Thanks to early efforts of the Mountain Lion Foundation, the recreational hunting of lions is prohibited in California. Our aim in this state is to improve mountain lion policy in the state legislature, through the Fish and Game Commission, county by county, in cities, towns and neighborhoods. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has established the most science-based lion conservation policy in the country, but there is always more to do.
Learn more about mountain lion policy, laws, history and current action opportunities.
Action Alert
Support the Poison-Free Wildlife Act! A powerful rodenticide that has been linked to immune system impacts and death in wildlife, including mountain lions, will be restricted from areas near wildlife, extending existing limits to protect more wildlife.
Update 8/30/2024: The Senate approved AB 2552 by a wide margin, and the Assembly today approved the bill with the Senate’s changes. Now the bill awaits Governor Newsom’s signature. Contact the Governor today!
As of March 2023, California is considering prioritizing statewide connectivity with an update report identifying critical locations with barriers in need of connectivity projects. 62 locations were identified, with 12 being identified as the highest priority. This is great news for mountain lions in California as lack of genetic connectivity is many of their population’s greatest threat. With the Wallis Annenberg Crossing across the 101 as a model we can move forward with projects that improve connectivity and preserve biodiversity across the state.
Legal status
1990: voters passed Proposition 117, which classified mountain lions as a specially protected mammal and permanently banned lion hunting in the state.
2014: SB 132 became law, requiring law enforcement to resolve conflicts using nonlethal measures, resorting to lethal measures only when there’s imminent danger.
2017: CDFW adopted the Three-Step Policy prioritizing nonlethal measures to manage or resolve conflicts and depredations. Policy expanded statewide in 2020.
April 2020: CDFW Commission voted 5-0 to advance the mountain lion’s candidacy for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The potential listing covers subpopulations of lions ranging from the CA-Mexico border and up the central coast to San Francisco.
September 2020: AB 1788 became law, imposing a moratorium on certain rodenticides known to kill lions and other wildlife through secondary exposure.
Estimated population: 4,000 – 6,000 (likely an overestimation)
Annual trophy kills: 0
On June 25, 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Mountain Lion Foundation formally petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission to protect mountain lions under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The petition is seeking protections for gravely imperiled cougar populations in Southern California and on the Central Coast, including the Eastern Peninsular Range, Santa Ana Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Santa Monica Mountains, and north along the coast to the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Some Southern California lion populations could disappear in little more than a decade, according to a March 2019 study . Researchers at UC Davis, UCLA, and with the National Park Service predicted that if inbreeding depression occurs, the Santa Ana population could go extinct within 12 years and the Santa Monica population within 15.
Mountain lion field research and population estimates have come a long way in the last few decades. Most biologists now agree on an average lion population density of 1.7 lions per 100 sq km of status. In California (~185,000 sq km of status), that equates to approximately 3,100 resident mountain lions for the entire state.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has established a mountain lion (Puma concolor) conservation program to coordinate mountain lion research and population monitoring, and to inform wildlife management in general across the state. In particular, the immediate focus of this program is to conduct a population inventory of mountain lions across the state.
In 2012, Marc Kenyon, CDFW’s former Bear and Lion Coordinator, gave credence to that estimate when he stated that California’s lion ” population size is, in fact, smaller than it was 10 years ago.” He attributed this decrease to dwindling lion status and the hunting policies in surrounding states. He estimated that California’s statewide lion population is be approximately 4,000 animals and dropping.
Unfortunately, statewide mountain lion population estimates cannot properly indicate the health of the species. According to noted lion researcher Dr. Rick Hopkins, ” It is important to keep in mind that no western state, including California, supports one cougar population. There are several populations in the state that react to changes in their environment independent of one another. It is unrealistic to assume that a statewide population of any species, let alone the cougar, is responding in a similar fashion at the same time. For example, the intense development pressure that the population of cougars is experiencing in Orange County is in no way relevant to what is happening in Humboldt County. “
CESA Petition
On April 16, 2020 the California Fish and Game Commission voted 5-0 to advance Southern California and Central Coast mountain lions to candidacy under the state’s Endangered Species Act. The vote follows a February 2020 finding by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) that increased protections may be warranted.
The vote triggers a year-long review by CDFW to determine if these populations should be formally protected under the Act. The Act’s protections apply during the candidacy period.
“This is a historic moment for California’s big cats and rich biodiversity,” said Tiffany Yap, a biologist at the Center and primary author of the petition. “These ecosystem engineers face huge threats that could wipe out key populations. But with state protections, we can start reversing course to save our mountain lions. Wildlife officials deserve a big round of applause for moving to protect these amazing animals.”
Genetic isolation due to roads and development threatens the health of the six puma populations included in the petition. Despite a more than thirty-year ban on sport-hunting, some mountain lion populations have low survival rates due to high levels of human-caused mortalities. Major threats include car strikes, poisonings and sanctioned depredation kills.
Researchers with the National Park Service, UC Davis and UCLA warn that if nothing is done to improve connectivity for these wide-ranging large carnivores, populations in the Santa Ana and Santa Monica mountains could go extinct within 50 years. And those in the Santa Cruz, San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains are showing similar patterns.
“We’re grateful to the Department of Fish and Wildlife for their efforts and proud of the commission’s leadership to protect California’s mountain lions,” said Debra Chase, CEO of the Mountain Lion Foundation. “By advancing these mountain lion populations to candidacy, they are helping to ensure that these iconic cats inspire future generations.”
State protections under the Act will help address the many threats these lions face. Local authorities will need to coordinate with state wildlife experts to ensure that approved development projects account for mountain lion connectivity.
State agencies also will have a legal mandate to protect mountain lions. This could include building wildlife crossings over existing freeways; crossings have been shown to help maintain wildlife movement and reduce costly and dangerous wildlife-vehicle collisions.
State officials will also need to re-evaluate the use of deadly rat poisons in mountain lion habitat.
And the California Department of Fish and Wildlife will be able to develop and implement a mountain lion recovery plan to help facilitate coexistence with mountain lions.
February 6, 2020 Update
On February 6, 2020 the California Department of Fish and Wildlife submitted their completed evaluation of the petition to the California Fish and Game Commission stating: “…the Department has determined there is sufficient scientific information available at this time to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted. The Department recommends the Petition be accepted and considered.”
This recommendation will be heard on the California Fish and Game Commission Consent Calendar as Item 7 on February 21, 2020. The Staff Summary can be found here: Staff Summary Item 7.
CESA Petition Filed
On June 25, 2019 the Mountain Lion Foundation and the Center for Biological Diversity formally petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission to protect Southern and Central Coast mountain lions under the California Endangered Species Act.
Over the past year, the Mountain Lion Foundation has heard from members across Southern California that their worries for the survival of local mountain lions are mounting. Your concerns were echoed in scientific research published in December 2018 and in March 2019 which showed the genetic isolation of Southern California’s cougar populations and predicted that if inbreeding depression occurs, the lions in the Santa Ana Mountains could go extinct within 12 years and those in the Santa Monica Mountains within 15 years.
We know that other populations are hurting too, because of our intense work within the community of Julian to slow lions being killed in San Diego county.
So now we are taking the next essential step to protect mountain lions throughout Southern California and up the Central Coast.
Tiffany Yap, a biologist at the Center for Biological Diversity and primary author of the petition, put it this way. “Our mountain lions are dying horrible deaths from car collisions and rat poison, and their populations are at risk from inbreeding too. Without a clear legal mandate to protect mountain lions from the threats that are killing them and hemming them in on all sides, these iconic wild cats will soon be gone from Southern California.
Map of the Southern California/Central Coast ESU boundary. Derived from Gustafson et al. (2018). Genetics data source: Kyle Gustafson, PhD, Department of Biology and Environmental Health, Missouri Southern State University, and Holly Ernest, DVM, PhD, Department of Veterinary Sciences, Program in Ecology, University of Wyoming, Laramie. Roads data source: ESRI.
