It would be interesting to know a little more of the
pre-event history.

Some years ago in California, there was a bounty on mountain lions.
The laws were changed, we then had a fairly long period when Mtn Lions
were not protected. During this entire time mtn lions were hunted for
'sport'. Each to his own, I suppose, but is it sport to take money
from a rich doctor in San Francisco, then you and yer buddy take a few
bottles of Jack Daniels and the dogs and your .22 rifle into the
hills. You swig away half the night listening to the hounds.
Occasionally you jump into the thrashed hunting pickup and go a couple
more miles on logging roads to where you can hear the hounds again.
Finally you hear the dogs tree the varmint. You hike up there, with
your booze and sleeping bag. Your buddy takes the truck down to the
tavern at the forks and calls the doctor, who takes a chartered Cessna
down the next day. Buddy stays around waiting to take the doctor up
the hill. Meanwhile, you toss your empty, then climb into the bag,
the dogs sitting around panting, pacing and belling once in a while to
keep the cat in the tree. Long about noon the doctor shows up, takes
the .22 and shoots the lion dead [1] The lion tumbles down, you take
pictures while the smiling satisfied doctor poses with his 'trophy',
then you haul everybody down the hill, dropping the carcass off at the
taxidermist.

Many/most other hunters hunted for their own enjoyment, but almost
every hunter used dogs to do the actual hunting.

IIRC, in June, 1990, in California, the Initiative Proposition #17 [2]
is passed and takes effect. This is designed to eliminate the trophy
'sport' hunting of the mtn lion, but not the taking of dangerous or
nuisance lions. There was more to the law.. also it provided for
purchasing land for wildlife sanctuaries, so that connecting corredors
could link existing wild land [4], and to acquire new habitat for
lions. Note that this also benefits other species as well. To my
knowledge this aspect of the bill (a direct expression of the people's
will) has never been implemented.

The Dept of Fish and Game trotted out their experts to say how this
would be a bad bill. They were the ones that previously had the
bounty on the lions until forced to lift it. They freely admit that
they see their mission as providing GAME animals for the hunters to
shoot. Surprisingly, they are funded from hunting licenses. They do
not see their mission is to provide a balanced healthy
ecosystem/foodchain in the mtns. They see OUR wildlands as a deer
farm. Now if you aren't a deer hunter, but another type of nature
lover, and would occasionally like to see a forest, complete with all
the members of the ecosystem alive and functioning, then the Dept of
Fish and Game does not work for you. It does, however, have control
of all of your animals.

Hunters were commonly against this bill. They have said that the mtn
lions kills too many deer and should be shot. Historically, though,
the time in history when we had the most deer [3] was the time when we
had the most mtn lions.

Many antagonists thought that it was stupid to allow a potential
man-killer to live in our recreational areas. The problem is that
over 99% of the mtn lion's previous range is forbidden him now. His
numbers are a tiny tiny fraction of what they used to be. The lion is
usually very shy. They can't live well around men and dogs [5] and
guns and cars and stuff. There has been an explosive growth in the
last thirty years of homes and communities being built in the canyons
and forests. People want to 'get back to nature'. Then they destroy
all the nature around them by taking their dogs and cats and .22's and
such up there.

Since the passing of this bill the population of mtn lions has really
grown. Sightings have increased many many times over. I saw one not
long ago myself jumping into the woods next to a mtn road (an old
logging RR grade here in the Sierras) that I like to ride on.
Competition for territory is part of the problem here. Old
experienced established lions drive young lions out. A male lion may
allow a female's terrtory to overlap his, but never another male's. A
male's territory typically is much larger than a females. Young lions
have a tough time getting established, and get pushed out into
civilized areas. Being young (and open to new ideas) they dont
realize that human meat will get them killed.

They aren't really competing with humans directly, for territory, it
is the other lions.

