D.G. 1980. Habitat utilization by black bears in northern California. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 4:221– 227.Kerr, J., and L. Packer. 1998. The impact of climate change on mammal diversity in Canada. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 49:263–270.
Kery, M. and J. A. Royle. 2016. Applied hierarchical modeling in ecology; analysis of distribution, abundance and species richness in R and BUGS, Volume 1: prelude and static models.
Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Kery, M. and J. A. Royle. 2021. Applied Hierarchical Modeling in Ecology: Analysis of Distribution, Abundance, and Species Richness in R and BUGS: Volume 2: Dynamic and Advanced Models.
Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Klip., J. M.K. 2012. Habitat use and human interaction in black bears (Ursus americanus) in California Lake Tahoe. Thesis, Sonoma State University, Petaluma, USA.
Koch, D. B. 1983. Population, home range and denning characteristics of black bears in Placer County, California. Thesis. California State University, Sacramento, USA.
Koehler G. M., and D. J. Pierce. 2003. Black bear home-range sizes in Washington: climatic, vegetative, and social influences. Journal of Mammalogy 84:81–91.
Koel, T. M., L. M. Tronstad, J. L. Arnold, K. A. Gunther, D. W. Smith, J. M. Syslo, and P. J. White. 2019.
Predatory fish invasion induces within and across ecosystem effects in Yellowstone National Park. Science Advances 5:eaav1139.
Kohyama, T. S., T. I. Kohyama, and D. Sheil. 2018. Definition and estimation of vital rates from repeated censuses: choices, comparisons and bias corrections focusing on trees. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9: 809-821.
Kolenosky, G. B. 1990. Reproductive biology of black bears in east central Ontario. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:385–392.
100
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 76 Kurth, K. A., K. C. Malpeli, J. D. Clark, H. E. Johnson, and F. T. van Manen. 2024. A systematic review of the effects of climate variability and change on black and brown bear ecology and interactions with humans. Biological Conservation 291: 110500.
Lackey, C. W., J. P. Beckmann, and J. Sedinger. 2013. Bear Historical Ranges Revisited: Documenting the Increase of a Once-Extirpated Population in Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 77:812-820.
Lariviere, S. 2001. Ursus americanus. Mammalian Species 647:1–11.
Laufenberg, J. S., H. E. Johnson, P. F. Doherty, Jr., and S. W. Breck. 2018. Compounding effects of human development and a natural food shortage on a black bear population along a human development-wildland interface. Biological Conservation 224:188–198.
Lawton, J. H. 1993. Range, population abundance and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:409–13.
LeCount, A. L. 1987. Causes of black bear cub mortality. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:75–82.
Lewis, D. L., S. Baruch-Mordo, K. R. Wilson, S. W. Breck, J. S. Mao, and J. Broderick. 2015. Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human-bear conflict mitigation.
Ecosphere 6(8):141.
Linnell, J. D. C., R. Aanes, and R. Andersen. 1995. Who killed Bambi? The role of predation in the neonatal mortality of temperate ungulates. Wildlife Biology 1:209–223.
Linnell, J. D., J. E. Swenson, R. Andersen, and B. Barnes. 2000. How vulnerable are denning bears to disturbance?. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 400-413.
Long, M. E., K. M. Stewart, K. T. Shoemaker, H. Reich, C. W. Lackey, and J. P. Beckmann. 2024. Selection of den sites and chronology of denning by black bears in the eastern Sierra Nevada and western Great Basin. Ecology and Evolution, 14: p.e11689.
Lovich, J. E., D. Delaney, J. Briggs, M. Agha, M. Austin, and J. Reese. 2014. Black bears (Ursus americanus) as a novel potential predator of Agassiz’s desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) at a California wind energy facility. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Science 113:34–41.
Malaney, J. L., C. W. Lackey, J. P. Beckmann, and M. D. Matocq. 2018. Natural rewilding of the Great Basin: Genetic consequences of recolonization by black bears (Ursus americanus). Diversity and Distributions 24:168-178.
Mann, M. E. and P. H. Gleick. 2015. Climate change and California drought in the 21st century. PNAS 112:3858-3859.
101
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 77 Marescot, L., T. D. Forrester, D. S. Casady, and H. U. Wittmer. 2015. Using multistate capture-mark recapture models to quantify effects of predation on age-specific survival and population growth in black-tailed deer. Population Ecology 57:185–197.
Matthews, S. M., R. T. Golightly, and J. M. Higley. 2008. Mark-resight density estimation for American black bears in Hoopa, California. Ursus 19:13–21.
Mazur, R., A. P. Klimley, and K. Folger. 2013. Implications of the variable availability of seasonal foods on the home ranges of black bears, Ursus americanus, in the Sierra Nevada of California.
Animal Biotelemetry 1:1–9.
Mazur, R. and V. Seher. 2008. Socially learned foraging behaviour in wild black bears, Ursus americanus. Animal Behaviour 75:1503-1508.
McCarthy, T. M. and R. T. Seavoy. 1994. Reducing Nonsport Losses Attributable to Food Conditioning:
Human and Bear Behavior Modification in an Urban Environment. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 9:75-84.
McClelland, C. J. R, C. K. Denny, T. A. Larsen, G. B. Stenhouse, and S. E. Nielsen. 2021. Landscape estimates of carrying capacity for grizzly bears using nutritional energy supply for management and conservation planning. Journal for Nature Conservation 62:126018.
McCullough, D. R. 1982. Behavior, bears, and humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:27-33.
McLaren, D., R. J. Wigen, Q. Mackie, and D. W. Fedje. 2005. Bear hunting at the Pleistocene/Holocene transition on the northern Northwest Coast of North America. Canadian Zooarchaeology/ Zooarchéologie canadienne 22:3-29.
McLean, P. K., and M. R. Pelton. 1990. Some demographic comparisons of wild and panhandler bears in the Smoky Mountains. Bears: Their Biology and Management, 105-112.
Millar, C. I., N. L. Stephenson, and S. L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future:
Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17:2145-2151.
Miller, S. D. 1990. Population management of bears in North America. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:357–373.
Mitchell, M. S., and R. A. Powell. 2003. Response of Black Bears to Forest Management in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:692-705.
Monteith, K. L., V. C. Bleich, T. R. Stephenson, B. M. Pierce, M. M. Conner, J. G. Kie, and R. T. Bowyer. 2014. Life-history characteristics of mule deer: effects of nutrition in a variable environment.
Wildlife Monographs 186:1-62.
102
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 78 Mortenson, J. 1998. Serologic survey of infectious disease agents in black bears (Ursus americanus) of California, Oregon, and Washington. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.
Moss, H. H. 1972. A study of black bears in the San Gabriel Mountains. Thesis, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, USA.
Murphy, K. J., D. R. Roberts, W. F. Jensen, S. E. Nielsen, S. K. Johnson, B. M. Hosek, B. Stillings, J. Kolar, M. S. Boyce, and S. Ciuti. 2023. Mule deer fawn recruitment dynamics in an energy disturbed landscape. Ecology and Evolution 13: e9976.
Nakamura, S., J. Yamazaki, N. Matsumoto, M. Inoue-Murayama, H. Qi, M. Yamanaka, M. Nakanishi, Y. Yanagawa, M. Sashika, T. Tsubota, and H. Ito, 2023. Age estimation based on blood DNA methylation levels in brown bears. Molecular Ecology Resources, 23:1211-1225.
Ng, S. J., J. W. Dole, R. M. Sauvajot, S. P. D. Riley, and T. J. Valone. 2004. Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California. Biological Conservation 115:499–507.
Niedringhaus, K. D., J. D. Brown, K. M. Sweeley, and M. J. Yabsley. 2019. A review of sarcoptic mange in North American wildlife. In International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 9:285– 297. Australian Society for Parasitology.
Novick, H. J., J. M. Siperek, and G. R. Stewart. 1981. Denning characteristics of black bears, Ursus americanus, in the San Bernardino Mountains of Southern California. California Fish and Game. 67(1):52–61.
Noyce, K. V. and D. L. Garshelis. 1994. Body size and blood characteristics as indicators of condition and reproductive performance in black bears. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 9:481–496.
[NYDEC] New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2014. Black Bear Management Plan for New York State 2014-2024.
Obbard, M. E. and E. J. Howe. 2008. Demography of black bears in hunted and unhunted areas of the boreal forest of Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:869–880.
ODFW. 2022. 2022 Black Bear Harvest Summary.
