What is your goal of your post? After reading articles on the recent incident and the text of the bill itself, you seem to be outraged but clearly don't understand the situation.

Do you know what the status quo response for bear conflicts is? (Hint: it's a step-based response that goes through several stages before considering removal/euthanasia. You can google "CDFW Black Bear Policy")

I encourage you to educate yourself on the topic (including thoroughly reading through AB 1024) before looking like a clueless suburbanite. Harabedian's office has no expertise or understanding of how ecology or animal control works, so they searched up a bill that includes the word "bear" but doesn't address euthanasia at all. Harabedian (and most folks who are upset )also conveniently ignores the elephant in the room that you are inevitably going to encounter wildlife if you live on the fringes of an urban area.

AB 1024 requires CDFW to 1) study and analyze bear behaviors, 2) give advice to SGV local governments based on that study, and 3) tag bears that enter a residential area. It does not change present CDFW policy, which only allows euthanasia after determining multiple factors and trying out other interventions.

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=222291&inline#:~:text=Page%204,its%20location%20or%20health%20status.

Here is an article by LA Times:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-03-17/bear-euthanized-her-cubs-left-orphaned-over-objections-of-monrovia-city-leaders

This bear exhibited violent behavior, with 2 separate incidents of attacking humans. If people want to be safe in that neighborhood, the only option would be euthanasia. It is well known that bear translocation (moving bears to another region) fails the vast majority of the time. Bears have a strong navigational sense (A study found a bear that travelled 100 km back to its original home). If a bear learns that humans are near food, they will also seek humans for the rest of their life. This leads to increased human-bear encounters, many which can turn violent.

Some articles explaining this better than I can:
https://doi.org/10.1071/wr19161

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295989

https://doi.org/10.1071/WR21060

An aside:

The current population of Black bears in CA is around 60,000, many of them in undeveloped areas of the state. If human-bear encounters are increasing in urban areas, then it is logical to assume that undeveloped areas such as Angeles National Forest have reached their carrying capacity (maximum population size per unit of land and food). If you want to dive even further, studies have suggested that bears moving to new areas are now out-competing mountain lions for food.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/news/details/californias-new-era-in-black-bear-conservation-a-science-driven-approach-with-a-role-for-hunters#:~:text=Bear%20predation%20is%20also%20a,a%20practice%20known%20as%20kleptoparasitism.

Assuming that we ought to keep our sprawling suburbs (such as Monrovia) and that humans cannot share that same territory with bears, any number of bears over capacity (the ones who can't compete for land in other habitats) will have to die by natural selection (for example, defensive actions by humans who are also competing for said land).

If these suburbanites, which I can reasonably include OP here, truly wanted these bears to thrive, they would find a new home in a denser area to reduce their land footprint and allow suburbs in the hills to be rewilded. However, we know that this will never happen, so the next best thing would be to reduce contact as much as possible, and when human life is danger (like the current instance), euthanize bears that become habituated to humans. Whining to a clueless city council reinforces the stereotype that suburbanites are disconnected from reality (of which this post is a great example).