We are proud to partner with the Center as co-petitioners, and are glad to have their help as we embark on a long journey (up to two years!) to list the lion as threatened or endangered. We’ll need your help too, writing letters, signing petitions, and continuing your financial support of the Foundation so that we can further this work.
Under the California Endangered Species Act, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has three months to make an initial recommendation to the Fish and Game Commission, which will then take a first vote on the petition at a public hearing later this year. The department is requesting an additional 30 days to return their report, and moves us to the February 2020 meeting for consideration of candidacy.
Please take a look at the petition, which is an incredible summary of the threats facing Southern California mountain lions. And return to visit our landing page for the CESA campaign, which will be updated as we move through the listing process.
Our deep thanks to our members for making this important work possible. If you aren’t a member, please join today and be part of this historic process.
History
Historically, mountain lions were heavily persecuted in California. Classified as a “bountied predator” from 1907 to 1963, a record 12,462 mountain lions were killed (more than any other state) and turned in for the bounty. The bounty on California’s mountain lions was repealed in 1963, and the species was reclassified as a “non-protected mammal.”
In 1969, the state legislature again reclassified mountain lions as a “game mammal.” This action was undertaken to control supposed livestock damage and to “manage” mountain lions through regulated hunting.
In 1971 and 1972 California held its only regulated lion-hunting seasons, during which time 118 mountain lions were killed for sport.
In 1971, the state legislature passed new legislation, signed by then governor, Ronald Reagan which placed a moratorium on the sport hunting of mountain lions. The lion hunting moratorium, which started on March 1, 1972, was maintained until 1986 at which time the regulated hunting of mountain lions was once again authorized. Despite this authorization, political pressure from individual citizens and conservation organizations such as the Mountain Lion Foundation (MLF) kept lions from being hunted for sport in California over the next four years.
In 1990, a coalition of conservation organizations, including MLF, placed Proposition 117 — commonly known as the “mountain lion initiative” — on the statewide ballot. This proposition, the first to have been placed solely with signatures collected by volunteers in California, passed on June 5, 1990 with 52.42 percent of the vote. Officially known as the California Wildlife Protection Act, Proposition 117 reclassified mountain lions in California as a “specially protected mammal,” permanently banned the sport hunting of lions in the state, and allocated $30 million to be spent annually for 30 years on the acquisition of critical habitat for mountain lions, deer, oak woodlands, endangered species, riparian habitat, and other wildlife.
In 1996, trophy-hunting proponents got the state legislature to place Proposition 197 on the March primary ballot. Drafted in part by the Safari Club, this initiative was presented to voters under the guise of “public safety” concerns in an effort to overturn the ban on killing mountain lions for recreational purposes. Proposition 197 was overwhelmingly rejected by 58.12 percent of California’s voters.
Since the 1996 failure to repeal the State’s lion-hunting ban, there have been numerous unsuccessful attempts by lawmakers to introduce legislation that would overturn Proposition 117’s lion-hunting restrictions.
At this time, California has no formal management plan for mountain lions. State law requires California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to issue a depredation permit against any offending lion, if a resident requests one and there is proof that the mountain lion has preyed on or threatened domestic animals or private property. Mountain lions can also be killed at any time if deemed a threat to the public’s safety.
On September 6, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 132 into law. This groundbreaking legislation (effective January 1, 2014), protects lions that accidentally wander into human-populated areas. Law Enforcement and Wildlife Officers can only kill a lion if it is posing an imminent threat to human life: exhibiting aggressive behavior towards a person that is not due to the presence of first responders.
The new law (F&G Code 4801.5) also allows CDFW to partner with qualified individuals, educational institutions, government agencies, or nongovernmental organizations to implement nonlethal procedures on a mountain lion which include rescue and rehabilitation.
Assembly Bill (AB) 8 was first introduced in December of 2016. Since then, Assemblymember Richard Bloom and Mountain Lion Foundation have worked closely with the expert leadership at the CDFW to develop administrative alternatives to the legislation. As a result of these efforts, the CDFW has amended their Policy to provide additional protection to endangered mountain lion populations in the Santa Ana and Santa Monica mountains.
On June 25, 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Mountain Lion Foundation formally petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission to protect mountain lions under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The petition is seeking protections for gravely imperiled cougar populations in Southern California and on the Central Coast, including the Eastern Peninsular Range, Santa Ana Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Santa Monica Mountains, and north along the coast to the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Habitat
California Habitat and Population
The state of California encompasses 155,959 square miles of land. Of this, an estimated 71,117 square miles, or 46 percent of the state is considered to be suitable mountain lion habitat. This habitat is distributed throughout the state except for the Central Valley and much of the southeastern deserts.
Since 1972, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has claimed that there are approximately 4,000 to 6,000 lions residing in California. This rough estimate is based on what CDFG admits is only a “guesstimate”.
CDFG originally based their crude population estimate on a series of studies which estimated lion population densities for different habitat types around the state. These density estimates varied from zero to 10 lions per 100 square miles, and were simply extrapolated to accommodate the total amount of available habitat type.
Mountain lion field research and population estimates have come a long way in the last few decades. Most biologists now agree on an average lion population density of 1.7 lions per 100 sq km of habitat. In California (~185,000 sq km of habitat), that equates to approximately 3,100 resident mountain lions for the entire state.
Marc Kenyon, CDFG’s former Bear and Lion Coordinator, in 2012 gave credence to that estimate when he stated that California’s lion “population size is, in fact, smaller than it was 10 years ago.” He attributed this decrease to dwindling lion habitat and the hunting policies in surrounding states. He estimates California’s statewide lion population to be approximately 4,000 animals and dropping.
Unfortunately, statewide mountain lion population estimates cannot properly indicate the health of the species. According to noted lion researcher Dr. Rick Hopkins, “It is important to keep in mind that no western state, including California, supports one cougar population. There are several populations in the state that react to changes in their environment independent of one another. It is unrealistic to assume that a statewide population of any species, let alone the cougar, is responding in a similar fashion at the same time. For example, the intense development pressure that the population of cougars is experiencing in Orange County is in no way relevant to what is happening in Humboldt County.”
Law
Species Status
In California’s legal code, Puma concolor is generally referred to as “mountain lion.”
In California, mountain lions are currently classified as a specially protected mammal . The mountain lion is the only species in California with this designation, and at this time there is no directive explaining how specially protected mammals should be conserved.
Laws pertaining to California’s threatened and endangered species currently do not apply to the mountain lion because the species has not been listed, however, On June 25, 2019, the Mountain Lion Foundation and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition to list the mountain lion as a threatened or endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). If the mountain lion is eventually listed, the full process will take more than two years.
State Law and Regulation
Generally, treatment of wildlife in the State of California is governed by the California Fish and Game Code and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Additionally, state and local agencies are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the Public Resources Code. Some federal laws also apply to California wildlife, but usually in conjunction with migratory birds or federally-listed endangered species. Since our summary below may not be completely up to date, you should be sure to review the most current laws and regulations for the State of California.
The California Fish and Game Code (state law) may be viewed online here. These statutes are searchable. Be sure to use the name “mountain lion” to accomplish your searches. The California Code of Regulations (state regulations), may be viewed online here, or click here to see every CCR section that mentions “mountain lion.”
The Legislature
The California State Legislature is the state’s legislative entity. It is a bicameral legislature. The upper chamber is the Senate while the Assembly is the lower chamber. The Senate has 40 members who serve 4-year terms. Twenty Senate seats are up for election during each two-year election cycle. The Assembly is made up of 80 members who serve 2-year terms.
Courtesy JoshM, creative commons.
In June 2012, voters passed Proposition 28 which allows members of either chamber to serve a maximum of 12 years total in the legislature. Legislators who were first elected on or before June 5, 2012 are limited to the previous term limits (under 1990’s Proposition 140) — three terms in the Assembly and two terms in the Senate.
California’s directory of Senators can be found here, and the directory of state Assemblymembers can be found here.