Organ, J. F., R. M. Muth, J. E. Dizard, S. J. Williamson, and T. A. Decker. 1998. Fair chase and humane treatment: balancing the ethics of hunting and trapping. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 63:528-543.
Organ, J. F., V. Geist, S. P. Mahoney, S. Williams, P. R. Krausman, G. R. Batcheller, T. A. Decker, R.
Carmichael, P. Nanjappa, R. Regan, R. A. Medellin, R. Cantu, R. E. McCabe, S. Craven, G. M.
Vecellio, and D. J. Decker. 2012. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 12–04. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 103
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 79 Owen-Ramos, J. D., C. J. Sanchez, S. Blair, S. Holm, B. J. Furnas, and B. N. Sacks. 2022. Use of fecal DNA to estimate black bear density in an urban-wildland interface. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2022;e1347.
Paetkau, D. and C. Strobek. 1994. Microsatellite analysis of genetic variation in black bear populations.
Molecular Ecology 3:489–495.
Paetkau, D., G.F. Shields, and C. Strobeck. 1998. Gene flow between insular, coastal and interior populations of brown bears in Alaska. Molecular Ecology 7:1282–1292.
Parmesan, C. 2007. Influences of species, latitudes and methodologies on estimates of phenological response to global warming. Global Change Biology 13:1860–1872.
Paul, K., M. S. Quinn, M. P. Huijser, J. Graham, and L. Broberg. 2014. An evaluation of a citizen science data collection program for recording wildlife observations along a highway. Journal of Environmental Management 139:180–187.
Peacock, E., K. Titus, D. L. Garshelis, M. M. Peacock, and M. Kuc. 2011. Mark–recapture using tetracycline and genetics reveal record-high bear density. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 75:1513-1520.
Penman, T. D., S. C. McColl-Gausden, B. G. Marcot, and D. A. Ababei. 2022. Population viability analysis using Bayesian networks. Environmental Modelling & Software 147:105242.
Penteriani, V., J. V. Lopez-Bao, C. Bettega, F. Dalerum, M. del Mar Delgado, K. Jerina, I. Kojola, M.
Krofel, and A. Ordiz. 2017. Consequences of brown bear viewing tourism: a review. Biological Conservation 206:169–180.
Peterson, M. N. and M. P. Nelson. 2016. Why the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is Problematic for Modern wildlife Management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 22:43-54.
Peterson, S. D. 2023. Estimating black bear population parameters with spatial capture recapture in a high desert mountain ecosystem. Thesis, California State Polytechnic University, Arcata, USA.
Piekielek, W. and T. S. Burton. 1975. A black bear population study in Northern California.
California Fish and Game. 61:4–25.
Pimm, S.L., C. N. Jenkins, R. Abell, T. M. Brooks, J. L. Gittleman, L. N. Joppa, P. H. Raven, C. M. Roberts, and J. O. Sexton. 2014. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344:1246752.
Popp, J. N., J. Hamr, J. L. Larkin, and F. F. Mallory, 2018. Black bear (Ursus americanus) and wolf (Canis spp.) summer diet composition and ungulate prey selectivity in Ontario, Canada.
Mammal Research 63:433-441.
104
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 80 Powell, R. A., J. W. Zimmerman, and D. E. Seaman. 1997. Ecology and behaviour of North American black bears: home ranges, habitat, and social organization (Vol. 4).
Springer Science & Business Media.
Preston, F. W. 1948. The commonness and rareness of species. Ecology 29:254–283.
Raithel, J. D., M. J. Reynolds-Hogland, D. N. Koons, P. C. Carr, and L. M. Aubry. 2017. Recreational harvest and incident-response management reduce human–carnivore conflicts in an anthropogenic landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology 54:1552-1562.
Ramos, S. C. 2022. Understanding Yurok traditional ecological knowledge and wildlife management.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 86:e22140.
Ramsey, M. S. 2013. The Bear Clan: North American totemic mythology, belief, and legend.
In The Bear Book (pp. 51-64). Routledge.
Ransom, J. I., A. L. Lyons, K. C. Hegewisch, and M. Krosby. 2023. An integrated modeling approach for considering wildlife reintroduction in the face of climate uncertainty: a case for the North Cascades grizzly bear. Biological Conservation 279:109947.
Rapacciuolo, G., S. P. Maher, A. C. Schneider, T. T. Hammond, M. D. Jabis, R. E. Walsh, K. J. Iknayan, G. K.
Walden, M. F. Oldfather, D. D. Ackerly, and S. R. Beissinger. 2014. Beyond a warming fingerprint:
individualistic biogeographic responses to heterogeneous climate change in California.
Global. Change Biology. 20:2841–2855.
Rawls, J. J. 1984. Indians of California: the changing image. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.
Rayl, N. D., T. K. Fuller, J. F. Organ, J. E. McDonald Jr, R. D. Otto, and S. P. Mahoney. 2014. Den abandonment and transitional day bed use by black bears Ursus americanus in Newfoundland. Wildlife Biology, 20: 222-228.
Rettler, S. J., A. N. Tri, V. St-Louis, J. D. Forester, and D. L. Garshelis. 2021. Three decades of declining natural foods alters bottom-up pressures on American black bears. Forest Ecology and Management 493:119267.
Rogers, L. L. 1976. Effects of mast and berry crop failures on survival, growth, and reproductive success of black bears. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 41:431–438.
Rogers, L. L. 1983. Effects of food supply, predation, cannibalism, parasites, and other health problems on black bear populations. Pages 194–211 in F. L. Bunnell, D. S. Eastmann, and J. M.
Peek, eds. Symposium on National Regulation of Wildlife Populations. For. Wildlife and Range Experimental Station. Proceedings 14. University of Idaho, Moscow, USA. 105
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 81 Rogers, L. L., and R. D. Applegate. 1983. Dispersal of fruit seeds by black bears. Journal of Mammalogy 64:310–311.
Royle, J. A. and J. D. Nichols. 2003. Estimating abundance from repeated presence-absence data or point counts. Ecology 84:777-790.
Royle, J. A., R. C. Chandler, R. Sollmann, and B. Gardner. 2013. Spatial Capture-Recapture. Academic Press, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA.
Schafer, T. L. J., S. W. Brek, S. Baruch-Mordo, D. L. Lewis, K. R. Wilson, J. S. Mao, and T. L. Day. 2018.
American black bear den-site selection and characteristics in an urban environment. USDA National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications 2214.
Schaub, M. and M. Kery. 2012. Integrated Population Models: Theory and Ecological Applications with R and JAGS. Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusttes, USA.
Schellenberg, R. S., B. J. K. Tan, J. D. Irvine, D. R. Stockdale, A. A. Gajadhar, B. Serhir, J. Botha, C. A.
Armstrong, S. A. Woods, J. M. Blondeau, and T. L. Mcnab. 2003. An Outbreak of Trichinellosis Due to Consumption of Bear Meat Infected with Trichinella nativa in 2 Northern Saskatchewan Communities. Journal of Infectious Diseases 188:835–878.
Schwartz, C.C., M.A. Haroldson, and G.C. White. 2006. Survival of cub and yearling grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1983-2001.Wildlife Monographs 161:25.
Schwartz, A, L. W., F. M. Shilling, and S. E. Perkins. 2020. The value of monitoring wildlife roadkill.
European Journal of Wildlife Research 66:18.
Scotson, L., L. R. Johnston, F. Iannarilli, O. R. Wearn, J. Mohd-Azlan, W. M. Wong, T. N. E. Gray, Y. Dinata, A. Suzuki, C. E. Willard, J. Frechette, B. Loken, R. Steinmetz, A. M. Moßbrucker, G. R. Clements, and J. Fieberg. 2017. Best practices and software for the management and sharing of camera trap data for small and large scales studies. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 3:158–172.
Shakeri, Y. N., K. S. White, and T. Levi. 2018. Salmon-supported bears, seed dispersal, and extensive resource subsidies to granivores. Ecosphere 9:e02297.
Sherman, J., and H. Ernest. 2015. Population genetics study of California’s black bears. Final Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Shilling, F. M. and. D. P. Waetjen. 2015. Wildlife-vehicle collision observation collection and hotspot identification at large scales. Nature Conservation 11:41–60.
Siemer, W. F., T. B. Lauber, R. C. Stedman, J. E. Hurst, C. C. Sun, A. K. Fuller, N. A. Hollingshead, J. L.
