Seplember1987

MOUNTA1N l10N

THE CALIFORNIA COUGAR NEWS

The Foundation ContinuesEfforts to Protect Lions

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MllTga;et OwingsPresident

Hon. William Newsom,Northern CaliforniaVice President

Rabbi Ja;eph Hurwitz,Southern CaliforniaVice President

Bill Yeates,Secretary

Scott Hennessey,Treasurer

lise Byrnes

Hon. Frtd Farr

Dr. Alan Rabinowitz

Dr. George SclJaIler

Susan de Treville

Gretchen Wyler

Dirt.CtoT,Sharon Negri

Production: Manette Be1livttluIllustration: MiJcL Kowalski

Design/Production: o.itlin RiversEditor: Sharon Negri

The overwhelming pUblic supportfor protecting mountain lionsprovides the Foundation withthe challenge and opportunityto influence future decisionsthat will lead to the long-termpreservation of California'smagnificent symbol of wilder­ness and natural heritage.

The Foundation has alreadydeveloped short and long-rangeplans for protecting mountainlions that entail: 1) stoppingthe hunting season before itbegins, 2) developing neweducational programs, and 3)developing a proposal toconduct a 5-year independentmountain lion study inCalifornia that will contributeto a better understanding oflions and their habitat needs.

By filing a lawsuit to stop thehunting season, the Foundationhas already stepped in to halt

the senseless destruction of190 mountain lions. (seeLawsuit) Saving mountain lionsfor future generations to come,however, means more than merelystopping the hunting season forthis year - it means getting tothe real heart of the problemby addressing the myths,anecdotal stories, and tradi­tional management practicesthat have plagued the mountainlion for decades.

Right now the Foundation iscreating new educationalprograms to eliminate those ageold myths, such as mountainlion populations are increas­ing; mountain lions are a majorcause of livestock loss anddeer population declines; andmountain lions are a seriousthreat to pUblic safety. Newslideshow/video presentations,brochures, and a children'sprogram will seek to eliminate

conJinued on page 6

Mountain Lion Preservation Foundation

Celebrating Our One YearAnniversaryThe Year's Highlights and Accomplishments

This month the Mountain LionPreservation Foundationcelebrates its one-yearanniversary. Aside from thedisappointing Fish & GameCommission decision, theFour.dation successfully madethe protection of Californiamountain lions one of thepUblic's top wildlifeconcerns.

Reaching one millionCalifornians through themedia and testing whether thepUblic was supportive of amountain lion trophy huntingseason was the Foundation'sprimary effort after itsformation in September of1986. In order to accomplishthis enormous task theFoundation embarked on amajor Public Education andMedia campaign and hired theexpertise of McElroycommunications.

The tremendous success of thecampaign brought widespreadradio, newspaper, andtelevision support fromaround the state. Over 29major newspaper editorialsopposed the DFG's huntingseason and heavily criticizedits research. Virtually everyradio station from Eureka toSan Diego covered the issue.Television commentaries inevery large urban center madereference to the lunacy ofthe DFG plan and urged themto "scrap the idea."

with the help of the media,millions of Californiansbecame aware that the trophyhunting of lions was neitherjustified by research ornecessary to protectlivestock or public safety.The Los Angeles Times

summarized what thousands ofCalifornians felt andpUblicly stated:

"... DFG experts say: "Sport hunting ofmountain lions cannot predictably reducelivestock and domestic animal depredationor predation on wildlife species such asdeer. Nor can it guarantee public safety ... The question, then boils down to this:Do we know enough about the lionpopulation in California, and its ability tosurvive a variety ofenvironmentalpressures, to permit 210 sportsmen totrack the cats with dogs until the windedanimals are cornered and shot? Theanswer is no."

The Foundation also played avital role in providing keytestimony at the Commissionhearings. In February, afterthe DFG recommended ahunting season, theFoundation called in mountainlion experts and biologistwho spent countless hoursreviewing the data. Staffand Board Members spent thenext 3 months summarizing theproblems, preparingtestimony, holding pressconferences, and travelingaround the state speaking togroups, the media, andconcerned individuals.Slideshows and brochures weredeveloped and distributedstatewide refuting the mythsabout lions, correcting themisconceptions about thebenefits of hunting, anddeclaring the need to protectCalifornia's last symbol ofwildness.

