BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| 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