Belant, and K. F. Kellner. 2023. Perception and trust influence acceptance for black bears more than bear density or conflicts. Frontiers in Conservation Science 4:1041393. 106
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 82 Simberloff, D. 1999. Biodiversity and bears: a conservation paradigm shift. Ursus, 21–27.
Sinnott, D., K. Shapiro, B. Munk, N. LaHue, A. Armien, L. Woods, K. Watson, and O. Gonzales-Viera, 2022. Investigating Protozoal Parasites as Causes of Neurologic Disease in American Black Bears (Ursus americanus) that Contribute to Human-Wildlife Conflict. In Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 30.
Sitton, L. 1982. The black bear in California. California Department of Fish and Game. Project W-51-R. 85.
Smith, S. J., J. Edmonds, C. A. Hartin, A. Mundra, and K. Calvin. 2015. Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change. Nature Climate Change 5:333–336.
Spooner, F. E. B., R. G. Pearson, and R. Freeman. 2018. Rapid warming is associated with population decline among terrestrial birds and mammals globally. Global Change Biology 24:4521–4531.
Stafford, R. 1995. Preliminary observations on den selection by females and subadult black bears in northwestern California. 1995 Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 31:63-67.
Starr, K. 2007. California: a history. Modern Library, Penguin Random House, New York City, New York, USA.
Steenweg, R., M. Hebblewhite, C. Burton, J. Whittington, N. Heim, J. T. Fisher, A. Ladle, W. Lowe, T.
Muhly, J. Paczkowski, and M. Musiani. 2023. Testing umbrella species and food-web properties of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Biological Conservation 278:109888.
Stenvinkel, P., A. H. Jani, and R. J. Johnson. 2013. Hibernating bears (Ursidae): metabolic magicians of definite interest for the nephrologist. Kidney International 83:207–212.
Stephenson, N., J. M. Higley, J. L. Sajecki, B. B. Chomel, R. N. Brown, and J. E. Foley. 2015. Demographic characteristics and infectious diseases of a population of American black bears in Humboldt County, California. Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 15116–123.
Stratman, M. R., and M. R. Pelton. 2007. Spatial response of American black bears to prescribed fire in northwest Florida. Ursus 18:62–71.
Streimikiene, D., B. Svagzdiene, E. Jasinskas, and A. Simanavicius. 2021. Sustainable tourism development and competitiveness: The systematic literature review. Sustainable Development 29: 259–271.
Stronza, A. L., C. A. Hunt, and L. A. Fitzgerald. 2019. Ecotourism for Conservation? Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44:229–53.
Stubblefield, C. H. 1992. Characteristics of black bear ecology in the San Gabriel Mountains of Southern California. Thesis. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, USA. 107
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 83 Sultaire, S. M., Y. Kawai-Harada, A. Kimmel, E. M. Greeson, P. J. Jackson, C. H. Contag, C. W. Lackey, J. P.
Beckmann, J. J. Millspaugh, and R. A. Montgomery. 2023. Black bear density and habitat use variation at the Sierra Nevada-Great Basin Desert transition. Journal of Wildlife Management 87:e22358.
Suraci, J. P., M. Clinchy, D. J. Roberts, and L. Y. Zanette. 2017. Eavesdropping in solitary large carnivores:
Black bears advance and vocalize toward cougar playbacks. Ethology, 123: 593-599.
Taylor, A. H., and C. N. Skinner. 2003. Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire regimes and forest structure in the Klamath Mountains. Ecological Applications 13:704–719.
Thurfjell, H., S. Ciuti, and M.S. Boyce. 2014. Applications of step-selection functions in ecology and conservation. Movement Ecology 2:1–12.
Tingley, M. W., M. S. Koo, C. Moritz, A. C. Rush, and S. R. Beissinger. 2012. The push and pull of climate change causes heterogeneous shifts in avian elevation ranges. Global Change Biology 18:3279–3290.
Turek, D., C. Milleret, T. Ergon, H. Broseth, P. Dupont, R. Bischof, and P. de Valpine. 2021. Efficient estimation of large-scale spatial capture-recapture models. Ecosphere 12:e03385.
Unger, D. E., J. J. Cox, H. B. Harris, J. L. Larkin, B. Augustine, S. Dobey, J. M. Guthrie, J. T. Hast, R. Jensen, S. Murphy, and J. Plaxico. 2013. History and current status of the black bear in Kentucky.
Northeastern Naturalist, 20: 289-308.
University of California. 2021. From wildlife-vehicle conflict to solutions for California wildlife & drivers. <https://roadecology.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk8611/files/files/CA_Roadkill_ Hotspots_2021_2.pdf> Accessed July 19, 2023.
Urbano, F. and F. Cagnacci. 2021. Data Management and Sharing for Collective Science: Lessons Learnt From the Euromammals Initiative. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9:727023.
US Department of Transportation. 2008. Wildlife vehicle collision study: report to Congress. <https:// wafwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2007-Report-to-Congress.pdf> Accessed July 19, 2023.
Vaske, J. J., C. A. Miller, B. D. Williams, S. G. Pallazza, and X. Zang. 2022. Demographics, attitudes, and emotions as predictors of support for bear management. Wildlife Research 50:120-128.
Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan Publishers Ltd, Stuttgart, Germany.
Waselkov, G. A., 2020. Ethnohistorical and ethnographic sources on bear-human relationships in Native Eastern North America. Bears: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspectives in Native Eastern North America. University Press of Florida, Gainesville: 16-47. 108
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 84 WDFW. 2022. 2022 Statewide Black Bear Harvest Statistics.
Weaver, K. M. 2000. Black bear ecology and the use of prescribed fire to enhance bear habitat. Pages 89–96 in D. A. Yaussy, compiler, Proceedings: Workshop on fire, people, and the central hardwoods landscape. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-274.
[WGFD] Wyoming Fish and Game Department. 2007. Wyoming Black Bear Management Plan.
Whittaker, D. G. and F. G. Lindzey. 1999. Effect of coyote predation on early fawn survival in sympatric deer species. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 256-262.
Wilbur, R. C., S. A. Lischka, J. R. Young, and H. E. Johnson. 2018. Experience, attitudes, and demographic factors influence the probability of reporting human-black bear interactions.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 42:22–31.
Williams, A. P., J. T. Abatzoglou, A. Gershunov, J. Guzman-Morales, D. A. Bishop, J. K. Balch, and D.
P. Lettenmaier. 2019. Observed impacts of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire in California. Earth’s Future, 7:892–910.
Wittmer, H.U., T. D. Forrester, M. L. Allen, L. Marescot, and D. S. Casady. 2014. Black-tailed deer population assessment in the Mendocino National Forest, California. Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Xu, Y., V. Ramanathan, and D. G. Victor 2018. Global warming will happen faster than we think. Nature 564:30–32.
Yarkovich, J., J. D. Clark, and J. L. Murrow. 2011. Effects of black bear relocation on elk calf recruitment at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:1145–1154.
Young, D. D. and J. J. Beecham. 1986. Black bear habitat use at Priest Lake, Idaho. International Conference of Bear Research and Management 6:73–80.
Zager, P., and J. Beecham. 2006. The role of American black bears and brown bears as predators on ungulates in North America. Ursus 17:95–108.
Zeller, K. A., D. W. Wattles, and S. Destefano. 2020. Evaluating methods for identifying large mammal road crossing locations: black bears as a case study. Landscape Ecology 35:1799-1808.
Zipkin, E. F. and S. P. Saunders. 2018. Synthesizing multiple data types for biological conservation using integrated population models. Biological Conservation 217:240-250. 109
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: APPENDIX 85 Appendix 1: Glossary
TERM DEFINITION AS USED IN PLAN SOURCE
Animal welfare The physical, psychological, social, and environmental well-being of an animal.
Black Bear Policy in
California: Public Safety,
Depredation, Conflict,
and Animal Welfare
(2024)
Black Bear Policy
The current version and any subsequent
versions of CDFW’s policy for addressing
human-black bear conflict.
Black Bear Policy in
California: Public Safety,
Depredation, Conflict,
and Animal Welfare
(2024)
California Native
American Tribe
Federally recognized tribes and non-federally
recognized tribes located in California that
are on the contact list maintained by the CA
Native American Heritage Commission for the
purposes of cultural resources assessment and
protection.
California Governor’s
Office of Tribal Affairs;
Tribal Affairs – California
Natural Resources Agency
Carrying capacity
The population size limit for a given species
in a given area, shaped by socio-ecological
processes and interdependent relationships
between finite resources and the consumption
of those resources.
