Mountain Lion Petition under California ESA

[PacNW]

Anyone been following the petition to list Mountain Lions under the California state Endangered Species Act? If you haven't, but are interested, the petition is under review by CDFW. Which if I'm following, is due at some point with the agency's recommendation to the state game commission. The timetable for that review has presumably slipped past the nominal 12 month review period due to various factors, pandemic and otherwise (the petition was submitted summer of 2019 -- so the process is in year three since submission). Admittedly, I have not been following this process from the start, but I suspect maybe others on here have been, to one degree or another.

If at this point you're about to start typing a reply below about how many deer mountain lions eat, that's not why I'm posing this question. I'm actually more curious about the science behind the petition and CDFW's review of that. The petition seems to hang its hat on a recent study of mountain lion genetics in California -- which seems quite interesting in terms of breeding population structure, and relevant to CDFW's review under state law. Also, my read of the petition is that it disputes nominal abundance estimates currently accepted (I think) by the agency as best available science and instead proposes genetic estimates of "effective population size" as the yard stick for abundance. The effective population size estimates are a fraction of a normal head count, given low levels of genetic diversity in some areas/subpopulations -- notably from San Francisco south along the coast, and into Southern California. If there are any geneticists out there, I'd also love to hear their thoughts on that aspect of the science currently under review by CDFW.

 

[Ridley]

I read the proposal when I first came out and they are focusing on listing the populations along to southern coast range down into the LA region. Honestly Lions in that part of CA are in trouble. The rest of the CA lions are very healthy. I am not a geneticist but am a wildlife biologist and unfortunately I am not really up to date on the nuts and bolts of your question. My basic understanding is that through genetics they can determine breeding population size because they start seeing less diversity in the population as fewer and fewer individuals breed. With less and less recruitment the genetics are not robust and the overall health of the population goes downhill fast.

 

[PacNW]

I read the proposal when I first came out and they are focusing on listing the populations along to southern coast range down into the LA region. Honestly Lions in that part of CA are in trouble. The rest of the CA lions are very healthy. I am not a geneticist but am a wildlife biologist and unfortunately I am not really up to date on the nuts and bolts of your question. My basic understanding is that through genetics they can determine breeding population size because they start seeing less diversity in the population as fewer and fewer individuals breed. With less and less recruitment the genetics are not robust and the overall health of the population goes downhill fast.

Thanks for this. And fellow wildlife scientists here. My background is in pop dynamics modeling & estimating sustainable mortality limits (applied to native subsistence whaling, and a range of other critters, as opposed to typical game quotas). I live south of San Francisco on the coast (in the petition's Central Coast-North area), where we have what I would have considered (in my very un-expert opinion) a generally healthy population of mountain lions in the relatively undeveloped coastal hills.

The petition actually came to my attention when the town of Woodside made the news for declaring itself mountain lion habitat to halt development of affordable housing. Anyway, it certainly seems that CDFW have their work cut out for them in this review. And just from first glance at the genetics paper / petition, I'd tend to agree re: some of the breeding populations proposed for SoCal cats, and wouldn't be surprised if one or more of those get listed as either threatened or endangered.

For some other areas, it seems there is a question of what do we expect in terms of viable numbers from an apex predator with large home range territories. My understanding is that a single male will try to control a pretty big territory, killing any kittens in his area that aren't his progeny. I don't think we'd expect large densities of such apex predators, even in a pristine ecosystem. And that seems to make the consideration of what is a viable/threatened/endangered abundance level a complex endeavor. Weighing the genetics data, and interpreting effective population size estimates, certainly seems to throw an extra wrinkle into that too. But then again, I am neither a mountain lion biologist, geneticist, nor an expert on the state ESA.

 

[Tomek]

I'd be curious to see a management plan to know what a healthy population would look like based on genetic diversity against the regional ability to support that population.

I'm in WI and our hot button predator issues are with wolves, are the challenges and issues similar in CA with lions?

 

[PacNW]

I'd be curious to see a management plan to know what a healthy population would look like based on genetic diversity against the regional ability to support that population.

I'm in WI and our hot button predator issues are with wolves, are the challenges and issues similar in CA with lions?

Can't say I'm familiar with WI wolves. It looks like they've recently been federally protected there (and in the lower 48, outside the northern Rockies)?

One thing I've learned reading-up on the history of mountain lion hunting in CA is that Ronald Reagan (then Gov.) signed the first moratorium in 1971. That ban expired in 1986, but as far as I can tell, there weren't any hunting seasons open after 1986. In 1990, the legislature put a proposition to the public, banning mountain lion hunting in CA, which passed by a majority of voters... If you ask me, that's doesn't seem to be an ideal approach -- I would much rather see wildlife management/conservation decisions based on science as opposed to public opinion. But that's just me.

 

[2-Stix]

As a 4th gen So Cal native from a long line of outdoorsmen, our deer population is terrible and the lions are thriving...just outside of LA County. We see tracks often in the high country where we get out to hike, fish and ride dirt bikes.

 

[cacklercrazy]

Anyone been following the petition to list Mountain Lions under the California state Endangered Species Act? If you haven't, but are interested, the petition is under review by CDFW. Which if I'm following, is due at some point with the agency's recommendation to the state game commission. The timetable for that review has presumably slipped past the nominal 12 month review period due to various factors, pandemic and otherwise (the petition was submitted summer of 2019 -- so the process is in year three since submission). Admittedly, I have not been following this process from the start, but I suspect maybe others on here have been, to one degree or another.

If at this point you're about to start typing a reply below about how many deer mountain lions eat, that's not why I'm posing this question. I'm actually more curious about the science behind the petition and CDFW's review of that. The petition seems to hang its hat on a recent study of mountain lion genetics in California -- which seems quite interesting in terms of breeding population structure, and relevant to CDFW's review under state law. Also, my read of the petition is that it disputes nominal abundance estimates currently accepted (I think) by the agency as best available science and instead proposes genetic estimates of "effective population size" as the yard stick for abundance. The effective population size estimates are a fraction of a normal head count, given low levels of genetic diversity in some areas/subpopulations -- notably from San Francisco south along the coast, and into Southern California. If there are any geneticists out there, I'd also love to hear their thoughts on that aspect of the science currently under review by CDFW.

I understand genetics a little. The problem there running into is actually caused by the lack of hunting somewhat. First off look back at the healthy population of cats before the ban on hunting. Population of them exploded after ban. Then deer herds were hurt from multiple factors. Cats were forced into smaller areas which causes inbreeding. The cats would benefit from a reduction in population. This would cause males to move around to find females. This would help with inbreeding. I will say it again and again liberals, Peta, and the Sierra club do more harm than good,but to stupid to realize it.

 

[justin davis]

If they allowed hunting it would Be better for the lions and other animals.

 

[87TT]

Probably serve them right if they put the cats on the ESL. Then other people could be affected by their loony Management . Won’t hurt the deer herd any. still Won’t be able to hunt the cats and probably won’t help them.

 

[Lou (Louis)]

If they allowed hunting it would Be better for the lions and other animals.

Is there a way to like a post infinite times?

 

[CanadianSpy980]

Without wanting to cause turmoil, I honestly think we're seeing the set up for a nationwide wildlife environment that makes man "endangered." Even if you don't believe the bible, this is what God said to Moses regarding Israel entering the promised land: "I will not drive them (the inhabitants) out from you in a single year, so that the land will not become desolate and the beast of the field become too numerous for you" (Exodus 2:39).

 

[87TT]

California ain’t the “Promised Land”.