California’s legislature is in session year-round, and convenes on the first Monday in January, except when New Year’s Day (January 1) falls on a Sunday or Monday, in which case they meet the following Wednesday.
The Senate has been under Democratic majority continuously since 1970. With the exception of 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 as well. The Governor’s seat has alternated back and forth between republican and democrat during that time period.
There are 7 CDFW regions in California. The Department is responsible for implementing and enforcing the regulations set by the Fish and Game Commission, as well as providing biological data and expertise to inform the Commission’s decision making process.
California Fish and Game Commission
The California Fish and Game Commission was the first wildlife conservation agency in the United States, founded in 1870, predating even the U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries. Their general regulations are outlined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1 and Fish and Game Code Division 1. Their rule-making process must also be in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Today, the Commission oversees the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
CDFW annually reports to the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) on the status of California’s fish and wildlife resources with emphasis on those resources estimated to be at marginal or low levels. In accordance with CCR §660.1, “based upon the best scientific information, […] the Commission shall then prepare a report on the status of the State’s resources for presentation to the Senate Resources & Wildlife Committee and the Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee.”
The California Fish and Game Commission has a wide range of responsibilities that continually expands and includes:
Formulation of general policies for the conduct of the Department of Fish and Wildlife
Seasons, bag limits and methods of take for game animals, sport fishing and some commercial fishing
Controlling non-native species importation, possession, sale
Establishing protected lands/waters (marine protected areas, wildlife areas and ecological reserves.)
Regulating uses of protected areas
Listing and delisting of threatened/endangered species under California Endangered Species Act
Accepting mitigation lands on behalf of the State
Leasing State water-bottom for shellfish cultivation
Leasing kelp beds for harvest
Authorizing terms and conditions for Private Lands Management Program
Assuming a quasi-judicial role in considering appeal hearings for revocation or suspension of licenses and permits
Prescribing terms and conditions for issuance, suspension, revocation of licenses/permits issued by the Department
Commissioners are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the California state Senate. They serve a six-year term that expires on January 15. After completing a term, Commissioners can be reappointed, or may continue to serve until the Governor appoints a replacement. The Commission must annually elect one of its members as President and one as Vice President.
The CFGC holds twelve meetings a year at various locations throughout the state to encourage public participation. Under the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act of 1967, which facilitates accountability and transparency of government activities and protects the rights of citizens to participate in State government deliberations, Commission meetings are open to the public.
In regards to mountain lions, (FGC §4807), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife “shall undertake a complete necropsy on any returned mountain lion carcass and report the findings to the commission. The commission shall compile the reported findings and prepare an annual written report that shall be submitted to the Legislature not later than the January 15 next following the year in which the mountain lion was taken.”
Hunting Law
Historically, mountain lions were heavily persecuted in California, classified as a “bountied predator” from 1907 to 1963. During this time, a record 12,462 mountain lions were killed (more than any other state) and turned in for the bounty. The bounty on California’s mountain lions was repealed in 1963, and the species was reclassified as a “non-protected mammal.” In 1969, the state legislature again reclassified mountain lions as a “game mammal.” In 1971 and 1972 California held its only sport hunting seasons on mountain lions, during which time 118 lions were killed.
In 1971, the state legislature and Governor Ronald Reagan passed legislation which placed a moratorium on the sport hunting of mountain lions. The lion hunting moratorium started on March 1, 1972.
Hunting or trapping of mountain lions is not allowed in the State of California. Since Ronald Reagan’s moratorium in 1972, (made permanent by the passage of Proposition 117 in 1990), it has been unlawful to take (hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill), injure, possess, transport, import, or sell any mountain lion or any part or product thereof unless under specific circumstances for public safety, depredation, education, or research.
CCR §265 (3) states “Mountain lions may not be pursued with dogs except under the provisions of a depredation permit issued pursuant to §4803 of the Fish and Game Code. Bear or bobcat may not be pursued with dogs except under the provisions of a permit issued pursuant to sections 3960.2 or 3960.4 of the Fish and Game Code. Dog training on mountain lions is prohibited.”
Public Safety Policy
A mountain lion may only be killed in California if it is posing an “imminent threat to public health or safety,” which is defined as “a situation where a mountain lion exhibits one or more aggressive behaviors directed toward a person that is not reasonably believed to be due to the presence of responders.”
Under FGC §4801.5 (which became law January 1, 2014 after the passage of Senate Bill 132), any situation where a mountain lion does not meet the threshold of imminent threat shall be handled with nonlethal procedures.
“Nonlethal procedures” means procedures that may include, but are not limited to, capturing, pursuing, anesthetizing, temporarily possessing, temporarily injuring, marking, attaching to or surgically implanting monitoring or recognition devices, providing veterinary care, transporting, hazing, rehabilitating, releasing, or taking no action.
Additionally, CDFW may, as the department determines is necessary to protect mountain lions or the public, authorize qualified individuals, educational institutions, governmental agencies, or nongovernmental organizations to implement nonlethal procedures on a mountain lion.
An individual is not guilty of a violation of this section if it is demonstrated that, in taking or injuring a mountain lion, the individual was acting in self-defense or in defense of others. Please see the Poaching section below for information about penalties for illegally killing a mountain lion in California.
California’s mountain lion depredation laws are described in FGC §4802-4809, and CCR §402 and §265.
Under FGC §4802, “any person, or the employee or agent of a person, whose livestock or other property is being or has been injured, damaged, or destroyed by a mountain lion may report that fact to the department and request a permit to take the mountain lion.” Within 48 hours CDFW will investigate, and if “satisfied that there has been depredation by a mountain lion as reported, the department shall promptly issue a permit to take the depredating mountain lion” (FGC §4803).
A depredation permit to take a mountain lion expires 10 days after issuance, requires the permit holder begin pursuit of the lion not more than one mile from the depredation site, and limits the pursuit of the depredating mountain lion to within a 10-mile radius from the location of the reported damage or destruction. Additional depredation permit information and restrictions are described in CCR §402, and §265 allows the use of tracking dogs.
Any person issued a permit pursuant to Section 4803 or 4805 shall report, by telephone within 24 hours, the capturing, injuring, or killing of any mountain lion to an office of the department or, if telephoning is not practicable, in writing within five days after the capturing, injuring, or killing of the mountain lion. At the time of making the report of the capturing, injuring, or killing, the holder of the permit shall make arrangements to turn over the mountain lion or the entire carcass of the mountain lion which has been recovered to a representative of the department and shall do so in a timely manner.
A mountain lion caught in the act of attacking livestock or situations where “immediate authorization will materially assist in the pursuit of the particular mountain lion believed to be responsible for the depredation reported pursuant to §4802, the department or the animal damage control officer may orally authorize the pursuit and taking of the depredating mountain lion, and the department shall issue a written permit for the period previously authorized as soon as practicable after the oral authorization.”
FGC §4809 specifies mountain lions authorized to be taken for causing damage or destruction shall be taken by the most effective means available, except that no mountain lion shall be taken by means of poison, leg-hold or metal-jawed traps, and snares.
CDFW is also required to undertake a complete necropsy on any returned mountain lion carcass and report the findings to the commission. These findings are to be included in an annual written report that shall be submitted to the Legislature by January 15. Past reports do not appear to be easily accessible online. CDFW’s depredation information is available on the mountain lion page of their website. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services agency is contracted in most California counties to kill lions under depredation permits. Wildlife Services’ records are available online, here. Scroll down and click on the pie chart under the “Animals Dispersed / illed or Euthanized / Freed” section, then in the dropdown menu select “California” to the see the number of mountain lions and other wildlife killed annually by Wildlife Services.
For most of California, if a depredation is confirmed, the local agency personnel will issue a lethal take permit to kill a mountain lion. There are currently three exceptions to this policy, the Santa Monica and Santa Ana Mountains, and if a property owner “opts in” to the new policy outside of those areas. Local research on mountain lions in these areas revealed that these two populations have become dangerously isolated and that we must take steps to preserve important genetic diversity if we are to avoid population collapse and possible extirpation. In recognition of these facts, CDFW is now providing depredation permits for landowners to use preventative tools rather than issuing lethal removal permits at the onset. This approach should provide much needed relief the local mountain lions and livestock alike!