Del Monte-Luna et al.,
2004
Conservation
Maintaining and restoring the viability of
ecological collectives that persist over time –
namely, species and native populations and
ecosystems. Conservation is a constituent
element of sustainability.
Vucetich et al., 2018
Ecologically
functional
A population which has the abundance or
density, and the appropriate population
structure, that allows its ecological interactions,
roles, and functions to take place.
IUCN Green Status of
Species
Harvest The legal and regulated killing of game species by licensed (i.e., authorized) hunters. Bowyer et al., 2020 110
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: APPENDIX 86
TERM DEFINITION AS USED IN PLAN SOURCE
Human dimensions
The application of social science theory and
methods to help understand the cultural,
sociological, psychological, economic,
biological and physical aspects of natural
resource management and environmental
problem-solving.
Minnesota DNR
Human-black bear
conflict
Any situation where there is a real or perceived
threat to human life or property by black bears. Reich, 2024 Integrated
population model
The single, unified analysis of multiple
independent data sets to estimate population
dynamics, which increases statistical precision
and adequately accounts for all sources of
uncertainty.
Schaub & Abadi, 2009;
Lawson et al., 2022
Recreational
hunting
Non-commercial, regulated pursuit of game
animals. Sharp & Wollscheid, 2009
Spot-and-stalk
A hunting method whereby a hunter uses
optics, binoculars, and/or glassing on a ridge
to locate a black bear, and then approach it
to within shooting distance, without the use
of bait or dogs. The stalk generally entails a
strategic hike in silence.
Washington DFW
Sustainability
Meeting human interests in a socially-just
manner without depriving species, native
ecosystems or native populations of their
health.
Vucetich et al., 2018
Wildland
A nonurban, natural area that contains
uncultivated land, timber, range, watershed,
brush or grassland.
U.S. Forest Service
Wildland-urban
interface
The zone of transition between unoccupied
land and human development. The line, area
or zone where structures and other human
development meet or intermingle with
undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels.
U.S. Fire Administration
Wildlife
Management
The management of rare and common habitats
and animal populations for multiple uses at
multiple scales to achieve ecosystem integrity
and sustainable use of available resources.
Anderson et al., 2002
111
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
1 of 19
Number: 2022-01
Date Issued: February 16, 2022
Expires: Until Superseded
To: Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff
Subject: Black Bear Policy in California: Public Safety, Depredation, Conflict, and Animal Welfare
Executive Summary
The purpose of this policy is to describe the Department’s response, methods, and decision-making processes in managing human/bear conflicts in California. The last time the Department holistically reviewed and updated its various bear policies was in 2000.
Good wildlife management requires periodic review and update of policies to ensure adaptive improvements are made based on sound science. A review at this time is also prudent because human/wildlife interactions are increasing, requiring greater staff time in the areas of management and response in the field when interactions occur. As interactions increase, general public engagement with the Department on human/bear conflicts does too.
The major point of this policy update is to clarify categories of human/bear conflicts the Department and citizens experience and provide guidance to staff and the public how such categories will be handled. While the following policy describes a comprehensive range of different situations, the core types of human/bear conflicts are: (1) public safety; (2) property damage; and, (3) continued human/bear interactions where the individual bear(s) have become habituated to human food sources, which increases risk of conflict. The Department’s updated policy seeks to improve management in each of these core situational categories, provide clarity to staff and the public, and present a comprehensive humane set of strategies and actions.
This policy applies statewide although defined sections are specific to the Lake Tahoe Basin.
112
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
2 of 19
The organization of the policy is presented here to allow readers to go directly to a specific section.
Overview and Background
Definitions
1.0 Incident Response
2.0 Public Safety Bear Response
3.0 Depredation Bear Response
4.0 Conflict Bear Response
4.1 No Harm/No Foul Bear Response
4.2 Habituated Bear Response
4.3 Incident Specific Approach
4.3.1 Documentation for Conflict Bear Placement
and Relocation
4.3.2 Determination for Conflict Bear Relocation or
Placement
4.4 Animal Welfare Bear Response
4.4.1 Sick or Injured Bear Response
4.4.2 Orphaned Bear Response
4.4.2.1 Rehabilitation Selection
Criteria
4.4.2.2 Procedures for Returning
Orphaned Bear to Wild
5.0 Responsibilities of the Wildlife Health Lab and Wildlife Forensics Lab
6.0 Training
7.0 Outreach and Education Resources
Appendix A: Public Safety Wildlife Response Guidelines
Appendix B: Lake Tahoe Basin “Trap/Tag/Haze” Pilot Management Project 113
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
3 of 19
Overview and Background
Black bears are an important component of California’s ecosystem and a valuable resource for the people of California. They are also one of the species most frequently involved in human/wildlife conflict throughout the state. In many areas, their natural behavior, foraging habits, distribution, and numbers have been altered by human encroachment and access to anthropogenic food sources, which may lead to altered behaviors resulting in decreased fear of people and increasing incidents of human/bear conflict.
This dynamic is particularly pronounced in the wildland-urban interface where human decisions about food and garbage can put both people and bears at risk. The Department recognizes this situation and seeks to avoid and minimize these conflicts by implementing measures to shift the behavior of bears back to their natural use of habitats and fear of humans, and to address concerns of public safety, public responsibility, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation. The Department is committed to addressing human behaviors that reduce the likelihood of keeping bears wild. Outreach on these behaviors can be found on the Department’s Keep Me Wild webpage. A summary of the Department’s outreach and education efforts is provided at the end of the policy in section 7.0.
This policy supersedes the following documents: Public Safety Wildlife Guidelines 2072 (for bears), Statewide Black Bear Policy 2071, Black Bear and Human Interactions Policy, Criteria for Taking Management Bears, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife North Central Region Lake Tahoe Basin Bear Management Guidance. It provides information and guidance to the public and Department staff responding to human/bear conflicts or welfare bear incidents.
Upon the effective date above, the policy will be implemented by Department staff for the purposes of providing a consistent approach to bear management in California. The policy will be reviewed and evaluated on an ongoing basis to provide the most up to date guidelines for bear management in California. Long-term success must involve collaboration with local entities and citizens with a common commitment to preventive approaches to bear conflict, such as the use of bear-proof garbage containers. As these relationships evolve, this policy will be updated. Upon revision and executive approval, the effective date will be updated to reflect a new date consistent with the revisions.
Definitions
Animal Welfare: There is no universally accepted definition of animal welfare. For the purpose of this policy animal welfare is the physical, psychological, social, and environmental well-being of an animal. It is the Department’s responsibility to consider animal welfare, within the context of population, ecosystem, and public health and safety, whenever managing bears. These considerations can be complex, subjective, and at times contradictory especially when applied to free-ranging, native wildlife. In implementing this policy the Department will follow Department Bulletin Number 2018-02 Department of Fish and Wildlife Animal Welfare Policy.
114
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
4 of 19
Conflict Bear: A bear that requires action by the Department or the public due to its behavior or its situation. Included in this category are No Harm/No Foul bears, habituated bears, and animal welfare bears. Implicit in this definition is that a range of types of Conflict Bears creates a range of possible management actions.
Depredation Bear: A bear that is threatening to, damaging, or destroying property for which a revocable depredation permit has been requested and can be issued in accordance with the Fish and Game Code.
Habituated Bear: A bear that shows little to no overt reaction to people as a result of being repeatedly exposed to anthropogenic stimuli without substantial consequence.
Hazing: A technique where deterrents are administered to a bear to immediately modify the bear’s undesirable behavior. Techniques may include, but are not limited to, use of pyrotechnics, noise makers, non-lethal projectiles, paint ball, scent deterrent, and dogs.
Incident: A bear has, or is likely to, damage property, pose or become a public safety threat, or be in danger of not being able to return safely to appropriate habitat given its location or health status.
No Harm/No Foul Bear: A bear that has strayed into an area where an incident could occur, has not engaged in nuisance activity or caused property damage, and may require assistance to return to nearby suitable habitat.
Orphaned Bear Cub: A cub of the year that is unable to survive in the wild without intervention, and is not associated with a sow.
Orphaned Yearling Bear: A bear in its second calendar year of life, after January 1 but before July, that is unable to survive in the wild without intervention, and is not associated with a sow.
Public Safety Bear: A bear demonstrating aggressive action that has resulted in physical contact with a human; or a bear exhibiting an immediate threat to public health and safety, given the totality of the circumstances. Immediate threat refers to a bear that exhibits one or more aggressive behaviors directed toward a person that is not reasonably believed to be due to the presence of responders. Public safety includes situations where a bear remains a threat despite efforts to allow or encourage it through active means to leave the area.
