Frequently Asked Questions about Assembly Member Maze's bill to allow trophy hunting of mountain lions (AB 24)


What is the current state of mountain lion management in California? California's current mountain lion management plan is targeted and extensive. We kill a lion every 3 days in California. We selectively and intensively remove from the gene pool those lions that interact with humans activities. Trophy hunting -- random killing -is illegal. What does AB 24 do? AB 24 would allow random killing, whether or not that lion has created a problem. How does it do that? According to the Legislative Counsel's Digest: "AB 24 would add Section 4810 to the Fish and Game Code, relating to mountain lions. "AB 24 would require the Department of Fish and Game to annually conduct a lottery for the issuance of 2 license tags per county, for the hunting and killing of mountain lions, for each county in this state with a known mountain lion population, as specified. Vote: 4/5, Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no." What does that mean? AB 24 would amend Proposition 117 (Section 4800-4809 of the Fish and Game Code). Prop 117, sponsored by the Mountain Lion Foundation, the Planning and Conservation League, the Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, the Humane Society and hundreds of elected officials, cities, counties, newspapers and groups, is the only citizen's initiative in modern history that qualified with all-volunteer signatures. Prop 117 was passed in the presidential primary election of 1990 by ~52% of those voting. The people of California have wisely insisted that mountain lion management be based in science and ethics. That's not that big a margin. How do you know that voters haven't changed their minds now that they see how it works? In March 1996, the Legislature placed a measure on the ballot to repeal Prop 117's protections and open the door to trophy hunting for the first time since 1972. The voters resoundingly defeated that measure by more than 20 points. Even the sponsor of that measure, Assembly Member Tim Leslie, stated after its defeat, "When the horse is dead, dismount."



Yeah, but there have been three attacks since then. There were attacks before both of those earlier ballot measures. A little over a year prior to the Prop 117 campaign, a 5-year old girl was seriously injured in a very highly publicized mountain lion attack in Orange County. A little over a year prior to Prop 197, two women were killed -- one in American River Canyon and the other in San Diego County. The media rhetoric surrounding those tragedies was far more sensationalized than that of the recent attacks. The voters understand this issue and have spoken once in the affirmative and once in the negative -- no trophy hunting of mountain lions. But aren't mountain lion numbers exploding in California? According to the California Department of Fish and Game's website: "Without an ongoing statewide mountain lion study, it is impossible to know what is happening on a statewide basis with populations. However, there are indications that mountain lion activity, such as depredation, attacks on people, and predation on prey populations, peaked in 1996, then decreased somewhat, and have remained stable for the past several years." Sadly, many distinct populations appear to be declining precipitously. For example, in 1998, there was a plan to kill up to 13 male lions per year that persist in the area of Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. After extensive field researches by DFG biologists, only 8 adult lions (total) were found over a period of a few years -- causing the bighorn biologist to state he was now as concerned about mountain lions as he was the threatened bighorn. In the Santa Monica Mountains, only one adult male and three adult female lions have been found. The male came perilously close to being shot for killing free-ranging goats. Fortunately, he and one female produced four kittens; statistically, two of which will reach adulthood. That joyous addition was immediately offset by the death of the two other adult females who died from anti-coagulant poisoning -- most likely from some household rat poison. We read in the Fresno Bee that in California in 2000, mountain lions and bobcats killed about 900 cows and 2,400 calves. Isn't that a problem? We don't know how they calculated those numbers. We do know that a hand count of every single depredation permit in all of California for 2000 reveals that mountain lions killed 3 cows and 39 calves. In each case the depredation resulted in a permit and the permit resulted in a mountain lion being killed. Forty-two lions were been killed for the forty-two bovines killed. A forty-third lion was killed that did no actual damage. These numbers are consistent with research that uses collared lions to study what mountain lions actually eat.



So there is already a law in place that addresses the issue of mountain lion depredation? Yes, Prop 117 (DFG Code 4800) states that if DFG determines a mountain lion has harmed livestock, the department "shall promptly issue a permit to take the offending lion." This permit may be given by telephone when immediate pursuit of the lion would be useful. Finally, any animal owner that catches a lion in the act of threatening their animals may kill the lion and report it within 72 hours. In all cases, the carcass must be turned over to DFG as a safeguard against possible abuses of this law. Trophy hunters seek out the largest animals for their prize. Many of the lions killed under depredation permits are young dispersing lions, hungry mothers, as well as the old, emaciated and sickly. Further, few municipalities allow trophy hunting on the ex-urban edge where most depredations occur. It is quite possible that sport hunting would target those animals least likely to be causing problems. Scientists have suggested that trophy hunting targets the more timid animals who are more easily treed by hounds, leaving the more aggressive animals to breed. This seems counterproductive to Mr. Maze's stated goal. Well, even if we wanted to change the law, how could we? That law was an initiative passed by the voters. How can the Legislature change it? Proposition 117 says that "this act shall be amended only by a statute approved by a vote of four fifths of the Legislature. Any amendment of this act shall be consistent with, and further the purposes of this act..." Get real! Four-fifths is impossibly high. You'll never get an amendment with that requirement -- no matter how good it is. Actually, in 1999, Prop 117 was amended by more than a four-fifths vote. Fish and Game Code 4801 (of Prop 117) by Rico Oller, amended Prop 117 to allow the killing of any mountain lion that threatened an entire species of bighorn sheep with extinction. That is, for populations of bighorn sheep that had shrunk to numbers so small that there was zero tolerance for any predation, a mountain lion could be removed. One lion was killed under that provision. But, how can AB 24 be construed to "further the purposes of this act"? It can't.
For further information or citings related to the science on which these statements are based, reporters may call Lynn Sadler, President and CEO of the Mountain Lion Foundation, at 916-442-2666 ext 101.