The new 3 step policy was the result of a series of events following depredations in the Santa Monica Mountains. Assembly Member Richard Bloom authored legislation to change California depredation law, but the director of the California Department of Fish and WIldlife, Charlton Bonham, stepped in to say that the same result might be achieved by a gradual change in policy related to the broad definition of the word “take” in statute. The result is further explained in the 2017 Amendment to California Department of Fish and Wildlife policy titled Amendment to the Human / Wildlife Interactions in California: Mountain Lion Depredation, Public Safety, and Animal Welfare policy (2017) (PDF)
To qualify for a mountain lion scientific collecting permit, a project must be designed to:
Contribute to the knowledge of natural wildlife ecosystems.
Minimize disruptions in the lives and movements of mountain lions and other wildlife, as well as impacts to mountain lion or other wildlife habitat, while maintaining the permitholder’s research objectives.
Directly or indirectly support the sustainability and survival of mountain lion populations and healthy ecosystems.
Prevent the permanent injury or killing of any mountain lion.
Researchers are allowed to pursue, capture, temporarily possess, mark, attach to or surgically implant monitoring or recognition devices in, and provide veterinary care to mountain lions. They must follow the reporting guidelines outlined in §4810(e).
CDFW shall notify the public at least 30 days prior to the issuance of a permit, and, upon request, shall make available to the public copies of the permit and annual and final reports.
Any mountain lion killed during a research project must be turned over to CDFW for a complete necropsy and included in the Commissions annual report to the Legislature.
Currently approved research projects are listed here. And any proposed research projects that are in the 30-day public review period can be found here.
It is unlawful to possess a mountain lion carcass, part, or product in California unless one of the following circumstances are met:
The owner can demonstrate that the mountain lion, or part or product thereof, was in the person’s possession on June 6, 1990 (before the mountain lion became a specially protected mammal in the state).
The carcass or carcass part or product is prepared or being prepared for display, exhibition, or storage, for a bona fide scientific or educational purpose, at a nonprofit museum or government-owned facility generally open to the public or at an educational institution, including a public or private postsecondary institution. In addition, the mountain lion was taken in California consistent with the requirements of FGC §4800-4810 and any other applicable law. And, the department has authorized the possession of the carcass or carcass part or product for the purposes of this paragraph. For more information about mountain lion educational displays, see CCR §251.4
California Department of Fish and Wildlife authorized the killing of the mountain lion for posing an imminent threat to public health or safety, and the carcass is being transferred to CDFW for a necropsy.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife authorized the killing of the mountain lion under a depredation permit, and the carcass is being transferred to CDFW for a necropsy.
The carcass or lion part or product is a component of a mountain lion research project under a Scientific Collecting Permit approved in compliance with FGC §4810.
Possessing Live Lions
According to CCR §251.5 (b), “Live mountain lions may be possessed only under terms of a permit issued by the Department pursuant to section 2150 of the Fish and Game Code or if the owner can demonstrate that the mountain lion was in his/her possession on or before June 6, 1990 under a permit issued pursuant to section 3200 of said code.
CCR §671-671.9 describe the regulations for importation, transportation, and possession of live restricted animals in California.
Mountain lion rescue and rehabilitation became legal in California on January 1, 2014. Laws pertaining to wildlife rehabilitation in California are generally listed under CCR §679.
Mountain lion researchers with a valid Scientific Collecting Permit, in accordance with §4810 may also temporarily possess live mountain lions. And an individual or organization partnering with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to implement nonlethal procedures on a mountain lion to resolve a potential pubic safety threat (§4801.5) may also be allowed to temporarily possess a live lion.
Relationship of Mountain Lions to Native Prey
While historic native prey for mountain lions, declines in Bighorn sheep populations have led to a debate over lethally removing mountain lions to increase the size of sheep herds. Under California state law, Fish and Game Code §4801, CDFW “may remove or take any mountain lion, or authorize an appropriate local agency with public safety responsibility to remove or take any mountain lion, […] that is perceived by the department to be an imminent threat to the survival of any threatened, endangered, candidate, or fully protected sheep species.”
The Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Program lethally removes approximately two mountain lions each year that are believed to be threatening the survival of the endangered Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep herd. In their 2011 report, the recovery program noted “Since bighorn were listed in 1999, 22 mountains lions were killed to protect them; 18 had preyed upon bighorn. Four were killed because their location data indicated a significant threat to bighorn.”
A Legislative Counsel opinion released in 2011 clarified that Federal contract hunters employed by CDFW must follow state law and not use poison, snares, leg-hold or metal-jawed traps to kill mountain lions, even when the lions pose a threat to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.
Desert bighorn sheep that are not endangered may be sport hunted in specific areas.
Poaching
California state law provides some protection of mountain lions, but only as a deterrent. It is rare for penalties to be sufficiently harsh to keep poachers from poaching again. Violating FGC §4800-4810 or killing a mountain lion is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. An individual is not guilty of a violation of this section if it is demonstrated that, in taking or injuring a mountain lion, the individual was acting in self-defense or in defense of others.
(a) The mountain lion (genus Puma) is a specially protected mammal under the laws of this state.
(b) (1) It is unlawful to take, injure, possess, transport, import, or sell any mountain lion or any part or product thereof, except as specifically provided in this chapter or in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2116) of Division 3.
(2) This chapter does not prohibit the sale or possession of any mountain lion or any part or product thereof, when the owner can demonstrate that the mountain lion, or part or product thereof, was in the person’s possession on June 6, 1990.
(3) This chapter does not prohibit the possession of a mountain lion carcass or any part or product of a mountain lion carcass, if all of the following requirements are met:
(A) The carcass or carcass part or product is prepared or being prepared for display, exhibition, or storage, for a bona fide scientific or educational purpose, at a nonprofit museum or government-owned facility generally open to the public or at an educational institution, including a public or private postsecondary institution.
(B) The mountain lion was taken in California consistent with the requirements of this chapter and any other applicable law.
(C) The department has authorized the possession of the carcass or carcass part or product for the purposes of this paragraph.
(c) Any violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. An individual is not guilty of a violation of this section if it is demonstrated that, in taking or injuring a mountain lion, the individual was acting in self-defense or in defense of others.
(d) Section 219 does not apply to this chapter. Neither the commission nor the department shall adopt any regulation that conflicts with or supersedes any of the provisions of this chapter.
4801.
The department may remove or take any mountain lion, or authorize an appropriate local agency with public safety responsibility to remove or take any mountain lion, that is perceived to be an imminent threat to public health or safety or that is perceived by the department to be an imminent threat to the survival of any threatened, endangered, candidate, or fully protected sheep species.
4801.5.
(a) Unless authorized in this chapter, nonlethal procedures shall be used when removing or taking any mountain lion that has not been designated as an imminent threat to public health or safety.
(b) For purposes of this chapter, “imminent threat to public health or safety” means a situation where a mountain lion exhibits one or more aggressive behaviors directed toward a person that is not reasonably believed to be due to the presence of responders.
(c) For purposes of this chapter, “nonlethal procedures” means procedures that may include, but are not limited to, capturing, pursuing, anesthetizing, temporarily possessing, temporarily injuring, marking, attaching to or surgically implanting monitoring or recognition devices, providing veterinary care, transporting, hazing, rehabilitating, releasing, or taking no action.
(d) The department may, as the department determines is necessary to protect mountain lions or the public, authorize qualified individuals, educational institutions, governmental agencies, or nongovernmental organizations to implement nonlethal procedures on a mountain lion in accordance with subdivision (a).
4802.
Any person, or the employee or agent of a person, whose livestock or other property is being or has been injured, damaged, or destroyed by a mountain lion may report that fact to the department and request a permit to take the mountain lion.
4803.