Rehabilitation: Captive care or treatment of a welfare bear with the goal of returning the animal to the wild after it has recovered and is able to live independently.
Relocation: A situation in which a bear is trapped/captured and moved to suitable habitat.
Relocation bears must be tagged or otherwise identified in a persistent and distinctive manner and collared if feasible.
Response Guidance Team (RGT): Group consisting of the Regional Manager (RM), Chief of Wildlife Branch (CWLB), Chief of Law Enforcement Division (CLED), Deputy Chief of 115
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
5 of 19
Law Enforcement Division (DCLED), Deputy Director of the Wildlife and Fisheries Division (DDWFD), the Wildlife Health Lab (WHL) Environmental Program Manager (EPM), Assistant Chief (AC) of Law Enforcement where the incident is occurring, the Deputy Director of the Office of Communications, Education, and Outreach (OCEO) or their named designees who are available to evaluate a situation and provide personnel to assist as needed in conflict situations.
Take: means hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.
Welfare Bear: An orphaned, sick, or injured bear that may require veterinary care.
1.0 Incident Response
Three types of bear incidents require Department response: Public Safety Bear, Depredation Bear, and Conflict Bear. For non-public safety incidents, the regional wildlife program is the lead and is expected to respond within 48 hours. For the Department, LED is the only entity that can designate a Public Safety Bear. LED will respond to Public Safety Bears appropriately. If necessary, additional assistance can be requested through the appropriate chain of command. The type and level of response will be consistent with the reported incident (i.e., public safety, depredation, conflict).
If an Incident Command System (ICS) is established for a bear incident, the incident commander’s directives will be followed by all on-site employees. For most incidents, regional wildlife program staff or LED personnel will respond to the incident and provide detailed information about the incident to their chain of command. All incidents are to be documented through the Department’s online Wildlife Incident Reporting (WIR) system.
Incidents can be handled by regional wildlife program staff or LED personnel, unless either the AC or EPM deems the circumstances require executive input. In Conflict Bear incidents where management options have been exhausted, the decision to remove the bear from the population (i.e., lethally taken, relocated, or captured for long-term captivity), may only be made by the RM or RGT. Specific decision authority is described below.
Experience shows that internal and external communication is important to enhancing the public’s understanding of bear and human conflicts. A communication plan should be developed within the Incident Response depending on circumstances surrounding the incident. RGT communication will be conducted by any means available including phone, email, and other information technology-based communication platforms. OCEO is part of the RGT and will designate a single point-of-contact for media calls. OCEO will be responsible for information dissemination to the media and public as necessary.
As soon as possible but not later than 48 hours after receiving a report of a bear incident from a Reporting Party (RP), the initial staff receiving the report shall enter the required information into the WIR system and assess such information to determine if it requires further action. The assessment will include consideration of whether the animal could become a depredation or potential human/bear conflict. Volunteers or seasonal staff may 116
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
6 of 19
be assigned to respond to reports of sightings where the RP does not indicate the existence of any potential or actual threat to public health and safety. Appropriate responses may be either by phone or email directly to the RP and shall emphasize nonlethal measures to prevent a human/bear conflict (e.g. Keep Me Wild).
2.0 Public Safety Bear Response
The Department’s foremost consideration is the protection of human life. Responding to public safety wildlife incidents are a priority for the Department, and a Public Safety Bear shall be humanely euthanized as quickly as possible by a Department official or a peace officer.
A Public Safety Bear as defined above and determined by LED or a law enforcement officer from a law enforcement agency, may be lethally taken at any time. Law enforcement officers from a law enforcement agency outside the Department are authorized to deem a bear a public safety situation. For the Department, only LED may make such a determination. If reasonable, before the bear is taken, the regional or LED chain of command will be notified and will provide detailed information to region, LED, WHL, and executive. The bear carcass will be handled to preserve evidence and submitted through the WHL to a California Animal and Food Safety (CAHFS) Laboratory for a full public safety postmortem workup following WHL and CAHFS protocols.
For incidents where the bear is determined to be an imminent threat to the public, but cannot be immediately located for euthanasia, an ICS will be established. The ICS will remain active until the Incident Commander determines an immediate threat to the public no longer exists.
In cases where extenuating circumstances indicate another attack is unlikely or the initial attack was provoked, the AC will collaborate with the RM. They may recommend to the RGT that the bear is no longer a public safety threat and allow management options other than euthanasia. Any decision to cease capture efforts will be made by the AC after consultation through the LED chain of command and with the RGT.
Refer to Appendix A of the policy for a step-wise process for public safety wildlife responses when there is no attack on a human and also for response when there is an attack on a human.
3.0 Depredation Bear Response
Depredation within this policy means damage caused to personal property by bears. Fish and Game Code section 4181 and regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 401) provide for issuance of a revocable depredation permit to landowners or tenants who experience property damage from bears as determined by Department staff. The legal authority to kill animals damaging or destroying land or property was enacted by the Legislature in the 1950s. A lot has changed in California since then.
117
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
7 of 19
Historically, these laws, wildlife management, poaching of wildlife, and other factors contributed toward a relationship with wildlife where many species were shot, trapped, and eliminated as nuisance or “vermin” during the 1800s and into the 1900s. As time changes, values change, and wildlife management evolves. Existing law allows any owner or tenant of land or property that is being damaged or destroyed or is in danger of being damaged or destroyed by specific animals, including bears, to request from the Department a permit to kill the animal involved. This ability has existed for Californians since at least 1957. The Department engages with citizens seeking this permission contemporaneous to the 21st century.
Today, this permit shall be issued by the Department after an application by an owner or tenant of land or property but only upon satisfactory evidence of the damage or destruction.
Importantly, the permit shall contain information about why the permit was necessary, what efforts were made to solve the problem without killing the bear, the corrective actions that should be implemented to prevent a reoccurrence, and proper disposal of the carcass. The Department emphasizes that this process requires information from the applicant whether any efforts, and if so, what efforts, were made to solve the problem without the need for lethal action. If no such efforts have been made, the Department will work with the applicant to propose non-lethal efforts first, as an alternative to the applicant pursuing their option under Fish and Game Code section 4181 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 401.
Furthermore, the Department may, at its discretion, add terms and conditions to the permit necessary to protect wildlife and ensure public safety, including but not limited to conditions that require the permittee to implement corrective actions (e.g., hazing; eliminating unnatural food or attractants by removing trash and bear-proofing food storage areas; enclosing animal pens; installing fencing or electric fencing, motion lights and sprinklers, noise machines, guard animals; or securing and blocking access to crawl spaces or other potential denning sites), ensure only a single animal is taken, or take other actions. If information is available to help identify the bear that caused the damage, this should be used to ensure the correct bear was trapped/captured before it is removed or lethally taken.
The Department responder shall document the incident through the Department’s WIR system.
A person knowingly feeding a bear could be subject to criminal penalties pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 251.3. If a department responder determines persons are feeding a bear, they should notify LED immediately.
Section 4181.1(a) states any owner of livestock or the livestock owner’s employee may immediately take a bear encountered in the act of, inflicting injury to, molesting or killing livestock if the taking is reported to the Department no later than the next working day and the carcass is made available to the Department. If this occurs, LED should be notified for verification and reporting.
Decision Authority: The decision to issue a depredation permit shall be made by an EPM or RM consistent with this updated policy. It is expected that the EPM and RM are in frequent communication on the type and status of depredation requests in the Region. The 118
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
8 of 19
RM will regularly brief executive staff on type and status of decisions. If it is determined the target Depredation Bear is a sow with dependent young, then the EPM will coordinate with the RM, and the RGT should be consulted prior to issuance of a depredation permit.
4.0 Conflict Bear Response
A variety of Conflict Bear situations may arise where no imminent threat to the public exists and no depredation permit has been issued. These cases can range from a bear in a populated area that has caused No Harm/No Foul to a bear that is displaying habituation to human supplied food sources and has lost its instinctual fear of people. It is also the case that a Conflict Bear situation where no depredation permit has been issued may turn into an imminent threat to public safety. Careful consideration of the individual bear, the context and conditions, and available resources are required to determine the best course of action for any given situation to ensure the best chances of success in terms of safety and animal welfare.
