Erin Stone
covers climate and environmental issues in Southern California.
Published August 7, 2024 5:00 AM
A mother bear and her two cubs stand in the middle of a fast-flowing stream in 1978.
(
Courtesy Los Angeles Herald Examiner Photo Collection/LAPL
)
Topline:
Black bears have long been a part of life in the foothill suburbs of Southern California. But something has changed in the small city of Sierra Madre, just 25 minutes from downtown L.A.: A new trend of black bears being around a lot more regularly and — more worrisomely — getting into homes and cars more than ever, has left the community grappling with how to coexist.
Why it matters: Black bear encounters are on the rise in L.A.'s foothill communities. If mountain lions are rarely-seen celebrities, and coyotes are ubiquitous villains, bears are somewhere in the middle. We like bears, but we're also scared of them — can we learn to live with more of them around?
Read on...for more information about bears, and to listen to Episode 3 of Imperfect Paradise: Lions, Coyotes and Bears.
Black bears have long been a part of life in the foothill suburbs of southern California.
From Samson the Hot Tub Bear — the P-22 of Monrovia — to Glen Bearian, who was known to have a taste for frozen meatballs in Glendale, black bears strolling through foothill communities, rummaging through trash, and taking dips in pools have largely been a source of amusement to residents and local TV stations alike.
But something has changed — black bears appear to be showing up more than they used to, particularly in the small city of Sierra Madre, nestled against the San Gabriel Mountains about a 25-minute drive from downtown L.A.
A new trend of black bears being around more regularly, and — more concerning — getting into cars and homes more than ever, has put the community on edge, unsure if “coexisting” with bears is realistic.
As the city grapples with this new normal, residents have become divided about what to do about the bears. Are they really a problem? Or do some people just have a problem with the bears? What, if anything, has really changed with the bear situation here?
Those are the questions I explore in Episode 3 of our Imperfect Paradise series Lions, Coyotes and Bears.
When it comes to predators living among us, bears are arguably the ones we're most conflicted about. They’re super cute (case in point: the viral meme, “if not friend, why friend-shaped?”) But they’re also big and powerful animals that could easily kill us.
Bear 162, a black bear that used to frequent La Cañada Flintridge, eats black oil sunflower seeds from a birdfeeder in a backyard in March 2023. The bear was euthanized in June 2024 after officials determined it had lost its fear of humans.
(
Susanne Whatley
/
LAist
)
To me, the escalating situation in Sierra Madre shows us how much our shifting attitudes about wildlife may shape what steps we take — or don’t — to live with them, especially in urban areas.
Read on for more information about bears, and you'll have the chance to listen to Episode 3 of Imperfect Paradise: Lions, Coyotes and Bears below.
Black bears are the only species of bear currently in California, and, unlike most species in this era of unprecedented climate change and urbanization, they appear to be doing pretty well.
The state estimates there are now more than 60,000 black bears in the state, about five or six times as many as estimated in the 1980s. Though still an estimate, that data is more accurate than years past.
Ninety percent of those black bears are in the northern and eastern parts of California, but experts believe populations in Southern California are growing too. Is it just a growing population that’s driving more bears into town? That’s unclear.
Similar to coyotes, black bears seem to do well in urban areas. They're also omnivores and opportunists, which means they generally eat the food that’s easiest to get. They primarily eat plants and bugs, such as acorns, berries, grass and ants, but they’ll also eat animal carcasses, small mammals and, of course, whatever’s in your trash.
How dangerous are bears?
(
Courtesy NPS
)
Black bears seem to be more timid than grizzly bears by nature: They evolved in forests and their main defense mechanism is to run up a tree. So far, every time I’ve run into one outside my house in Sierra Madre, or up on a trail, they’ve been more scared of me.
A lot of our misconceptions about bear behavior are rooted in frontier myths about grizzly bears viciously attacking cattle and cowboys. For example, some theories suggest that as European settlers expanded ranching and destroyed the native grasses that grizzlies grazed on, that led to a spike in grizzly bears eating their livestock for food instead. Then, predictably, a spike in settlers killing grizzlies to protect their livestock.
Grizzly bears — or brown bears — used to be the main bear of the Southern California landscape before settlers hunted them to extinction across the state by the mid-1920s.
Like black bears, brown bears are omnivores and opportunities, but they seem more likely to defend themselves, possibly because they largely evolved in plains where there was nowhere to hide. But research on that is not conclusive.
Black bear mother and cub in Monrovia, a foothill community that neighbors Sierra Madre, in 2021.