Upon receipt of a report pursuant to Section 4802, the department, or any animal damage control officer specifically authorized by the department to carry out this responsibility, shall immediately take the action necessary to confirm that there has been depredation by a mountain lion as reported. The confirmation process shall be completed as quickly as possible, but in no event more than 48 hours after receiving the report. If satisfied that there has been depredation by a mountain lion as reported, the department shall promptly issue a permit to take the depredating mountain lion.
4804.
In order to ensure that only the depredating mountain lion will be taken, the department shall issue the permit pursuant to Section 4803 with the following conditions attached:
(a) The permit shall expire 10 days after issuance.
(b) The permit shall authorize the holder to begin pursuit not more than one mile from the depredation site.
(c) The permit shall limit the pursuit of the depredating mountain lion to within a 10-mile radius from the location of the reported damage or destruction.
4805.
Whenever immediate authorization will materially assist in the pursuit of the particular mountain lion believed to be responsible for the depredation reported pursuant to Section 4802, the department or the animal damage control officer may orally authorize the pursuit and taking of the depredating mountain lion, and the department shall issue a written permit for the period previously authorized as soon as practicable after the oral authorization.
4806.
Any person issued a permit pursuant to Section 4803 or 4805 shall report, by telephone within 24 hours, the capturing, injuring, or killing of any mountain lion to an office of the department or, if telephoning is not practicable, in writing within five days after the capturing, injuring, or killing of the mountain lion. At the time of making the report of the capturing, injuring, or killing, the holder of the permit shall make arrangements to turn over the mountain lion or the entire carcass of the mountain lion which has been recovered to a representative of the department and shall do so in a timely manner.
4807.
(a) Any mountain lion that is encountered while in the act of pursuing, inflicting injury to, or killing livestock, or domestic animals, may be taken immediately by the owner of the property or the owner’s employee or agent. The taking shall be reported within 72 hours to the department. The department shall investigate the depredation, and, if the mountain lion was captured, injured, or killed, the mountain lion or the entire carcass of the mountain lion which has been recovered shall be turned over to the department. Upon satisfactorily completing the investigation and receiving the mountain lion or the carcass, if recovered, the department shall issue a permit confirming that the requirements of this section have been met with respect to the particular mountain lion taken under these circumstances.
(b) The department shall undertake a complete necropsy on any returned mountain lion carcass and report the findings to the commission. The commission shall compile the reported findings and prepare an annual written report that shall be submitted to the Legislature not later than the January 15 next following the year in which the mountain lion was taken.
4808.
As used in this chapter, “agent” means the agent or employee of the owner of the damaged or destroyed property, any county or city predator control officer, any employee of the Animal Damage Control Section of the United States Department of Agriculture, any departmental personnel, or any authorized or permitted houndsman registered with the department as possessing the requisite experience and having no prior conviction of any provision of this code or regulation adopted pursuant to this code. A plea of nolo contendere is a conviction for purposes of this section.
4809.
Mountain lions authorized to be taken pursuant to this chapter shall be taken by the most effective means available to take the mountain lion causing the damage or destruction, except that no mountain lion shall be taken by means of poison, leg-hold or metal-jawed traps, and snares.
4810.
(a) As used in this section:
(1) “Authorized research project” means a research project involving mountain lions subject to a Scientific Collecting Permit issued in accordance with this section.
(2) “Permitholder” means a person to whom the department has issued a Scientific Collecting Permit in accordance with this section.
(3) “Scientific Collecting Permit” or “permit” means a permit issued pursuant to Section 1002 for a research project involving mountain lions in accordance with this section.
(b) The department may authorize qualified individuals, educational institutions, governmental agencies, or nongovernmental organizations to conduct scientific research involving mountain lions pursuant to a Scientific Collecting Permit as provided in Section 1002.
(c) The department may authorize permitholders to pursue, capture, temporarily possess, temporarily injure, mark, attach to or surgically implant monitoring or recognition devices in, provide veterinary care to, and transport, mountain lions, or any part or product of a mountain lion.
(d) In addition to the requirements in Section 1002, an authorized research project shall be designed to do the following:
(1) Contribute to the knowledge of natural wildlife ecosystems.
(2) Minimize disruptions in the lives and movements of mountain lions and other wildlife, as well as impacts to mountain lion or other wildlife habitat, while maintaining the permitholder’s research objectives.
(3) Directly or indirectly support the sustainability and survival of mountain lion populations and healthy ecosystems.
(4) Prevent the permanent injury or killing of any mountain lion.
(e) An authorized research project shall be governed by the Scientific Collecting Permit. The permit shall include, at a minimum, proposed research methods and recordkeeping procedures that address the following:
(1) The capture of, anesthetization of, collection of diagnostic samples from, and transport of, mountain lions or parts and products thereof, and the attaching to or surgically implanting monitoring or recognization devices or markings in, and providing veterinary care as required for the health, safety, and humane treatment of, animals affected by the research project.
(2) The recording of the adverse effects of authorized research procedures on mountain lions and other wildlife.
(3) The qualifications of onsite personnel necessary for carrying out authorized research procedures. A permit applicant shall submit verifiable documentation demonstrating that at least one onsite staff person has at least one year of experience in proposed research methods that involve activities described in subdivision (c).
(4) Annual and final reports to the department.
(f) The department shall notify the public at least 30 days prior to the issuance of a permit, and, upon request, shall make available to the public copies of the permit and annual and final reports.
(g) The department shall handle any mortality or permanent injury to a mountain lion as a result of research authorized pursuant to this section in a manner consistent with the reporting and processing requirements imposed in Section 4807.
Action
Story Map
This interactive story map provides an overview about what happens when mountain lions prey on pets or livestock in California and includes depredation permits issued and filled by year. Permit data provided by California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Click on each of the tabs within the application to learn more. You can click on counties for more information.
Library
Scientific Research
A R Kortello et al 2007 Interactions Between Cougars and Wolves in Banff National Park Alberta Canada
A R Krawchuk 2014 Is Niche Separation Between Wolves and Cougars Realized in the Rocky Mountains
A R Ross Jalkotzy 1992 Characteristics of a Hunted Population of Cougars in Southwestern Alberta JWM
Acuff 1988 MASTERS THESIS Perceptions of the Mountain Lion, 1825-1986, with Emphasis on Felis Concolor Californica
Allen et al 2015 The Role of Scent Marking in Mate Selection by Female Pumas
Allen et al. – 2015 – Feeding and spatial ecology of mountain lions in the Mendocino National Forest , California
Associated Press Watercutter 2004 Authorities Say Man Killed by Mountain Lion, Woman Injured
Associated Press Watercutter 2004 Southern California Stunned by Maulings
Auburn Journal Nielsen 2007 Where the Wild Things Are, Orphaned Cougar Cub Settles into Weimar Home
Bauer et al. – 2005 – Scavenging Behavior in Puma
Beier – 2016 – Cougar Attacks on Humans in the United States and Canada Author (s)Paul Beier Source Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973)
Beier 1995 Dispersal of Juvenile Cougars in Fragmented Habitat
Beier 1996 Metapopulation Models, Tenacious Tracking, and Cougar Conservation
Beier Barrett 1992 Monthly Report Orange County Cooperative Mountain Lion Study
Beier Barrett 1993 The Cougar in the Santa Ana Mountain Range California Final Report Orange County Cooperative Mountain Lion Study
Beier et al. – 2005 – South Coast Missing Linkages restoring connectivity to wildlands in the largest metropolitan area in the United S
Beier, Majka, Newell – 2009 – Uncertainty analysis of least- wildlife for designing linkages
Beier, Paul & Barrett, Reginald H., 1992, Monthly Report: Orange County Cooperative Mountain Lion Study
Beier, Paul 1993 Determining Minimum Habitat Areas and Habitat Corridors for Cougars Conservation Biology
Benson, J. F. et al. 2019 – Extinction vortex dynamics of top predators isolated by urbanization.
