Take a minute and visualize a mountain lion hunt for me. Mountain lions are tracked for hours by hounds and chased into trees. The hounds keep the defenseless animal hugging onto the tree for dear life and the “fearless hunter” simply performs the execution. For the cat, it is a long, frightening experience that ends with underserving death. For the hunter, it is a long, cowardly experience that ends with an inedible carcass and a photograph.
If you’re looking for such a Bwana, Dan Richards is your huckleberry. After completing a mountain lion hunt this winter, the NRA card carrying Fish and Game Commission [FGC] President said he’s “glad it’s legal in Idaho.” That is, because, it’s illegal in California. Which Richards well knows, considering his office is in charge of protecting the species.
Shortly after World War I, mountain lion trophy hunting exploded in California. For the following 50 years, California led the nation in mountain lion kills [nearly 12,500 total]. California had long ago lost its wolf and grizzly bear populations, and with the big cats on the ropes, Governor Reagan imposed a five-year moratorium on mountain lion hunting in 1972 [yes, that Reagan]. The State Legislature extended the moratorium twice, before it became law in 1990 with the passing Proposition 117. The FGC went up in arms over the new law; they joined forces with the NRA and invited California voters to rescind the ban in 1996. The voters declined the invitation, by a landslide.
And so the FGC grudgingly manages California’s mountain lion population. Although state law requires the FGC to electronically disseminate lion management strategies, they have yet to comply in 22 years. Permits to kill lions are available, and seemingly granted to any owner of livestock in the state. The FGC’s agents in the Department of Fish and Game [DFG] jump at the opportunity to kill a lion; when a cat wanders into an urban setting, a warden’s standard recourse is destruction rather than relocation. This is the FGC’s idea of guardianship.
So what’s the utility of hunting mountain lions? It certainly isn’t for their tasty meat. FGC officials cite public safety and livestock protection when permitting kills. The ban’s opposition claims mountain lion numbers should be slashed so as to preserve the other wildlife. They vilify the mountain lions and warn of imminent, irreversible damage to deer populations[1].
Mountain lions are not gluttonous villains. Statistics show that lions aren’t driving deer populations to the brink of extinction or bankrupting the livestock supply [see footnote 1]. As for the public safety argument? Lions might be apex predators, but they evade human interaction, regardless of how far we push into their turf. You see, mountain lions are elusive for a reason: We are the predators.
This past year, a whistleblower revealed that Tejon Ranch hunting guides are customarily killing mountain lions to ensure greater elk takes. The whistleblower was a hunting guide himself, and testified to personally witnessing 20 mountain lion poachings in the past five years. The DFG conducted a 10-month investigation and ultimately slapped Tejon Ranch on the wrist to the tune of $136,500[2]. In the near future, Tejon Ranch is set to begin an urbanization project, with plans to build over 26,000 homes. When a lion strays out of its habitat and into the new neighborhood, you can bet that an eager warden will be there with a high-powered rifle. What’s a moratorium anyway? Ask Dan Richards.
There’s a fundamental difference between Richards and myself, and it’s not just the Wranglers and Carharts in his wardrobe. Our current FGC President believes that you can protect one species simply by killing off another. I won’t kill an animal; the only thing I’d shoot one with is a camera. If we’re going to protect a species, we need to do so through broad preservation of resources and wildlife, not systematic executions.
Through statements, actions, and omissions, Dan Richards, the FGC, and the DFG have proven that they are unwilling to fully enforce the moratorium. I agree with Lt. Governor Newsome and the 40 members of our state Assembly who have called for Richards’ resignation. But that’s not enough. If the Commission and the DFG are unwilling to enforce the will of the voters, each agency should be gutted and realigned. They’re supposed to be wilderness advocates, not antagonists, you know.
[1] This is all very ironic, of course. Mountain lions eat one large animal per week, at most. The common legal excuse to kill one is not preservation of deer populations, but retaliation for attacks on livestock. According to current DFG statistics, deer populations are stable and even increasing in many of the state’s regions. The regions experiencing decline are limited to traditional wilderness areas. The DFG has attributed this to the post-WWII opening of National Forests to logging, and the expansion of urbanization on the slopes of the Sierras. Such urban expanse, states the DFG, has nearly eliminated the potential to restore these habitats. So if we’re going to execute the culprits behind the deer population woes, we’re going to need a lot of coffins.
[2] This number is low. Since the approval of Prop 117, the punishment for killing a single mountain lion is one year in county jail, up to a $100,000 fine, or both.
