Mountain Lion Foundation

Mountain Lion Foundation Letter Sent to San Benito County Board of Supervisors

---

June 12, 2009

 

 

San Benito County Board of Supervisors

County Administration Building

481 4^th Street,  1^st Floor

Hollister, CA 95023

  

Dear Sirs,

It was with great disappointment that I learned the San Benito County Board of Supervisors has endorsed a letter prepared by County Agricultural Commissioner Paul Matulich regarding the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 (Proposition 117).

The letter, as reported in the Hollister Free Lance, is compiled of unsupported assumptions, fear-generating insinuations, and outright errors about the purpose of Proposition 117. Take for example the letter’s following three statements:

Statement # 1

“. . . the Act also required that one-third of the money ($10 million) must be spent to protect the California deer herd and the mountain lion populations, . . . “

To ensure that mountain lions as well as the rest of California’s wildlife have a place to exist in the future, Proposition 117 allocates $30 million of state funds per year to protect and preserve the State’s most critical wild areas. This allocation, paid for with funds generated through wildlife habitat acquisition bonds, horse racing revenue, environmental license plate sales, endangered species income tax check off, as well as the unused portion of the cigarette tax monies can only be used for the following purposes:

(a) The acquisition of habitat, including native oak woodlands, necessary to protect deer and mountain lions.

(b) The acquisition of habitat to protect rare, endangered, threatened, or fully protected species.

(c) The acquisition of habitat to further implement the Habitat Conservation Program pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 2721) excepting Section 2722 and subdivision (a) of Section 2723, and Sections 2724 and 2729.

(d) The acquisition, enhancement, or restoration of wetlands.

(e) The acquisition, restoration, or enhancement of aquatic habitat for spawning and rearing of anadromous salmonids and trout resources.

(f) The acquisition, restoration, or enhancement of riparian habitat.

As you will note, all of monies are required to be spent on the acquisition of habitat, not on directly “protecting” any species.

Statement # 2

“Due to the passage of Proposition 117, one of California's great natural resources is in danger of becoming extinct. The various species of deer in the state are constantly at risk from the overprotection of the mountain lion.”

Almost every wildlife expert agrees that the most critical threat to California’s wildlife (including deer) is the loss of habitat. The very thing Proposition 117 was created to prevent.  Since its passage in 1990, close to $540 million has been spent throughout California for just that purpose.

What I find especially troubling is the fact that I can find no evidence of San Benito County ever requesting any of these funds to maintain sufficient habitat for its resident deer herd or for any of the County’s other wildlife.

If there has been a critical reduction in San Benito County’s deer herd maybe it is because nobody there in authority has taken advantage of the benefits of Proposition 117’s Habitat Conservation Fund to ensure its well being.

Statement # 3

“. . . it is highly probable that eventually an adult or a child will be mauled, maimed or killed by a mountain lion that has been forced into the more urban or populated areas of the state by the increasing numbers and their territorial tendencies.”

Human encounters with mountain lions are rare and the risk of injury or death from an attack is infinitely small. Since 1890 only 16 people have been attacked by mountain lions in California, and only 6 of those attacks resulted in fatalities.

The assumption that California’s mountain lion population has increased to the point where it is being forced into populated areas does not take into count that possibly it is the reduction of habitat, not an increase in lion population numbers that is the true culprit.

Further, most mountain lion experts agree that healthy mountain lion populations appear to be self-regulating. A region’s lion population will increase or decrease based on the availability of their primary prey species (deer) and the suitability of ground cover. If your county’s deer herd has indeed been reduced, then this should result in fewer lions, not more.

I do not know what evidence was provided to the Board to convince you of the validity of Mr. Matulich’s spurious claims. But I do know that the Hollister Free Lance newspaper ran a series of articles in a lead up to your action where a series of photographs were used to convey proof that mountain lions were gathering in exceptional numbers in San Benito County.

One of these photographs, reportedly taken by surveillance cameras on the San Benito ranch of a Mr. Charlie McCullough, has in fact proven to be the copyright property of the Irvine Ranch Conservancy in Orange County.

According to the Conservancy’s Executive Director, Mike O’Connell, the striking photograph of four mountain lions at a watering trough, is of a female lion and her litter of three sub-adult (teen-age) cubs just prior to their eventual dispersal to find their own territories.

The blatant falsification of this photograph’s true identity to justify the claim of too many mountain lions leads one to wonder what other “evidence” has been tampered with or misstated.

Yes, Proposition 117 specifically classifies mountain lions as “a specially protected mammal” but this only prevents them from being shot for sport. The California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 also provides safeguards from mountain lions for California’s citizens, as well as for their pets and livestock; safeguards that have been highly effective in managing this State’s mountain lion population for eighteen years.

If San Benito County truly has a “mountain lion problem” then there would be a record of that fact.  Yet according to the California Department of Fish and Game’s records, only 15 depredation permits have been requested in San Benito County for mountain lions since 1972; with the last permit requested in 2001—eight years ago.

And only one of those permits was acted on. The last time a mountain lion was killed in San Benito County under a depredation permit was in 1990.

I leave you with these two thoughts.

First, that you and the other members of the Board of Supervisors may have been purposely misled about the true aspects of San Benito County’s mountain lion “crisis” to further someone’s hidden agenda, and

Second, that for whatever reason, over the past two decades San Benito County has been short changed of Habitat Conservation Funds. Maybe instead of asking for its repeal you should be asking for your fair share so you can proactively ensure the continued healthy existence of San Benito’s deer herd as well as that of the County’s other valuable wildlife resources.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Tim Dunbar

Executive Director

The Mountain Lion Foundation

 

 

Four ways you can help:

Donate Join MLF Volunteer Cougar Clippings