This section of the policy recognizes the increase in human/bear conflicts in California, particularly in the Lake Tahoe Basin. As the Department implements a response, it is actively engaged with individuals, neighborhoods, homeowners’ associations, and others with an appreciation for the challenges and the potential for conflict situations to turn into management situations necessitating the Department to respond to truly habituated bears.
This section of the policy defines a step-wise approach ranging from “No Harm/No Foul” conflicts to those that may end with a management action to humanely euthanize an animal.
Early communication between regional wildlife program staff, WHL, and LED is critical.
Information about the Conflict Bear shall be conveyed through the appropriate chain of command. Communication with the RGT should be done by any means available including phone, email, and other information technology based communication platforms.
4.1 No Harm/No Foul Bear Response
While not the only example, the classic example of a No Harm/No Foul bear conflict is a bear in a tree in a neighborhood. In situations where suitable habitat is readily accessible, a No Harm/No Foul Bear should be encouraged to return to that habitat by removing attractants, antagonists, or distractions and, if necessary, by hazing. The Department may relocate the bear to suitable habitat if the foregoing methods are unsuccessful or determined unsafe for the bear, staff and/or the public. Trapping/capturing or chemical immobilization may be necessary in order to move a bear. Ear tags shall be placed and biological samples (i.e., DNA) collected from all bears immobilized by the Department for purposes of future identification. Special “do not consume” or “call before consuming” eartags are to be used if chemical immobilization occurs within two weeks of or during the general and archery bear season. An Immobilization Data Sheet shall be completed (with ear tag number) and forwarded to the WHL where all pertinent information, including ear tag color, location and number, will be captured in a database for future reference in the 119
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
9 of 19
event an ear-tagged bear is recaptured. Prior to trapping/capturing and relocation, documentation (as defined below in 4.3.1) must be approved by the RM or designee.
Decision Authority: The decision to trap/capture and relocate a No Harm/No Foul bear shall be made by the RM or designee.
4.2 Habituated Bear Response
The instinct for a bear to return to a known food source overrides what should be a natural tendency to avoid people. The more bears become accustomed to human food sources, the more likely they are to interact with people, which ultimately exposes them to situations where their behavior is less desirable, increasing risk for conflict. The Department’s related “Keep Me Wild” program is a public campaign to help California’s wild animals from becoming habituated and falling victim to unnecessary conflict and even death resulting from access to human food and garbage. The Keep Me Wild Campaign is publicly advertised and provides tips for keeping animals like bears away from homes and what to do if humans encounter a bear. The Department will seek opportunities to increase human awareness of the serious dangers of habituation to bears.
4.3 Incident Specific Approach
Each incident will be evaluated and a response will be determined on a case-by-case basis according to specific facts and circumstances. The staff approach to a possibly habituated bear should employ methods from the tool box of resources available based on the evidence and science. The tool box of resources for managing bears is evolving and may include approaches such as those described in Appendix B: Lake Tahoe Basin “Trap/Tag/Haze” Pilot Management Project. Additional management approaches require resources that are currently not available to the Department for statewide bear management. Efforts to understand bear management approaches are costly and time consuming requiring additional staffing, equipment, and cooperation among partner groups.
The most desirable outcome for a habituated bear is avoidance of humans and a return to its natural behavior and habitat. Department staff should recommend corrective actions by property or livestock owners such as managing attractants (removal of all non-natural food items), managing the site (fencing, educating people about bear avoidance or temporarily removing public access), or managing the bear (hazing methods). This emphasis on nonlethal corrective actions first is a prudent management structure designed to cure the habituation, remedy the conflict, and create the best outcome for the bear itself. Relocation, placement, or euthanasia of Conflict Bears will be employed only when all feasible corrective measures are exhausted and will follow steps described in 4.3.1-4.3.2.
The Department recognizes that, unfortunately, some bears may be so habituated that the conflict will persist. The reality is some bears may learn a behavior. They may show little to no reaction to people. They may continue to break into dwellings or frequent areas like campgrounds, increasing the likelihood of conflicts.
120
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
10 of 19
Therefore, regional wildlife program staff will determine a course of action until the issue is resolved, or it appears corrective actions have been exhausted and the situation remains unresolved. Regional wildlife program staff will provide a briefing document containing pertinent information to their supervisor, who will evaluate whether additional management options should be employed to address the situation. Where feasible, best efforts will be made to collect scientific data and genetic samples from any bear regardless of the type of conflict, incident or action. Consideration in the briefing document will be given to the documented timeline of conflict incidents detailing the risk posed to human health and property, the pattern of incidents, whether behavior is becoming increasingly bold or threatening, and the outcome of corrective measures. If the supervisor believes additional management efforts are unlikely to succeed, this information will be provided to the EPMs of the Region and the WHL, who will develop a recommendation to either euthanize the bear, relocate the bear, or place the bear in captivity, based on criteria below. This recommendation will be provided to the RGT.
4.3.1 Documentation for Conflict Bear Relocation or Placement Relocation or placement of a bear in a care facility requires careful consideration. Science is developing regarding the long-term efficacy of relocating animals. Often relocated bears return to the habitat in question over long distances. Placement of a bear means a lifetime of captivity for a once wild animal. Moreover, appropriate facilities for placement may not be available. However, relocation and placement are responsible management actions for the Department to consider as an alternative to lethal actions.
For any Conflict Bear, in order to consider relocation or placement, documentation must contain the following information and be made readily available for decision making.
1. Description and current status of the bear (tag number, if available).
2. Details of timeline and type of conflict.
3. Rationale for placement or relocation.
4. Efforts to implement corrective actions.
5. Hazing efforts implemented and the bear’s response.
6. Information from other state, federal, or local agencies, including law enforcement.
7. Availability of trained staff and necessary equipment including GPS collar if bear will be relocated. Include a list of staff involved.
8. Relocation – suitable habitat and release site identified, time of relocation, and approvals accepted.
9. Communication plan with OCEO to media or interested parties. Notify affected local, state, or federal landowners of the intent to relocate the bear, and notify all other Region/Branches that may be impacted by the relocation. 121
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
11 of 19
10.Placement – The WHL will initiate outreach to determine space availability at accredited and quality facilities, both in and out-of-state, for the particular placement candidate bear. The decision to permanently place an animal should be considered an option only if rehabilitation and release back to the wild is deemed infeasible and the bear is determined to be a good candidate for permanent placement.
11.Relocation Approval - A No Harm/No Foul bear may be relocated to nearby suitable habitat with approval from the RM or designee (Section 4.1). All other relocation efforts require approval of the RM and RGT (Section 4.3.2). Because the act of relocation may be time sensitive, the approval may be communicated and approved via text or email, and saved for retrieval if needed.
4.3.2. Determination for Conflict Bear Relocation or Placement The determination of whether to attempt placement, relocation, or euthanasia will be made by considering animal welfare and the likelihood of successful placement or relocation. The ethics and animal welfare concerns associated with removing a wild animal from its natural habitat and into captivity, whether for short-term evaluation or permanent placement, are important considerations. Adult bears may be poor candidates for placement due to the chronic stress of adjusting to captivity after living only in wild conditions. Cubs are usually better candidates for successful placement. Due to their long lifespans and the large area required for housing, long-term placement options for bears are limited.
WHL determines appropriate placement options by considering accreditation and quality of available facilities. Information is maintained on all zoos and sanctuaries in the state regarding inspection history and prior placement outcomes. WHL also determines the availability of out-of-state facilities by contacting the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the American Sanctuary Association or the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries. If an unaccredited facility outside of the state has availability, WHL consults their last two U.S.
Department of Agriculture inspection reports and their permitting status with the appropriate state wildlife agency to evaluate suitability. Although placement in the state is preferred, decisions regarding placement are made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the temperament and age of the animal, and the availability of a quality facility. If no placement option is available, the Department will consider relocation or euthanasia.
After evaluation and a decision against relocation or placement, the bear should be euthanized in the field to prevent the unnecessary stress of capture and captivity. If longterm placement is available, a bear may be housed temporarily at WHL, with approval from the WHL EPM, to evaluate whether the bear’s temperament is conducive to long-term captivity. If placement is decided against, humane euthanasia will be performed.
Decision Authority: The decision to use corrective measures shall be made by regional wildlife program staff in consultation with the RM or designee. The decision to place or relocate shall be made by the RM or CWLB in consultation with the RGT. A recommendation for potential placement of the habituated bear will be made by WHL and 122
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
12 of 19
approved by the RGT. The decision to euthanize a habituated bear shall be made by the RGT.
