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