This republished article first appeared in the National Review.

After a bear was euthanized in California because she paw-swiped a human who owned a house under which the bruin and her cubs were living, there was a popular outcry. Now, a bill has been put in the hopper in the California State Senate promoting “coexistence” between people and wild animals. From S.B. 1135:

It is the policy of the state that the management of wildlife shall include an emphasis on the coexistence of humans and wildlife through department-led efforts to reduce, minimize, and mitigate conflicts. These efforts shall also seek to align with the state’s conservation, public safety, environmental planning, and climate adaptation goals and to be accomplished through coordination and cooperation between the department and wildlife coexistence partners.

Here are the details:

Upon appropriation by the Legislature, the department shall establish the Wildlife Coexistence Program to manage and promote wildlife coexistence by conducting all of the following activities:
(a) Managing, tracking, and responding to wildlife conflict calls, reports, and incident responses.
(b) Avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating conflicts between humans and wildlife by proactively and continuously implementing best practices that emphasize effective and ecologically appropriate nonlethal conflict resolution solutions developed using best available science and indigenous knowledge.
(c) Investigating, documenting, and analyzing reported human-wildlife incidents, including, but not limited to, depredation, perceived or actual human-wildlife conflicts, and wildlife health issues.
(d) Maintaining a statewide wildlife incident reporting tool.

Okay. That’s going to take a lot of time, effort, and resources in a state in which homelessness is rampant, children aren’t learning in school, and the public debt is increasing. Still, my main concern is public safety. Dangerous animals that have attacked humans should be euthanized, it seems to me.

There is also a major push around the country for “no kill” animal shelters. I’m fine with that, particularly for adoptable pets. But aren’t our moral sensibilities being inverted? As we see a greater push for fewer animal deaths by euthanasia, concomitantly, euthanasia activists are pressuring for policies to increase the number of ill and disabled people who are killed by assisted suicide or a lethal jab.

In 2024, I wrote about a California assisted-suicide activist who, in the California Health Report, urged the medical community to be more proactive in informing qualifying patients of their right to be killed. (This happens all the time in Canada.) The fellow groused that Canada had so many euthanasia deaths whereas California — with an equivalent population — had so comparatively few.

Meanwhile, Compassion and Choices (formerly and more honestly known as the Hemlock Society) sought to increase the number of people of color who opt for assisted suicide. Similarly, Thaddeus Mason Pope — the bioethicist leading the charge for radicalizing access to euthanasia and assisted suicide, took to the pages of the American Journal of Bioethics to advocate the “Top Ten Expansions” he wanted to see to increase access to euthanasia. He concluded:

The United States took an early worldwide lead with MAID when Oregon enacted its Death with Dignity Act in 1994. But . . . the United States has lost its lead. And it is quickly falling to the back of the pack in terms of MAID safety and access.

I would put it differently. The U.S. isn’t falling into the moral abyss as fast as some other nations, but we are falling.

I am all for reducing the number of animals that are euthanized, consistent with public safety, the protection of livestock, and the ability to care for them humanely. I just wish we were equally committed to “no kill health care” for humans