4.4 Animal Welfare Bear Response
The Department strives to sustain the welfare of bears by allowing them to express their normal behavior and avoiding situations that subject them to undue pain and fear. These considerations can be complex, subjective, and at times contradictory especially when applied to free-ranging, native wildlife. The Department will consider animal welfare when managing human/bear conflict, minimizing suffering to individual animals while attempting to protect their freedom to exercise natural behaviors. In general, animal welfare bears fall into two categories: sick or injured bears, and orphaned bears.
4.4.1 Sick or Injured Bear Response
In the case of sick or injured bears, responding personnel should assess injuries to the best of their ability. A WHL veterinarian should be consulted if the responder is unsure as to the severity of illness or injuries or otherwise requires guidance or assistance regarding handling or disposition of the bear. Bears with severe trauma that includes severe bone breaks or severe head trauma should be considered for immediate euthanasia in the field due to poor prognosis and to reduce suffering of the animal.
Decision Authority: A plan for response to a sick or injured bear will be recommended to the RM by the WHL. The decision to euthanize a sick or injured bear will be made by the RM or CWLB in consultation with the WHL.
4.4.2 Orphaned Bear Response
On occasion, black bear cubs or yearlings may be found orphaned (both defined above).
Orphaned cubs are eligible for rehabilitation only at permitted wildlife rehabilitation facilities specifically approved by the Department for bear rehabilitation. It is unlawful for the public to pick up and possess orphaned bears (Fish and Game Code sections 2000 and 2002; California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 679(b)). Occasionally, orphaned yearlings, when they might normally still be associated with a sow, require Department response for conflict or welfare situations. Yearling bears offer unique challenges in a rehabilitation setting, they are more likely to injure themselves or damage their enclosures, and are generally more difficult to successfully manage and release back to the wild. As such, orphaned yearlings may be considered for rehabilitation on a case-by-case basis and in consultation with a WHL veterinarian.
The following guidelines should be used to assist personnel in implementing this policy as it relates to orphaned bears and dependent yearlings.
4.4.2.1 Rehabilitation Selection Criteria
Orphaned bears may be candidates for rehabilitation if all the following conditions are met:
1. The orphaned cub or yearling is clearly dependent and unable to survive in the wild. 123
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
13 of 19
2. The orphaned cub or yearling shows little to no evidence of habituation to humans.
Starving cubs or yearlings may appear habituated upon initial presentation, but often resume wild behavior once adequately fed.
3. There is a consensus between Department personnel in the region and the WHL EPM or his/her designee that a given cub or yearling is suitable for rehabilitation. If consensus is not reached, the final decision about whether a cub or yearling meets the criteria will be made by the WHL EPM.
4.4.2.2 Procedures for Returning Orphaned Bear to Wild
1. WHL should be consulted regarding all orphaned bears determined to be potential candidates for rehabilitation and release. The animals should be held in a secure container and kept in a quiet location with little or no human contact. The bear(s) should be given food and water as appropriate. The WHL will determine if the orphaned bear should be transported to WHL or directly to a permitted orphaned bear rehabilitation center.
2. All rehabilitated orphaned bears shall be ear tagged immediately once placed at the rehabilitating facility. Prior to release, relocation approval must be agreed upon by RM and CWLB or designee.
3. Release of rehabilitated orphaned bear(s) will be done in appropriate habitat and may entail a “soft” release where hibernation behavior is triggered and the hibernating bear is placed in natural or artificially constructed den(s) during the appropriate time of winter or early spring, or a “hard” release in late winter or early spring where the cub/yearling either has come out of hibernation or was never hibernating and is released awake with light to moderate hazing in an area where food resources are available.
4. The release of a rehabilitated orphaned bear shall be supervised by Department personnel. WHL or Region will coordinate through OCEO regarding communication with news media.
5.0 Responsibilities of the Wildlife Health Lab and Wildlife Forensics Lab (WFL)
Public Safety animals that do not injure or kill a person will be necropsied by the WHL or an independent diagnostic laboratory approved by WHL. WFL will provide genetic analysis of the bear.
A Public Safety animal that injures or kills a person will be necropsied by an independent diagnostic laboratory in consultation with the WHL and WFL. Public Safety animals killed in an attack on a person must be examined by WFL personnel or a qualified person approved by WFL supervisor using specific procedures established by WFL.
If a human death occurs, coordination of the autopsy between the proper officials and WFL is important so that WFL personnel can take appropriate samples for examination. 124
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
14 of 19
In the event of human injury, it is important for WFL to gather any relevant physical evidence that may corroborate the authenticity of a wildlife attack, prior to the treatment of injuries, if practical. If not practical, directions for sampling may be given over the telephone to the LED or the emergency room doctor.
6.0 Training
Training is a necessary part of a professional and reasoned response to bear conflict incidents. The Department has provided and will continue to provide training opportunities for staff who respond to wildlife conflict incidents.
Wildlife Fundamentals Class - Provides an introduction to capture and restraint of wildlife, disease considerations when working with wildlife, personnel and animal safety, and Department policies regarding wildlife handling, wildlife rehabilitation, and restricted species. The Department will provide this class at least once per year.
Wildlife Restraint and Chemical Immobilization Class - Provides specific training on the uses and applications of chemical immobilization techniques. It also provides instruction on how to approach wildlife incident responses and determine when capture and handling of wildlife is appropriate. The Department or other appropriate entities will continue to provide this class at least once per year (or more) for appropriate staff qualified to engage in chemical restraint.
Academy Training for Law Enforcement - Basic introduction for all wildlife officers on responding to wildlife incidents and wildlife incident reporting (WIR) system will occur during academy training.
Continued Law Enforcement Training - Focused training for wildlife officers related to policy and procedures, public safety wildlife incidents, and media relations will be implemented throughout the law enforcement division’s (LED) daily training bulletin system. This bear policy will be reviewed and acknowledged by all wildlife officers annually.
Ongoing Coordination and Cross-Training - Coordination and cross-training within and between Department programs on responding to wildlife incidents. The RGT will meet not less than twice a year to review efforts and discuss effectiveness of this policy.
Wildlife Incident Report Training - Training specific to use of the online WIR system. This training will be introduced as a component of each class described, but also be offered once a year as a focused stand-alone training course.
Annually, the Department will evaluate the training program and needs with the Wildlife Branch, LED and OCEO. The Department’s Office and Training and Development will assist in such review and implementation of training wherever possible. 125
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
15 of 19
7.0 Outreach and Education Resources
Staff utilizing this policy are expected to be familiar with the Department’s various outreach and education efforts with the public regarding human/bear conflicts. Below is a summary of those efforts and links to further information for each.
Importantly, the Department relies upon interactions with affected landowners and citizens to establish a record related to human/bear conflicts to inform management decisions. Two such information sources are data obtained pursuant to depredation requests and the Department’s WIR portal.
Depredation requests are received by the Department from individuals who experience property damage as a result of bears. The depredation request is documented through the WIR database and allows for issuance of a depredation permit under certain circumstances. Information collected during the depredation permit request process includes time, date, damage caused by the bear, and deterrents that may have been in place to prevent the occurrence. After reviewing the information the Department may issue a depredation permit.
WIR is a database that is accessible to the public through the Department’s website as well as Department staff. The database houses information related to bear incidents throughout California. Information on incidents can be entered by the public or Department staff. The WIR database is used to issue depredation permits when requested and reviewed by the Department.
Currently, the WIR can be accessed on the Department website at https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/wir/incident/create. Effective outreach and education requires the Department to create a more user-friendly WIR portal for the general public on the Department’s website. Within 12 months of the effective date of this policy, the Department will seek feedback from stakeholders, coordinate with its Data and Technology Division, and establish and more user-friendly WIR.
The purpose of improved data management is to maintain a data base of reports and information that can be queried for specific information on identify of bears, photos, locations, behaviors, evidence of avoidance and non-lethal measures used, descriptions and photos of property damage, timelines of events, and hot spots for habituated bear behavior.
The Department acknowledges that in some situations the general public is fearful of providing data related to the possible outcome of euthanizing an animal. The Department will establish a “tip line” web portal for residents to report habituated bear behaviors anonymously. All information related to a request for a depredation permit will be subject to public records laws.
Across the state the Department implements its Keep Me Wild campaign. This effort is designed to educate the public on measures they can take to keep bears wild. Outreach on these behaviors can be found on the Department’s Keep Me Wild website. 126
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
16 of 19
The Department also utilizes Bear Naked Truth, a blog designed to objectively disseminate information on bear management actions. Though focused on the Lake Tahoe Basin, often information from outside the area is included.