(
Jerry Shutman
/
LAist
)
We're talking here, though, mainly about black bears, which are now the only bear in California. And like any wild animal, black bears present a certain level of risk, but, same as with mountain lions and coyotes, experts say the risk is low. There are on average about four injuries by black bears per year across the entire state of California.
That said, the first deadly black bear attack in California’s recorded history was confirmed recently in a small mountain town in Northern California — nearly 500 miles north of Sierra Madre. Since 1900, across all of North America — home to between 600,000 to 900,000 black bears — researchers estimate just 67 people have been killed by black bears.
As human and black bear populations have grown, the risk for conflict has increased too. It’s a particularly tricky situation in areas as populated as the foothills of Los Angeles County.
The surprising history of black bears in Southern California
For thousands of years, Indigenous communities across Southern California — and the state — lived alongside grizzly bears. That’s the type of bear on California’s state flag.
But by the mid-1920s, settlers hunted grizzly bears to extinction in California. One of the last grizzly bears in the state is thought to have been killed near Sunland in 1916.
While grizzly bears were largely seen as ferocious predators, black bears had long been seen by European settlers on the East Coast as pests to be exterminated as they razed the bears’ forest habitats to make way for cities and farms.
A black bear hangs out in a neighborhood in Sierra Madre in May 2024.
(
Erin Stone
/
LAist
)
By the early 20th century, mainstream cultural attitudes toward bears were starting to shift (Hint: it started with former President Teddy Roosevelt and the rise of the Teddy bear toy). Black bears in particular, came to be seen as lovable partners and friends, rather than pests to be destroyed.
In the 1920s and ‘30s, those shifts in cultural attitudes led to bears becoming a major tourist attraction to the growing national park system. And soon, the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests wanted in on the action.
So, in 1933, 28 Yosemite black bears were trucked south and released into the forests of Southern California. Almost all of the bears that now live in the Southland’s mountains are descended from these bears.
What’s changed since then? You’ll have to listen to the podcast.
Erin Stone, LAist's climate reporter, takes a deeper look at bears through the lens of the mountain town of Sierra Madre, where she lives. Just 25 minutes from downtown L.A., the residents of Sierra Madre increasingly come face-to-face with black bears.
Lions, Coyotes, & Bears: Part 3 - The Bear Nuisance
Erin Stone, LAist's climate reporter, takes a deeper look at bears through the lens of the mountain town of Sierra Madre, where she lives. Just 25 minutes from downtown L.A., the residents of Sierra Madre increasingly come face-to-face with black bears.
David Wagner
covers housing in Southern California, where a massive post-fire rebuilding effort is underway.
Published April 1, 2026 4:44 PM
Fencing lines a sidewalk next to a home under construction.
(
Erin Stone
/
LAist
)
Topline:
As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Council member is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.
Who’s behind it: Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.
The details: The plan calls for returning the 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.
Read on … to learn whether economists think the proposed tax relief could make a difference.
As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.
Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.
The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.
The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”
Would it make much of a difference?
Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.
“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”
Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.
Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.
“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”
What’s next for the proposal?
The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.
The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.
The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September. Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.
About the deal: The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate. Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.
What's next: Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects. Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS. If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.
Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.
Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.
"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.
The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.
Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.
"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.
Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.
"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."
Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.
"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.
Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.
Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.
Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.
"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."
If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
Logan Cattaneo, 6, poses for a photo with the Dodgers mascot during Dodgers Dreamteam PlayerFest at Dodgers Stadium in 2024.
(
Michael Blackshire
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
The Dodgers Foundation says it's expanding Dodgers Dreamteam, its program for underserved youth. The foundation says the program will be able to serve 17,000 kids this year, 2,000 more than last year.
Why it matters: Now in its 13th season, the program connects underserved youth with opportunities to play baseball and softball and provides participants with free uniforms and access to baseball equipment. It also offers training for coaches in positive youth development practices, as well as wraparound services for participant families like college workshops, career panels, literacy resources and scholarship opportunities.
How to sign up: For more information and to sign up, click here.
An aerial view of snow-capped trees after a winter snowstorm near Soda Springs on Feb. 20, 2026.
(
Stephen Lam, San Francisco Chronicle
/
via Getty Images
)
Topline:
California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season. It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.
What happened? Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.
Why it matters: Experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains. State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs. “I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.
California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.
It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.
Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.
But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.
On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.
“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”
Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.
“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.
“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”
‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’
In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.
“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”
Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.
“That means we can get more work done,” he said.
It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.
Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.
“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”
‘A haystack fire’
Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.
Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”
“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.
Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.
But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.
How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.
“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”