After being disillusionedwith the Department'sresearch, we brought in theexpertise of Dr. Hornocker to

2

develop a sound alternativeto the hunting season that isstill being pursued today.

The overwhelming publicopposition to the Fish & GameCommission's decision to re­open mountain lion trophyhunting coupled with the lackof sound data to warrant anyhunting season convinced theFoundation to spearhead thecurrent lawsuit. TheFoundation is leading effortsto raise the funds necessaryto carry out the suit. Withthe generous support of 24well known celebrities, an.adwas placed in newspapersaround the state requestingpUblic support to defraycosts of the lawsuit. AS'ofthis date we have nearlyreached our goal.

The Foundation staff andBoard composed of nationallyacclaimed scientists, leadingstate conservationists, andpUblic figures, are proud ofthe year's accomplishments toprotect California's mostmajestic wildlife species.The Foundation staff hasgrown and now includes SharonNegri, Director; ManetteBelliveau, OfficeAdministrator; Peter Edwards,part-time biologist, andvarious consultants that helpcarry out the publiceducation and researchprograms.

The Foundation Board andstaff thank all of you whohave contributed to thisworthwhile effort andacknowledge that theFoundation would not be whereit is today without theenormous support from ourdonors.

Mountain Lion Preservation Foundation

THE MOUNTAIN LION PRESERVATION FOUNDATION

Foundation FilesLawsuit to HaltHunting Season

On May 13th, the Foundationfiled a lawsuit in the SanFrancisco Superior Court tostop the hunting season onCalifornia mountain lions. Thesuit alleges that the DFG andthe FGC violated theCalifornia EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA) by allowinga mountain lion hunting seasonwithout first conductingadequate environmental review.

Essentially, the lawsuit arguesthat the Department and theCommission failed to conduct a"cumulative impact analysis"discussing the long-termimpacts that hunting and ot~er

factors could have on thelion's population. In addi­tion, testimonies by expertsand other concerned individualswho testified before theCommission voiced theiropinions that the hunt wasbased on highly questionableresearch, were completelyignored. Essentially, the suitargues that more accuratefigures should be obtainedbefore approving a huntingseason that has the potentialfor harming the statewidepopulation.

The lawsuit also findsprocedural and substantivefaults with the agencies'program. These faults are basedon the premise that theagencies (DFGjFGC) assume thatthey are exempt from carryingout adequate environmentalreview procedures. The Fishand Game Commissionhistorically has behaved asthough it could set huntingseasons as a management toolwithout using rigorousscientific methods to justifyits decision to the pUblic.

Foundation attorneys, MichaelRemy and Jim Moose, believe the

odds of success are difficultto predict, since no precedentwith similar facts has everbeen decided in California.If the court rules in ourfavor, the case could set afar-reaching precedent bypreventing such short sighted

The Mountain Lion PreservationFoundation is a nnnprofit tax­deductible organization dedicatedto protecting California mountainlions by educating the public, themedia and the decision makers onthe policy issues that surround themountain lion. It is the goal of theFoundation to eliminate falseperceptions and preconceived

3

phoro wtlrresy of Ron H~'de<£:

and ill advised decisions andforcing DFG and the Commissionto conduct adequate andthorough environmental review.The case is expected to go tocourt in September. If thedecision is not in our favor,we plan to appeal.

opinions about mountain lions sothat these majestic animals canreceive the protection they deserve.For more information write to:

Mountain LionPreservation FoundationP.O. Box 1896Sacramento, CA 95809(916) 442-2666

Mountain Lion Preservation Foundation

Are Mountain Lions Really Varmits?

IIAny glimpse into the life of an animal quickens our own andmakes it so much the larger and better in every way."

John Muir

Are mountain lions a signifi­cant threat to livestock andwildlife? For years live­stock owners and hunters havejustified mountain lion hunt­ing as a way of controllingthe number of predators andthereby reducing losses tolivestock and to deer popula­tions. But is this reallynecessary and are mountainlions really the problem?