The Department will increase outreach and education in the Lake Tahoe Basin by offering to meet periodically with homeowners’ associations and other neighborhood groups to provide information on trash storage, trap/tag/haze efforts, and other bear management issues. The Department will offer to brief local governments on a quarterly basis at County Board of Supervisors meetings regarding bear management. This interaction through public county meetings is based on a similar effort the Department conducted in northern California for wolf management issues.
____________________
Charlton H. Bonham, Director
127
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
17 of 19
APPENDIX A
Public Safety Wildlife Response (No Attack on a Human)
A. Secure the scene.
B. Humanely euthanize the Public Safety Bear unless there are extenuating circumstances.
C. Notify Dispatch and the RGT.
D. Gather information for report and enter into the WIR system.
Public Safety Wildlife Response (Attack on a Human)
A. Secure the scene and ensure proper medical aid if there is a victim. Identify the victim and obtain the victim’s name, address, and phone number.
B. Notify the appropriate Dispatch Center. Dispatch shall notify the field investigator's supervisor. LED chain of command will notify the appropriate RM, DDWFD, CLED, DCLED, CWLB, Wildlife Forensic Lab (WFL),WHL, OCEO, and if necessary local law enforcement agencies.
C. Initiate the ICS. If a human death has occurred, a LED supervisor or specialist will respond to the Incident Command Post and assume the Incident Commander (IC) responsibilities. The IC holds initial responsibility and authority over the scene, locating the bear, its resultant carcass, and any other physical evidence from the attack. The IC will ensure proper transfer and disposition of all physical evidence.
D. Treat the area as a crime scene. In order to expedite the take of the offending animal and preserve as much on-scene evidence as possible, the area of the incident must be secured immediately by the initial responding officer. The area should be excluded from public access by use of flagging tape or similar tape (e.g., "Do Not Enter") utilized at crime scenes by local law enforcement agencies. One entry and exit port should be established.
Only essential authorized personnel should be permitted in the excluded area. A second area outside the area of the incident should be established as the command post.
E. In cases involving a human death, WFL personnel will direct the gathering of evidence and secure items such as clothing, tents, sleeping bags, objects used for defense during the attack, objects chewed on by the animal, or any other materials which may possess the attacking animal's saliva, hair, or blood.
F. If the victim is alive, advise the attending medical personnel about the Carnivore AttackVictim Sampling Kit for collecting possible animal saliva stains or hair that might still be on the victim. If the victim is dead, advise the medical examiner of this evidence need. This sampling kit may be obtained from the WFL.
128
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
18 of 19
G. It is essential to locate the offending animal as soon as practical. The assistance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services (WS) may be arranged by the LED or designee contacting the local WS District Supervisor.
H. If an animal is killed, the IC will notify the chain of command. Treat the carcass as evidence. Use clean protective gloves and (if possible) a face mask while handling the carcass. Be guided by the need to protect the animal's external body from: loss of bloodstains or other such physical evidence originating from the victim; contamination by the animal's own blood; and contamination by the human handler's hair, sweat, saliva, skin cells, etc. Tape paper bags over the head and paws, and then tape plastic bags over the paper bags. Plug wounds with tight gauze to minimize contamination of the animal with its own blood. Place the carcass inside a protective durable body bag (avoid dragging the carcass, if possible).
I. WFL will receive from the IC and/or directly obtain all pertinent physical evidence concerning the primary questions of authenticity of the attack and identity of the offending animal. WFL has first access and authority over the carcass after the IC. WHL will immediately contact and coordinate with the health department the acquisition of appropriate samples for rabies testing. Once WFL has secured the necessary forensic samples, it will then release authority over the carcass to WHL for disease studies.
J. An independent diagnostic laboratory approved by WHL will conduct necropsy and disease studies on the carcass. The WHL will retain primary authority over this aspect of the carcass.
K. In the event that a Public Safety Bear cannot be located and taken, and the immediate threat no longer exists, the RGT shall re-assess the incident and consider re-classifying the bear.
129
Department of Fish and Wildlife
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
19 of 19
Appendix B
Lake Tahoe Basin Black Bear “Trap/Tag/Haze” Pilot Management Project The Lake Tahoe Region has the second highest density of black bears in North America, with several bears per square mile at times. When bears become habituated to obtaining food by raiding garbage cans, entering homes, and generally associating food with people, they are extremely difficult to deter and are increasingly creating public health and safety issues.
In addition, climate change is rapidly altering natural habitat, and this too is seen in the Lake Tahoe Basin where hotter and drier weather may cause cascading impacts to bear behaviors and life strategies. On top of those changes, catastrophic fires that have occurred in the Lake Tahoe Basin degrade bear habitat and may be pushing bears into more human conflicts in search of food.
Recognizing these events and the increase of human/bear conflicts, the Department is implementing a pilot management project in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The trap/tag/haze project allows the Department to identify bears and provide a deterrent to habituated behaviors the bear may be displaying. A cage trap is used to capture bears in areas where they regularly show up and have been causing issues with habituated behaviors such as raiding trash cans, breaking in cars or houses, or entering campsites. Once captured, the bears are immobilized and tagged with ear tags or GPS collars to readily identify the individual bear. Biological samples (i.e., DNA), and scientific data related to health and biometrics are also gathered during this time. Upon release of the bear, the Department uses bean bag rounds discharged from a firearm and loud noises to haze the bear from the undesired location and to deter future habituated behaviors.
The Department will evaluate the data from the trap/tag/haze project in the coming years to determine if the management methods show an indication of deterring habituated behaviors or not. The trap/tag/haze project also allows for LED and scientific staff to readily identify bears that may display habituated behaviors and track those behaviors over time providing data on how the behaviors may be learned by other adult bears or cubs. The policy incorporates trap/tag/haze as a pilot management project in the Lake Tahoe Basin to create additional flexibility for the Department for these purposes: (1) further evaluate the effectiveness of management actions to reduce bear habituation; (2) employ active management through hazing to reduce bear habituation; and, (3) to increase Department management flexibility when landowners may elect to not request a depredation permit, (4) monitor when a habituated bear may eventually transition to a public safety situation.
The Department will continue to evaluate additional hazing tools during the pilot management project. Other such tools may include a program to utilize specially trained dogs under professional handling to haze bears upon release to increase chances the bear subject to hazing modifies their behavior.
130
State of California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
M e m o r a n d u m
Date: February 28, 2024
To: Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff
From: Charlton H. Bonham
Director
Subject: Statewide Guidance for Assessing Black Bear Depredation Permit Requests – Addendum 1 to the CDFW 2022-01 Black Bear Policy in California California has a robust black bear (Ursus americanus) population that human activity often intersects with. As urban areas expand across the state into black bear habitat these environments are becoming closer to one in the same providing ample anthropogenic food sources and increasing the likelihood of human-black bear interactions. Management of these interactions requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to continually evaluate existing and innovative approaches to black bear management, including responsibilities shared by the public, homeowners, farmers, and ranchers to reduce the likelihood of attracting black bear to themselves or their property. Minimizing human-black bear interaction will also require consistency across CDFW in how requests for black bear depredation permits are evaluated.
As outlined in the CDFW 2022-01 Black Bear Policy in California, depredation permit requests shall contain information about why the permit was necessary, what efforts were made to solve the problem without killing the bear, the corrective actions that should be implemented to prevent a reoccurrence, and proper disposal of a carcass.
CDFW emphasizes that this process requires information from the applicant whether any efforts, and if so, what efforts, were made to solve the problem without the need for lethal action. If no preventive measures or efforts have been made, CDFW will collaborate with the applicant to propose non-lethal efforts first, as an alternative to the applicant pursuing their option under Fish and Game Code section 4181 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 401. The following guidance is designed to meet the requirements of the Black Bear Policy in California and provide approving authorities with a consistent method of evaluating black bear depredation permit requests.
Guidance
These considerations are meant to guide approving authorities in evaluating requests for depredation permits. It is likely that a combination of these considerations is likely to be observed in most cases involving depredation permit requests. In evaluating depredation permit requests approving authorities should focus on the desired intent of the CDFW Black Bear Policy in California which considers personal responsibility for 131
Statewide Guidance for Assessing Black Bear Depredation Permit Requests – Addendum 1 to the CDFW 2022-01 Black Bear Policy in California February 28, 2024