Bevins et al. – 2009 – Wild Felids as Hosts for Human Plague United States
Bevins et al. – 2012 – Three pathogens in sympatric populations of pumas, bobcats, and domestic cats Implications for infectious disease
Bier 1992 A Checklist for Evaluating Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors
Brentwood Press Erickson 2007 Coping with the Big Cat – A Seven-Step Program
Brier, P. 1993 Determination of minimum habitat area and habitat corridors for cougars Conservation Biology
Burdett et al 2010 Interfacing Models of Wildlife Habitat and Human Development to Predict the Future Distribution of Puma Habitat
California Department of Finance Standish 2001 Interim County Population Projection
Carmel Valley Sun Colton 1990 Mountain Lions Fear Guarding Dogs
Carmichael Times 2011 A Wild Success for Effie Yeaw
Carroll et al An Evaluation of the Biological Feasibility of Restoring Wolf, Wolverine, and Grizzly Bear to Oregon and California
CDFG 1978 Weaver Changing Status of Mountain Lion in California and Livestock Depredation Problems – Proceedings 8th Vertebrate Pest Conference
CDFG 1988 – Status Report – 3rd Mountain Lion Workshop
CDFG 2003 Wildlife Corridor Monitoring Study
CDFG 2004 Implementation Strategy to Restore the San Gabriel Mountains Bighorn Sheep Population
CDFG 2006 CWHRS Status Report M165 Mountain Lion
CDFG 2010 Annual Report 2009-2010 Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Program
CDFG Barrett 1986 Population Models for Bears and Mountain Lions in California
CDFG Hunter 1921 Control of the Mountain Lion in California
CDFG Project Status Summary Population Ecology and Movement of Mountain Lions Across Habitats Fragmented by Urban Development
CDFG Torres 2000 Counting Cougars in California – Outdoor California
Chomel, KIkuchi, Artenson – 2004 – Sero Prevalence of Bartonella infection in American free-ranging and captive pumas ( Felis concolor )
Clark et al 1983 Predatory Animal Control in California An Evaluation of Alternatives
Clemenza, Sean M.; Rubin, Esther S.; Johnson, Christine K.; Botta, Randall a & Boyce, Walter M. 2009 Puma predation on radio-collared and uncollared bighorn sheep. BMC research notes
Conservation Genetics Ernest et al 2003 Genetic Structure of Mountain Lion (Puma Concolor) Populations in California
Crook 2014 Information Spread in a Region of Human-Mountain Lion Coexistence – Human Dimensions
Crooks – 2002 – Relative Sensitivities of Mammalian Carnivores to Habitat Fragmentation
Crooks SUMMARY Mammalian Carnivores as Target Species for Conservation in Southern California
Crooks, Kevin; Sanjayan, M. A. & Spitler, Paul 2000 Missing Linkages: Restoring Connectivity to the California Landscape
Cross Fitzhugh Kenyon 2009 Likelihood of being injured by attacking pumas
Dickson et al 2005 Abstract Influence of Vegetation, Topography, and Roads on Cougar Movement in Southern California
Dickson, Beier – 2007 – Quantifying the influence of topographic position on cougar ( Puma concolor ) movement in southern California ,
Dickson, Jenness, Beier – 2005 – Influence of Vegetation, Topography, and Roads on Cougar Movements in Southern California
Elbroch et al 2014 Nowhere to hide pumas black bears and competition refuges
Elbroch et al 2014 The difference between killing and eating ecological shortcomings of puma energetic models
Ernest 2001 Ecological Genetics of Mountain Lions (Puma Concolor) in California
Ernest et al 2001 ABSTRACT Fecal DNA Analysis and Risk Assessment of Mountain Lion Predation of Bighorn Sheep
Ernest et al 2002 Fecal DNA Analysis and Risk Assessment of Mountain Lion Predation of Bighorn Sheep
Ernest et al. – 2014 – Fractured genetic connectivity threatens a Southern California puma (Puma concolor) population
Ernest, Boyce – 2000 – DNA Identification of Mountain Lions Involved in Livestock Predation and Public Safety Incidents and Investigation
Ernest, Holly B.; Penedo, M. C. T. & May, B. P. 2000 Molecular tracking of mountain lions in the Yosemite Valley region in California : genetic analysis using microsatellites and faecal DNA Molecular Ecology
Extension, Biology – 1995 – A Track Count for Estimating Mountain Lion Felis concolor californica Population Trend
Foley et al 1999 Granulocytic Ehrlichiosis and Tick Infestation in Mountain Lions in California
Foley et al. – 2012 – Risk Factors for Exposure to Feline Pathogens in California Mountain Lions (Puma concolor)
Franklin et al. – 2007 – Frequent Transmission of Immunodeficiency Viruses among Bobcats and Pumas
Giusti et al 1990 Predator Management in North Coast California
Gregory, Beier – 2014 – Response variables for evaluation of the effectiveness of conservation corridors
Grigione et al 2002 Ecological and allometric determinants of home-range size for mountain lions – Puma concolor
Gustafson, K. D. et al. 2018 – Genetic source-sink dynamics among naturally structured and anthropogenically fragmented puma populations.
Hayes 2000 Mountain Lion Predation of Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges JWM
Hayes et al 2000 Mountain Lion Predation of Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California
Holford – 2012 – Modeling Helps in Understanding Antidepressants
Hopkins 1976 PhD DISSERTATION Ecology of the Puma in the Diablo Range, California
Hopkins, R. A.; Dickson, Brett G. & McRae, Brad H., , Novel Spatial Tools for Connectivity Conservation: A Case Study Using Cougars in Southern California
Hornocker 1985 PROPOSAL Proposal for Research on Ecology of the Mountain Lion in the San Andres Mountains
Hunter et al. – 2013 – Population and Land Use Change in the California Mojave Natural Habitat Implications of Alternative Futures and
Hunter, Toth, Edwards Jr. – 2001 – Population, Land Use Change, and Species Endangerment in the California Mojave Alternative Futures
Inside Bay Area.com Aguirre 2008 Something’s out there, and It’s Killed 4 Sheep
Jennings – 2012 – Landscape Dynamics in Southern California Understanding Mammalian Carnivore Response to Fire and Human Development
Jennings et al. – 2016 – Puma response to the effects of fire and urbanization
Jennings Vickers et al 2015 Puma Response to the Effects of Fire and Urbanization JWM
Jochimsen – 2006 – Road Ecology Center
Johnson, Huey D.; Spotts, Richard A. & Cummings, Earle W., 1982, Predator Control Issues and Reregistration of Compound 1080 (Sodium monofluoroacetate) Minority Report
Johnson 1980 Shifts, Habitat & Grazing, Cattle 1980 Habitat Shifts by Mule Deer: The Influence of Cattle Grazing
Lee et al. – 2014 – Evolution of puma lentivirus in bobcats (Lynx rufus) and mountain lions (Puma concolor) in North America
Lee et al. – 2016 – Feline immunodeficiency virus cross-species transmission Implications for emergence of new lentiviral infections
Lerner 2008 Mountain Lion Shot and Killed Near Atascadero Post Office
Mansfield, Torres – 1994 – Trends in Mountain Lion Depredation and Public Safety Threats in California Trends in Mountain Lion Depredation
Markovchick-Nicholls et al. – 2008 – Relationships between human disturbance and wildlife land use in urban habitat fragments
Miguel et al. – 2010 – Effects of urbanization on carnivore species distribution and richness Effects of urbanization on carnivore sp
MLF Edwards 1988 REPORT Mountain Lion and Deer Habitat in the Western Sierra Nevada Mountain Range A study of Land Uses and Their Impacts
Moriarty et al. – 2012 – Use of Intraperitoneal Radio transmitters to Study Mountain Lion ( Puma concolor ) Kittens