DEER POPULATIONS DECLINES

The decline in deer popula­tions in recent years hasbeen of great concern tomany. The mountain lion,however, is not the soleproblem as many hunters wouldlike us to believe, butrather, is the result of manyfactors.

For example, Department ofFish and Game's deer studiesin 1976 concluded that theloss of habitat and dwindlingfood supplies were the majorreason for the drasticdecline in California's deerpopUlations. No study since1976 has shown that thissituation has changed.

Deer are the primary prey formountain lions, and yet noevidence shows that mountainlions can suppress a healthydeer herd. A study in theNorth Kings Area in FresnoCounty tried to prove thatmountain lions were supres­sing the deer herds but otherexperts from around thecountry heavily criticizedthe limited data base andconclusions reached.

Interestingly, studies fromother states actually findthe opposite is true. Along-term study in New Mexicoin which 575 does were radiocollared gave a mortalityrate of 19%, only threepercent of which was due to

lions. Similarly, in 1949half of the mountain lionswere removed from a test areain Utah with no effect on thedeer popUlations. Finally,two long-term studies inArizona concluded that deerpopUlations fluctuateindependent of the coexistingmountain lion population.

Furthermore, the DFG claimsthat twice as many deer arekilled illegally than legallyin this state amounting toapproximately 100,000illegally killed deer annual­ly. It appears that humanencroachment and exploita­tion, not the mountain lion,is the more serious threat tothe declining deerpopUlation.

LIVESTOCK LOSSES

Mountain lion depredation(lions killing livestock) isnot a serious problem to thelivestock industry, but canbe costly to individualranchers when it occurs.According to a survey byranchers several years ago,domestic and feral dogs wereidentified as a greaterthreat to their livestockthan mountain lions (65% asopposed to 8%).

Many people are unaware thatlaws exist, even during themoratorium on mountain lionhunting, that allow ranchersto kill depredating mountain

4

lions. Even in areas wherethere are extensive problems,since 1983 the DFG has hadthe authority to developmanagement plans to reducethe number of lion attacks onlivestock.

One of the Department'sjustifications for a lionhunting season this year wasthe rise in livestock losses·due to lions. But is it asserious a problem as theyclaim?

No. The Department allegesthe 64 attacks in 1982 to 114in 1986 is a reflection ofthe rise in lion populationsand attacks over the last 16years. What the DFG fails totell the public is that priorto 1971 livestock owners hadno incentive to report live­stock loss due to mountainlions. In fact they kept noformal records prior to 1982.Since that time, ranchershave been encouraged toreport livestock losses dueto mountain lions and otherpredators.

In addition, after theFoundation reviewed the DFG'sdepredation reports, thesepoorly kept, often conflict­ing records never supportedtheir claim that mountainlion depredations are on anincrease. According to theDFG's own reports, the numberactually decreased!

Before someone accuses themountain lion of being avarmit, they need to take acloser look at the facts.

Mountain Lion Preservation Foundation

ilJuSl...si<m by Mi« Xowa},/</

U Few of us in this state have actually seen a mountain lion. Butthe knawledge they are there, spectral and feral, gives meaning to

the remote land we must save. "

San Francisco Chronicle

5

contin",ed.frompa~ 1

the myths and stress the impor­tance of the mountain lion as avital and necessary part of thewildlife ecology of the state.

The development of a soundmanagement program for thefuture protection of mountainlion is more difficult thensimply informing the pUblicabout these misconceptions.The humane philosophical con­troversy over the trophy hunt­ing of mountain lions willalways exist. But, the pseudo­scientific debate over howmountain lions should be"managed" must be resolved ifwe are ever truly going toprotect the species and thehabitat it depends upon.

One of the major obstacles toresolving the management debateis the lack, and poor quality,of information on lions, parti­cularly in California. TheFoundation found that theresearch and data the Depart­ment of Fish and Game (DFG)used to justify the huntingseason was contradictory,inconsistent, and in some casescompletely non-existent.

