BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER | | Senator Fran Pavley, Chair | | 2013-2014 Regular Session | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- BILL NO: SB 132 HEARING DATE: April 9, 2013 AUTHOR: Hill URGENCY: No VERSION: As introduced CONSULTANT: Katharine Moore DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes SUBJECT: Mountain lions. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW The Department of Fish and Wildlife (department) manages California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public. In 1990, California voters passed Proposition 117 - the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 (act). Among its provisions, the act established that California's mountain lions are a "specially protected species" and barred hunting them. The department or an authorized local public safety agency may "remove or take" any mountain lion that presents an imminent threat to public safety or to certain species (Fish and Game Code (FGC) §4801). Additionally, depredation permits can be issued to take a specific lion known to attack and injure or kill livestock or pets (FGC §4802 et seq). In late November 2012, two sibling mountain lion cubs were observed in a Half Moon Bay neighborhood near a state park. The lions were ultimately shot when local deputies and department game wardens were unable to "shoo them" away. Subsequent necroscopies showed that the lions were four months old, starving, and unlikely to survive in the wild without their mother. There was considerable press coverage of this event accompanied by public concern over killing animals that posed no imminent threat to public safety. Following this incident, the department released a new draft policy on March 1, 2013. The draft policy is intended to update and improve existing policy and, in part, to address, how to more effectively manage and respond to anticipated future 1 increase in human/mountain lion interactions. The draft policy creates Response Guidance Teams (RGTs) of specified personnel to provide consultation when "potential human conflict" or public safety situations involving mountain lions occur. The draft policy retains the existing process for issuing depredation permits and there are also additional training and communication requirements. In "potential human conflict" situations, the new stepwise process for mountain lion incidents calls for the RGT to be consulted by responding personnel and non-lethal options for removing or taking the animal, including possible rehabilitation, explored. Assistance could be sought from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). "Potential human conflict" lions would always remain subject to immediate re-classification as public safety threats and eligibility for rehabilitation would be limited to lions that were not public safety or depredation threats. . Much of the draft policy depends upon the department's existing authority. However, the department believes it requires additional authority to implement the new policy related to mountain lion rehabilitation and working with NGOs. PROPOSED LAW This bill would: Define "nonlethal procedures" to include capturing, pursuing, anesthetizing, marking, transporting, hazing, relocating, providing veterinary care to and rehabilitating mountain lions, among other actions. Require that nonlethal procedures be used when removing or taking a mountain lion perceived to be an imminent threat to public health or safety unless the mountain lion can reasonably be expected to cause immediate death or physical harm. Allow the department and other appropriate local agencies designated by the department to partner with qualified individuals, educational institutions, governmental agencies or nongovernmental agencies to implement nonlethal procedures. Require the department to prepare an annual report including all incidents involving lethal or nonlethal action taken against mountain lions and provide it to the Fish and Game Commission and the legislature. Due to the provisions of the act, a 4/5s vote by the legislature is required for passage. 2 ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT According to the author, this bill "provides [the department] with the necessary tools to deal with wayward mountain lions that do not pose an immediate threat to humans. [?] The legislation still provides [the department] with the authority to kill mountain lions if the lion can reasonably be expected to cause immediate death or physical harm to humans." The Mountain Lion Foundation states "this legislation is long overdue and its passage is essential in assuring the protection of mountain lions that have caused no harm, and whose only mistake is to have accidentally wandered into contact with humans." They continue that the bill "acknowledges the fiscal realities facing our state and assists the [department] by providing it with the necessary authority to partner with qualified individuals, educational institutions, governmental agencies, or nongovernmental organizations to assist in resolving mountain lion encounters." The Humane Society of the United States adds "recent events have made all too clear the public's desire to see non-lethal approaches to human conflicts with mountain lions pursued whenever feasible. By clarifying the issue of 'imminent threat,' specifying the circumstances where lethal action is appropriate, authorizing the [department] to work with qualified nongovernmental organizations (and others), and allowing the rehabilitation and relocation of lions as appropriate, SB 132 would be a significant advance." Additionally, numerous supporters describe their expertise at wildlife rehabilitation and relocation and offer assistance to the department in implementing its new draft policy. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION The Central Coast Forest Association states that the department "has already undertaken an internal review of this issue. The safety of the public and state employees should be left to the professional judgment of [department] employees guided by evolving departmental guidelines, not iron clad laws with no flexibility for adaptation to the actual situation and threat to safety." The California Farm Bureau Federation is "concerned that relocating mountain lions would increase the likelihood that mountain lions with threaten livestock and rural communities." The Farm Bureau opposes SB 132 "unless the authority to relocate mountain lions is removed from the bill" and continues that it 3 "expects that mountain lions that pose public safety risks would be relocated to rural areas with higher numbers of livestock, which will ultimately lead to higher losses of livestock. Animals that present threats to public safety are unlikely to change their habits by simply relocating them. The problem is simply being moved." The California Cattlemen's Association is similarly concerned about relocation. COMMENTS The department relocates at least some mountain lions already . Committee staff was unable to obtain much specific data, but the department has relocated mountain lions that pose no threat to public safety in the past (see, for example, the department's January 7, 2013 press release describing successful relocation in Santa Barbara). Relocation must be to an approved site and "requires consultation with relevant federal, state and local government entities, and private landowners as necessary." The department cannot fully implement the new draft policy on mountain lions . This bill would provide for the additional authority identified in the new draft policy (rehabilitation and the ability to work with a variety of partners). The new draft policy also calls for additional resources for the department. California mountain lion data . Although the population estimate is uncertain, roughly 4,000 - 6,000 mountain lions are thought to live in California with hundreds of sighting reported annually. On average, roughly 65 lions were taken annually under the approximately 144 depredation permits issued (based upon 2006 - 2011 data). Another approximately 9 lions are taken annually to protect public safety (based upon 2001 - 2008 data). Mountain lion attacks on humans are rare: there were 14 verified attacks between 1986 and 2013. SUPPORT Action for Animals American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Animal Rescue Team Born Free USA Earth Island Institute Felidae Conservation Fund Feline Conservation Center of the Exotic Feline Breeding Compound, Inc. Mountain Lion Foundation Oakland Zoo Ojai Wildlife League 4 Paw PAC Planning and Conservation League Project Coyote Public Interest Coalition Sierra Club California Sierra Nevada Alliance The Humane Society of the United States The Marin Humane Society Wildlife Emergency Services 5 individuals OPPOSITION California Cattlemen's Association California Farm Bureau Federation (oppose unless amended) Central Coast Forest Association 1 individual 5