Morrison and Boyce 2008 ESSAY Conserving Connectivity – Some Lessons from Mountain Lions in Southern California
Neal USDA USFS 1987 Mountain Lions Preliminary Findings on Home-Range Use and Density in the Central Sierra Nevada (Kings Deer Study)
Needs et al. – 2004 – Habitat Connectivity The Importance of Urban Planning , Habitat Connectivity and Ecosystem Function for Regional P
Ng, Sandra J.; Dole, Jim W.; Sauvajot, Raymond M.; Riley, Seth P. D. & Valone, Thomas J. 2004 Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California Biological Conservation
Noss, Reed; Beier, Paul & Shaw, William, 1990, Evaluation of the Coal Canyon Biological Corridor
NPS 2011 Mountain Lion Observation Form Redwood National and State Park
Orlando 2008 PhD DISSERTATION Impacts of Rural Development on Puma Ecology in California’s Sierra Nevada
P. Gianessi, Nathan – 2016 – Population dynamics of bighorn sheep in the San Gabriel Mountains, California, 1967-2002
Paul-Murphy et al. – 1994 – Serologic survey and serum biochemical reference ranges of the free-ranging mountain lion (Felis concolor)
Penrod 2000 SUMMARY The Missing Linkages Project in California’s South Coast Ecoregion
Pierce 1999 DISSERTATION Predator-Prey Dynamics Between Mountain Lions and Mule Deer Effects on Distribution Population
Pierce 2012 Top-down versus bottom-up forcing – evidence from mountain lions and mule deer Journal of Mammalogy
Pierce et al. – 1999 – Migratory Patterns of Mountain Lions Implications for Social Regulation and Conservation
Polyzos et al. – 2011 – The potentially dual-faceted nature of fetuin-A in Helicobacter pylori infection and insulin resistance
PSYETA 1997 Changing Attitudes Toward California Cougar
Riley et al 2003 SUMMARY Report on Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area Mountain Lion Project for Period March 2002-August 2003
Riley et al 2007 Notoedric mange in bobcats and mountain lions in urban Southern California
Riley et al 2014 Individual Behaviors Dominate Dynamics Urban Mountain Lion CORRECTED PROOF
Riley, Seth P. D. 2003 SUMMARY Report on Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area Mountain Lion Project for Period March 2002-August 2003
Ripple, Beschta – 2008 – Trophic cascades involving cougar, mule deer, and black oaks in Yosemite National Park
Shearer, Allan W.; Mouat, David A.; Bassett, Scott D.; Binford, Michael W.; Johnson, Craig W. & Saarinen, Justin A., 2006, Examining development-related uncertainties for environmental management: Strategic planning scenarios in Southern California
Sitton CDFG 1978 Mountain Lion Predation on Livestock in California Presented Fisheries Wildlife Societies Conference
Smallwood – 1994 – Trends in California mountain lion populations
Smallwood – 1997 – Interpreting puma ( Puma concolor ) population estimates for theory and management
Smallwood, Fitzhugh – 1993 – A Rigorous Technique for Identifying Individua; Mountain Lions Felis concolor by Their Tracks
Smith 2015 Occupancy habitat use and seasonal fluctuations of medium to large mammalian predators
Smith Wang Wilmers 2015 Top carnivores increase their kill rates on prey as a response to human-induced fear
Spiegal 2014 Sharing the Range – Managing Wildlife Impacts to Livestock Production in California
Sweanor et al 2004 Southern California Puma Project
Sweanor et al 2004 Southern California Puma Project Final Report
Sweanor et al. – 2008 – Puma and Human Spatial and Temporal Use of a Popular California State Park
Torres et al 1996 Mountain Lion and Human Activity in California Testing Speculations
Troyer et al. – 2014 – Novel gammaherpesviruses in North American domestic cats, bobcats, and pumas identification, prevalence, and risk
Turner and Morrison 2001 ABSTRACT Influence of Predation by Mountain Lions on Numbers and Survivorship of a Feral Horse Population
Turner and Morrison 2001 Influence of Predation by Mountain Lions on Numbers and Survivorship of a Feral Horse Population
Turner et al 1990 DRAFT Seasonal Mountain Lion Predation on a Feral Horse Population (2)
UC 1976 Bulletin 1878 Predation and the Sheep Industry in California
UC Davis Vickers 2005 January Mountain Lion Project Report Pre AB1784
USDA Neal Steger Bertram 1987 PSW392 Mountain Lions Preliminary Findings on the Home Range Use and Density in the Central Sierra Nevada
Uzal et al. – 2007 – Notoedric mange in two free-ranging mountain lions (Puma concolor)
Vickers et al 2015 Survival and Mortality of Pumas in a Fragmented Urbanizing Landscape PLOS
Vickers SUMMARY Mountain Lion Study
Vickers, T. Winston; Sanchez, Jessica N.; Johnson, Christine K.; Morrison, Scott A.; Botta, Randy; Smith, Trish; Cohen, Brian S.; Huber, Patrick R.; Ernest, Holly B. & Boyce, Walter M., 2015, Survival and mortality of pumas (Puma concolor) in a fragmented, urbanizing landscape
Walther, Gian-Reto; Post, Eric; Convey, Peter; Menzel, Annette; Parmesan, Camille; Beebee, Trevor J. C.; Fromentin, Jean-Marc; Hoegh-Guldberg, Ove & Bairlein, Franz 2002 Ecological responses to recent climate change Nature
WCC Vickers 2008 UPDATE Southern California Mountain Lion Study
Weaver – 1978 – Changing Status of Mountain Lions in California and Livestock Depredation Problems
Webb 2016 Public Management Decisions Related to the Decline of California Deer Populations
Wehausen Stephenson 2004 REPORT Mark-Resight Estimation of the Wheeler Crest Bighorn Sheep Herd
Wilmers 2013 Scale Dependent Behavioral Responses to Human Development by a Large Predator the Puma
Wilmers et al. – 2013 – Scale Dependent Behavioral Responses to Human Development by a Large Predator, the Puma
Wilmers Williams 2013 SUMMARY A Pilot Study on the Ecological and Physiological Performance of a Large Ambush Predator
Yamamoto et al. – Unknown – Bartonella Hensale Antibody Prevalence in Free-Ranging and Captive Wild Felids from California
Yellowstone Science Murphy 1994 Tracking Lions II
Zeller – 2016 Evaluating resistance surfaces for modeling wildlife movement and connectivity
Zeller et al. 2014 Sensitivity of landscape resistance estimates based on point selection functions to scale and behavioral state p
Zeller et al. 2016 Using step and path selection functions for estimating resistance to movement pumas as a case study
Agency Reports
1990 Proposition 117 California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990
2007 UC Davis Wildlife Heath Center for CDFG California Wildlife Conservation Action Plan
California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Services: Habitat Conservation Fund 2011
California Fish and Game Code 2013 Sale of Wildlife Laws Flyer
California Fish and Game Code 4800-4809 June 2012
California Fish and Game Code 4800-4810 August 2012
California Fish and Game Code 4800-4810 January 2014
CDFW Fish and Wildlife Mortality Report Form
CDFW Ray Legal Affairs Secretary 1986 Request for Review Office of Administrative Law Disapproval of 14 CAC Section 402 (Government Code Section 11349.5)
CDFW Raye Legal Affairs Secretary 1986 Decision D-01-86 Request for Review Disapproval of Regulations Title 14, section 402, Cal. Administrative Code
CDFW 1984 Letter From Fish and Game to Senator Presley
CDFW 1986 Statement of Purpose for Regulatory Action Repeal and Add a New Section 402, Title 14, CAC Re Taking of Mountain Lions Causing Damage
CDFW 1988 EXCERPTS CDFW Report to the Fish and Game Commission 070187 to 063088
MLF 1991 REPORT Preserving Cougar Country – A Guide to Protecting Mountain Lion and Deer Habitat in California
MLF 2006 Fax to Governor Kulongoski from Emily Cunnison Regarding Cougar Ceremony Performed by the Chemawa Indian School