For example, In Region 1, thelargest and most northern pro­posed hunting zone, DFG esti­mated a population density of6-9 lions per square mile basedon a track transect survey thatcovered less that 1 % of the18,612 square miles of landarea. The "research" included17 days in the field, taggingone lion, and undocumented"increased sightings and roadkills." Dr. Michael Kutilek ina paper on the use of track

liThe mountain lion is part ofCalifornia's wilderness heritageand deserves the considerationand protection of the state andits people."

The Desert Sun

Mountain Lion Preservation Foundation

transect surveys states:" .. while track transects(observation of lion tracks)may be used in determining aminimum number of lionspresent, it should not beassumed that they provide anaccurate density estimate.Track transect surveys are bestused as an indicator of popula­tion trends when carried out ina consistent fashion over timewithin the same areas."

In addition to the absence ofsound statistical data, thetraditional management and"game" hunting philosophiesupon which the hunting seasonwas based remains a fundamentalobstacle. The Fish & GameCommission approved the huntingseason this year not becausethe research suggested a needfor killing lions for sport,but because the outdated wild­life management philosophiesprovided no other options. TheDepartments claim that therewas no biological reason not toprohibit hunting of mountainlions was typically misleading.On the contrary, the Commissionhas the legal authority toforbid hunting (despite theLegislature's classification ofthe lion as a "game mammal"),until a more accurate pictureof the lion's population andecology are understood. TheCommission chose instead tofall back on old managementtraditions - providing huntersrecreational opportunitiesrather than fulfill their res­ponsibilities to preservemountain lion populations thatwere clearly in question.

Part of the Foundation's planis to help fund a 5-year studyby Dr. Maurice Hornocker,Director of the Wildlife

Research Institute. Dr.Hornocker is well known andrespected for his decades ofwork on mountain lions in NewMexico, Idaho, and Montana. Hisstudy will address the pressingquestions regarding themountain lion's population,it's habitat needs, and thelions relationship to theirprey. The Department of Fish &Game and 5 major newspapersincluding the L.A. Times havealready endorsed the study. Thedetails of the study will becoordinated between Dr.Hornocker and the Department,but Hornocker will retain fullcontrol over the research.

It is our belief that asystematic research programfairly administered by anindependent scientist willprovide the Department and theCommission with valuable infor­mation upon which to fashion amanagement program that takesinto account the long termsurvivability of the species.At that point the philosophicaland ethical question of the •need to kill mountain lions forfun will be for the pUblic todecide free of any anecdotal oroutdated mythology.

The Foundation will continue tofight the immediate battles tosave the mountain lion. And atthe same time, our long rangeplans will encompass thebroader vision that is neces­sary to maintain the mountainlion as an integral part of thenatural heritage of our state.We believe with much hard work,continued pUblic support, andcooperation between all groupsand agencies concerned, we canachieve protection forCalifornia's most magnificentand elusive predator.

Mountain Lion Preservation Foundation

Legislative UpdateMountain Lion Coalition Sponsored Bill, SB 1687, Defeated in Assembly Commitee

On July 8, 1987 Senator Petris'bill (SB 1687), which wouldhave outlawed the use of dogsin hunting mountain lions, wasdefeated on a 5 to 6 vote inthe Assembly Water, Parks andWildlife committee. Needingseven votes to pass out of thiscommittee, the bill met thesame fate as Assembly MemberTom Bates' bill, AB467, whichwould have reinstated themoratorium on hunting mountainlions.

Assembly Members Bob Campbell(Richmond), Sally Tanner (ElMonte), Bill Filante (SanRafael), Dan Hauser (Arcata),and Phil Isenberg (Sacramento)voted for the bill. Thefollowing members voted againstSB 1687: Chris Chandler (Yubacity), Trice Harvey(~akersfield), Bill Jones(Fresno), Steve Peace (ChulaVista), Tom McClintock(Thousand Oaks), and Jim Costa(Fresno). Vice-Chairman DavidKelley (Hemet) abstained.

SENATE FLOOR VOTE FORECAST THEFATE OF THE PETRIS BILL

Two weeks prior to the AssemblyCommittee vote, Senator Petrishad to bring the bill up threetimes to get the necessary 21votes to pass SB 1687 out ofthe state Senate.