Many others thought that while it was a danger, the greater danger
would be to try to create a world that was all managed and artificial,
like a Japanese Garden (please, no flames, I respect the right of
people to enjoy their Japanese Gardens, OK?). Many of these
supporters thought that we have gone a long ways down that path... we
have almost given up our right to do any kind of dangerous thing! The
government appears to feel that its mission is to protect us from
EVERYTHING at all costs (to us). Some of us feel like we wouldn't
want to live in a world that had no more wilderness, had no more
un-managed wildlife (tame-life?). We thought, no, we don't want any
little girls carried off to the horrified screams of her frantic
mother... but.. somehow, in a larger way, we need to live in a real
world. Losing that for our children and children's children would be
a greater tragedy. We aren't greater than the natural world. We
haven't even really proven our viability as a species, over time. We
destroy our predators and change our environment to suit us (clothes,
houses, etc), then out-grow the sustaining ability of our territory.

I grew up just a whoop and a hollar from a wilderness area used to
spend a lot of time in there. I used to work for the USFS and fall
burning snags in the wilderness, using a misery whip. No engines
allowed. I love nature the way God made it, not as man makes it. I
probably notice things like animals in the forest before a more
urbanized guy might (no guarantee though). I love my daughter too. I
bought a .357 revolver and kept it within reach when I had my girl in
the forest. I use my eyes and brains. I teach my girl about forest
safety. If I lost her I would probably repudiate my current position
on this, but I feel we should have mtn lions. I kinda feel people
should be well-warned, taught what they need to know, then allowed to
enter mtn lion habitat after coming to a realization it isn't a walk
in the mall (though still probably safer).

TRIVIA:

Did you know that the American Black Bear, *STATISTICALLY* is more
likely to stalk and kill you for food than is a grizzly? Grizzlys
generally kill in self-defence or to defend their territory or young.
I didn't say that MORE people are killed by black bears. It seems to
me each year I hear about two or three people being killed by black
bears.

TRIVIA #2

Mtn lions kill several ways. Large males can jump on an animal hard
enough to actually break a full grown elks neck, just by the impact.
The most common way they kill deer is to bite through the back of the
skull into the brain. One may get me someday, but I hope it is after
I put up a good battle, slugging, kicking, yelling and throwing. If
he gets you down cover the back of your head, maybe with your fingers
interlaced behind your head. Don't play dead with a black bear or mtn
lion. But don't run from them either, if you can avoid it, that will
surely trigger a chase. Now if you have a reachable goal it might be
different. Having grown up around animals I think I'd just walk. I
have done that while being charged by a angry black bear mother and a
few dozen farm animals. I used to torment the bulls on the ranch
until they wanted to kill me (hey, I was a kid). Most of them won't
just up and kill you, they have to work up to it if they haven't been
tormented. Walking away has saved my bacon in some of those cases
too.


[1] These cats, statistically, were more often killed by small
caliber rifles or camp pistols than any other weapon. Treed, they are
easy to kill.

[2] California law (within my living memory) came to provide the
people with an initiative process of creating law. Previous to this
only the legislature could create law. Some of us came to realize
that the legislature sometimes was more motivated by it's perceived
self-interest than by 'our' self interest. Most opposed the creation
of the Initiative process.

[3] Some experts claim that there are now more deer in the United
States than at any time since before the revolutionary war. This is
mostly because so much mid-America farm land has gone back to the
wild.

[4] A big problem with comparatively small populations such as the
mtn lion is maintaining a good genetic variety for breeding.
Connecting corredors help keep gene pools from becoming stagnent and
isolated.

[5] Yes, I know that they can live unseen in a community for some
time, living off of cats and yap dogs on up to full grown German
Shepherds. Hereabouts, in 1990, IIRC, we had a mtn lion chase a
German Shepherd through his doggy door and kill him in a kitchen. In
the north edge of town. Don't bother doing a search on this, it
didn't get to the media. I was involved with mtn lions at that time
and got the report. Fish and Game friend of my bud called him and
asked him if he had had any trouble with the stock or dogs or
anything. "No, why?". "We have a radio collar on a lion who has been
hiding on your place in the woods above your house for a couple of
days now". Folks in that area lose a lot of dogs. Which doesn't
bother me a whit even though I am a "dog, pickup and Levis" guy (but I
don't cuss or spit er nuthin). I feel that it is senseless
destruction of our wild areas to turn these animals lose there.
People move up to the mtns, then rare back and say, " You'all are flat
landers! Ahm a mtn-man now!" but then they destroy the nature of the
wild they wanted when they moved up there.