MLF 2012 SB1221 Support Letter to Governor Brown
MLF 2013 SB132 Support Letter to Senator Hill 3.15.13
MLF 2014 Nonlethal Measures Explained
MLF A Guide to Protecting Mountain Lion and Deer Habitat in California
MLF and Audubon 1996 Adopt an Endangered Species Resource Guide
MLF Carolyn Parr Event Form June 25
MLF Mountain Lion Preservation Foundation Fact Sheet on the California Mountain Lion
MLF Proof of pre-1990 ownership of lion pelt 1
MLF Proof of pre-1990 ownership of lion pelt 2
MLF State Parks Signage
Mountain Lion Preservation Foundation 1988 Letter to President Taucher and Commissioners
Mountain Lion Sightings, Summer, Fall 2009, In Northern California
NatGeo Hoffman 2004 Welcome to the Neighborhood
National Geographic Today Cohen Paterson 2003 Struggling to Link Lands for Cougars in California
National Resources Defense Council 1999 Letter from Wald to Benz regarding Environmental Assessment Predation Damage Management to Protect the Federally Endangered Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep
NBCSanDiego.com 2007 Wife Saves Husband from Mountain Lion
New York Times Forstenzer 2005 It’s Wild vs. Domestic Sheep as Groups Lock Horns Over Grazing Area
News-Press Kleinbaum 204 City Warns of Mountain Lion Activity
North County Times Warren 2003 More Than 100 Attend Mountain Lion Lecture
NPR Hillard 2014 Mountain Lion A Poster Cat For California’s Rat Poison Problem
NY Times 2004 Cougar Attacks Cyclists
Orange County Perspective 2004 Headlands, Using our Heads Finally, the Dana Point Project is a Balance of Interests
Orange County Register Brennan 2001 A Habitat ‘Hot Spot’
Palo Alto Weekly Kazak 2004 Waiting for the Lion
PEER 2011 Federal Cougar Hunters Must Obey California Law
Pepperdine University Graphic Chiappetta 2006 Santa Monica Mountains, Puma Kills Cubs
Quirk 2008 Mountain Lion Spotted Near Eagle Ridge
Record Searchlight Benda 2004 Police Shoot Treed Cougar
Running News Raia 2004 Death By Cougar – Remembering Barbara Schoener
SacBee Fearing 2014 New Law Successful in Reducing Bear Deaths
Sacramento Bee 2002 Lion-Proof pens Called New Fix for Old Problem
Sacramento Bee Broddrick 2004 DFG mountain-lion Policy does the Job
San Diego Union-Tribune Fitzsimons 2004 A Year Later, Backcountry Shows Signs of Rebirth
San Francisco Examiner Letters to the Editor 1994 When Human Activities Extend into Mountain Lion Habitat
San Francisco Chronicle Fimrite 2005 Wine County Casualties Grape-eating Bears Killed as Vineyards’ Territory Expands
San Francisco Chronicle McCullough 2004 Managing nature
San Francisco Chronicle Packard, Jordan 2001 A Coast Lost, Piece by Piece
San Gabriel Mountains Bighorn Sheep Recovery Team Meeting Notes, Holl, April 26, 2004, La Festra Center, Glendora, CA
San Jose Chronicle Gaura 2005 Young Mountain Lion is Shot and Killed in Backyard of Home
San Mateo County Times Yarbrough 2003 Mountain Lion Dies After Getting Hit by Car on 280
Santa Monica News Stebinger 2004 Mountain Lion Kittens Doing Well, But Face Uncertain Future
Scientific American.com Tanner 2006 Killing Pumas Doesn’t Lessen Attacks on Man – US Study
Southland News 2007 Mountain Lion Captured After Mauling Dogs
St. Helena Star Intardonato 2005 Killing Cougars, The Price of Protecting Goats
Stange 2004 When Animals Stalk Humans, Hunters Should Shoot Back
Star, Ventura County Ventura County letters: Wildlife versus poison
Stepping Lightly – Newsletter of Placer Nature Center Spring 2003
Stockton Record Garland 2002 Lion Proof Pen to be Tried in Lode
Stockton Record Garland 2002 Lion Proof Pen Tried in Lode
Taipei Times 2004 Cougar Kills Man, Attacks Woman in California Park
The Acorn Bertholdo 2008 Harris Named Federation’s Citizen of the Year
The California Cattleman Grigory 1985 The Mountain Lion Controversy
The Carmel Pine Cone Counts 2007 Scientist’s Close Encounter with Lion on the Hunt
The Daily Aztec Clasby 2007 Don’t Kill the Cougars, Fight Back Instead
The Daily Journal Anderson 2001 Board Splits Over Wilderness Designations
The Daily Review Rubin 2008 Goat Killed in Possible Hayward Mountain Lion Attack
The Desert Sun 2007 Things to do in the Valley During March 2007
The Desert Sun 2008 Warning Extended Today After Mountain Lion Seen Near Cathedral City
The Desert Sun Claxton 2008 Residents on Guard After Lion Spotted
The Eureka Reporter 2007 Mountain Lion Sighted in Field
The Eureka Reporter 2008 Mountain Lion Spotted Near Arcata School
The Eureka Reporter Bensen-Messinger 2007 Mountain Lion Victim Recovering Well, Removed from Critical Care Unit
The Eureka Reporter Gusching 2007 Authorities Say They Cannot Act on All Mountain Lion Sightings in County
The Eureka Reporter Hunt-Munther 2007 National 4-H Week Focuses on Learning
The Eureka Reporter Wilkinson 2008 Mountain Lion Killed
The Mountain Lion Foundation Negri et al Rebuilding the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Fish and Game Commission Recommendations to the New Governor
The Press Democrat 2008 Mountain Lion Captured in Sonoma Valley Backyard
The Road Reporter The Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads 2003 Cougar Corridors
The Union Moller 2005 Mountain Lion Kills Goat Near Lake of the Pines
The Valley Chronicle 2005 Mountain Lion Presentation at Monument
Thorne, Cameron, Quinn – 2006 – A Conservation Design for the Central Coast of California and the Evaluation of Mountain Lion as an Umbr
UC Berkeley 1991 Margaret Owings – Artist and Wildlife and Environmental Defender
Umbach, 1997 Mountain Lions and California State Parks
USA Today 2008 City Hires Tracker to Find, Kill Mountain Lion That Attacked Hiker
USA Today Ritter 2004 Big Cats Seek Place to Prowl in Urban Areas
USA Today Ritter 2006 Cougar Hunting Doesn’t Lower Fatal Attacks
Valley Press Semchuck 2007 Mountain Lion Said to be on Loose in Valley
Van Cassell 2008 Caution Urged After Lion Print Found
Ventura County Star 2003 Life Can Get Wild on the Edge – Groups Helping People, Animals Get Along
Ventura County Star 2003 On the Edge – Kids Learn How to Live Around Wild Animals
Ventura County Star 2004 Out of the Wild
Walnut Creek Journal Richards 2008 Lindsay Museum’s Resident Mountain Lion Dies
West MLF Preserving Cougar Country – A Guide to Protecting Mountain Lion and Deer Habitat in California
Whittier Daily News 2004 Hillside Residents Warned of Mountain Lion Habits – Residents Given Tlips on Big Cats’ Habits
Yeates 1985 California Mountain Lions In the Wild or on the Wall
Zieralski 1996 Cougars Ravage Threatened Bighorn
Click to View Documents About Mountain Lions in California
In 1990, a coalition of conservation organizations, including MLF, placed Proposition 117 — commonly known as the “mountain lion initiative” — on the statewide ballot. This proposition, the first to have been placed solely with signatures collected by volunteers in California, passed on June 5, 1990 with 52.42 percent of the vote. Officially known as the California Wildlife Protection Act, Proposition 117 reclassified mountain lions in California as a “specially protected mammal,” permanently banned the sport hunting of lions in the state, and allocated $30 million to be spent annually for 30 years on the acquisition of critical habitat for mountain lions, deer, oak woodlands, endangered species, riparian habitat, and other wildlife.
Since the 1996 failure to repeal the State’s lion-hunting ban, there have been numerous unsuccessful attempts by lawmakers to introduce legislation that would overturn Proposition 117’s lion-hunting restrictions.