The following Senators who hadvoted for Senator Presley's

bill, SB 76, in 1985, whichwould have extended themoratorium on hunting mountainlions, failed to supportSenator Petris' "no dog" bill:Marian Bergeson (NewportBeach); Wadie Deddeh (SanDiego); Barry Keene (Benicia);and, Ken Maddy (Fresno).(Recent state senate electionsalso hurt us as Senators DonRogers and Cecil Green voted"no" on SB 1687, when formerSenators Walter stiern and PaulCarpenter supported SB 76 in1985. )

The principal opponents to thePetris bill on the Senate Floorwere Republican Senators BillRichardson (Glendora) and JimNielsen (Santa Rosa). Unableto defend the cowardly sport ofchasing a mountain lion with apack of hounds, Richardsondeclared that SB 1687 was an"anti-gun" bill and "senatorialvotes would be so noted. Anaide to Assembly Member StevePeace was actually workingSenators on the Floor urgingthem to oppose the Petris billand avoid a "bad NRA" vote.

NRA MADE PETRIS BILL THEHIGHEST LEGISLATIVE PRIORITYFOR 1987

On a bill that clearly did notoutlaw the hunting of mountainlions and in no way affectedany hunter's use of any legalweapon, it is interesting to

observe how Members of theLegislature let SenatorRichardson and the NRA deter­mine the political agenda on SB1687.

Assembly Member Dan Hauserduring the Water, Parks andwildlife hearing asked the NRArepresentative, Dave Marshall,to state publicly what Marshallhad told Hauser privately.Marshall stated that the NRAwould consider a vote in favorof SB 1687 to be as importantto its members as any vote inthe Legislature this year,including any votes on guncontrol. He concluded that aMember's vote on SB 1687 wouldbe noticed to the NRA member­ship during next year'selection campaigns. (AfterMarshall's dialogue, Dan Hauserurged an "aye" vote on SB1687! )

Essentially, rural, conserva­tive, or moderate members ofthe Legislature, (like StevePeace, who curries favors fromconservatives) believe it isless risky to vote against theoverwhelming pUblic oppositionto hunting mountain lions thantake on the credibility of theNRA on an issue that in no wayaffects the use of a gun.Obviously, these Membersbelieve the NRA will hold themaccountable, whereas thegeneral pUblic will not.

Special AcknowledgmentsBecause of the outpouring ofsupport we receive daily inthe mail, the Foundationstaff apologize for not beingable to thank everyone fortheir generous contributionsand support. We would liketo take this opportunity tothank everyone who hasresponded to our funding

requests for the lawsuit andthe pUblic education andresearch programs.

We would also like to thankthe individuals whovolunteered for the phone­banks in Los Angeles and SanDiego. Special thanks toMarla Morrissey, Bob Porec,

7

Bee simpson, Ellen Little andall the organizations andindividuals who supported ourefforts over the last year.

A very special acknowledge­ment to Mike Kowalski for hismasthead illustration on thecover and other specialprojects.

v Indian Poster( 18124)

HAND SIGNEDLimited Edition

Att Quality$50 donaoon

IIIJs/uldtsPltSpirit rLtheMoon~

< T-Shirt

MOUNTAIN LIONT-SHIRTS AVAILABLE

100010 CottonNatural, Silver, Blue

S, M. L, XLCoI;t: $10.60 +

$1.00 postage forfirst shirt and

50 cents postage foraddioonal shift';.

" Bumper Sticker$2.00

All items include taX

SAVE CALIFORNIA- -MOUNTAIN LIONS

NOTROPHV HUNTING

TOTAL COST'-Le. postage

Your purchase of these items "IIhel WI

Spaur efforts to

ave the M ountain Lion

SIZECOLOROUANTfTY

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY

STATE & ZIP

PHONE

r---- ,ITEM

TOTAL ENCLOSED:

Non-Profit OrgU.S. Postage'

PAIDPermit # 38

Sacramento. CA

Sa"amento UNDATION

California ' '-./J95809

f7'.

MOUNTAIN LION PRP.O. Box 1896 ESERVATION FO