SEFS Assistant Professor Alex McInturff runs the People and Wildlife Lab here at the University of Washington. His most recent research published in Biological Conservation suggests that even in a state with 40 million people and the nation’s largest agricultural sector there is room for the grizzly. 

In 1924, a road crew near Sequoia National Park, California, witnessed something surprising: a grizzly bear in the hills near the road. While grizzly bears had once numbered over 10,000 in the state, their numbers had declined steeply over the preceding decades. This 1924 sighting would be the last of a grizzly bear in the state. The California grizzly bear is now extinct in the state, though it still graces the state flag. 

One hundred years later, the California legislature declared 2024 the year of the grizzly, and discussions about a possible reintroduction and recovery of these animals are taking place. But is there room for a large carnivore like grizzly bears in a state with 40 million people and the nation’s largest agricultural sector? 

Recently published research suggests that the answer is yes. In a study in Biological Conservation, researchers looked at the overlap of a variety of models of grizzly bear habitat suitability. This included a historical model that used newspaper and other reports to look at where grizzlies once occurred, models based on Rocky Mountain and European bear habitats, and the patterns of large carnivores like black bears and pumas in California today. Each of these models has been used in other reintroduction and recovery programs, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. The study found that even the conservative overlap of these approaches housed large amounts of habitat suitable for grizzly bears in California. This includes areas that are already under protection in the state’s Northwest Forests, Coastal mountains and, in an echo of history – Sequoia National Park and other protected areas in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. 

The presence of large amounts of suitable grizzly habitat is a key finding if recovery efforts are to proceed. However, important questions still remain, especially around the willingness of people to live near grizzlies. While challenges around restoring this iconic animal remain, this research suggests that there is ample habitat available in which to consider them. 

Read the paper in Biological Conservation

We spoke with Alex McInturff to better understand what a reintroduction could look like, what some of the most common concerns are and why California has declared 2024 the year of the grizzly. 

What are some of the most common questions and concerns that people have when we talk about reintroduction of large carnivores like the grizzly? 

Alex McInturff: One of the most common questions we get is “wait, there aren’t grizzly bears in California?” Grizzlies loom large in the state’s consciousness and iconography, after all, they are the animal on the state flag. Many people confuse grizzly bears with black bears, and many people are simply surprised to hear that grizzlies are gone. So, even aside from the habitat question, there is a question about knowledge and about imagination. We hope this research can provide some insights. 

When it comes to more specific questions and concerns about reintroduction, there are two questions that come up most often. The first is, “will there be enough food and habitat?” And the second is, “will bears put people in danger, or will people put bears in danger?” Our study is most concerned with the first question. Our analyses indicate that at a broad scale, the state has large amounts of habitat that are expected to be “suitable” for grizzlies. In other words, based on other places, other species, and California’s past, it is likely that bears could live in many areas of the state. We acknowledge that the second question about human-bear interactions is much harder to predict, and depends on a series of choices and preferences that state leaders and the public will have to make about their willingness to coexist and coadapt with these animals if they are reintroduced. 

Can you point to other similar reintroductions that have been successful? In these reintroductions were some of the most common fears assuaged post reintroduction?

AM: One of the most famous reintroductions was that of wolves in Yellowstone in 1995. Since their reintroduction, that wolf population has expanded its range across several western states, and the wolf population has grown significantly since the first reintroduction. However, wolves and their reintroduction remain a divisive, contentious example of conservation action. Since then, a number of technical tools – non-lethal measures like electrified fencing – and processes – like public-engaged decision making – having been tested and refined and are available to help reduce some of the conflicts that lead to controversy. Those tools and strategies require investment and commitment to be successful. Today, reintroductions and translocations are an increasingly popular tool in conservation – there is a lot of evidence that they work well, when they are done right. 

What are some of the most common misconceptions about the grizzly?

AM: For a long time, people believed that California grizzlies were enormous and particularly dangerous. Historic reports of encounters often describe them this way – twice the size of grizzlies in the Rockies and much more ferocious. However, recent science has shown that in fact, much of this was exaggeration. Genetically, California grizzlies were virtually identical to those in Yellowstone today, and a study of museum specimens showed they were about the same size too. That same study did some incredible work using isotopes to uncover what California grizzlies ate – it turns out they weren’t quite vegan, but were close to it. Much of their diet was herbivorous prior to European colonization. With the introduction of livestock, the proportion of meat in their diet doubled, but was still a relatively small portion of their diet. 

If reintroduction is to take place, who will spearhead this mission?

AM: Coordination between agencies – including federal, state, and Tribal governments – will be critical to a successful reintroduction. Just as importantly, informing, engaging, and understanding public preferences is also a key element. There are many possible paths for a reintroduction, but none are likely to succeed without working with a wide variety of people and agencies. 

What are some of the challenges teams like yours face when trying to build habitat suitability models?

AM: From a scientific perspective, our approach to modeling habitat suitability was just as important to our team as the specific results for California. Grizzlies haven’t been in California for 100 years, and the state has transformed during that time. It is very difficult to make clear predictions based on other places, other species, or other times – each approach comes with its own strengths and shortcomings. So, we drew from research in the social sciences and from ensemble modeling to bring multiple modeling approaches to bear on this question, and learn from their strengths while understanding their weaknesses. We hope the approach we presented in the paper – which we call “analogy and triangulation” – proves a useful tool for related questions. 

Why does the California legislature want to reintroduce the grizzly now after all this time has passed?

AM: The California legislature has not weighed in on the question of reintroduction. However, they did declare 2024 the “year of the grizzly” in California, to mark the species’ special local significance and the 100th anniversary of its disappearance. California, as with many western states, has witnessed several reintroduction and recovery success stories in recent years. Some environmental groups, like the Center for Biological Diversity, have advocated for their return, as have some Tribal leaders and Tribal members in the state. In 2024, a Gathering of Nations was held in California, where Tribal leaders and members spoke on this topic to the public, with many state leadership officials in attendance. So, there has been a growing interest in the topic that is gaining focus and momentum. At the same time, the California Grizzly Research Network, led by Peter Alagona at UC Santa Barbara, has spent the last decade conducting focused research on the California grizzly to better inform a public conversation. That output of knowledge has also helped set the stage for discussions that go beyond imagination and symbolism and into topics like habitat and implementation.

What makes the grizzly a unique animal to reintroduce? What are some of the difficulties that you imagine the reintroduction teams will face?

AM: Grizzlies inspire both fear and awe in people. I expect the biggest challenges in a reintroduction will be related to their interactions with humans. If California can cultivate a climate of pride, of respect, of coexistence, and coadaptation, then I think grizzlies could be a welcome addition to the state that will bring both ecological and economic benefits. However, if proper education, communication, decision-making, and risk mitigation aren’t adopted and invested in from the very beginning, then I think a reintroduction will face serious obstacles.