California’s Predator Problem: How Anti-Hunting Policies Created the Crisis They Now Decry

For three decades, anti-hunting organizations have steered California’s large-carnivore agenda—banning mountain-lion hunting (Proposition 117, 1990), opposing hound pursuit, and campaigning against targeted removals. Their promise: “co-existence.” Their results: record livestock losses, surging depredation kills, and the state’s first fatal lion attack in 20 years. Let’s examine what those policies have—and haven’t—delivered.

1. Rising Conflict, Rising Lethal Removals

• State records show lions are still removed, not by hunting, but by the state.

  • 2001 — 188 mountain-lion depredation permits issued (106 lions taken)

  • 2010 — permits already hovering above 200 each year

  • 2015 — 248 permits issued, 101 lions taken

  • 2018 — peak of 334 permits issued, 115 lions taken—an increase of nearly 80 percent over the 2001 total

• What the numbers mean. Over 18 years, lethal removals remained constant despite California’s continuing ban on lion hunting. More conflicts meant more emergency permits—and more lions killed by state order.

• Why we stop at 2018. In late 2020 the Department adopted a “three-strikes” memorandum that requires multiple calls before a lethal depredation permit can be issued. That administrative change sharply suppressed permit counts after 2020, masking the reality on the ground. Looking strictly at 2001-2018—before the new policy—gives the clearest picture of “hands-off” predator policy. Cal Fish and Wildlife

• Human tragedy. In March 2024, Taylen Brooks was killed and his brother Wyatt badly mauled near Georgetown, El Dorado County. Wardens tracked and euthanized the lion—an outcome nobody wanted but policy left inevitable.

• Pets and livestock. El Dorado county logged 200+ domestic-animal kills by lions in 2024 alone; similar spikes are reported in Napa, Humboldt, and coastal ranch counties.

When legal, regulated hunting disappeared, conflict kills didn’t vanish—they multiplied.

2. Ecological Collateral Damage

• Ungulate declines. Long-term CDFW and UC-Davis studies link high lion density to depressed fawn-survival and stagnant black-tailed-deer numbers across north-coastal ranges. Wilmers LabWittmer Lab

• Cascade effects. Fewer deer mean fewer carcasses for scavengers and less forage-mediated habitat renewal—undercutting the very “ecosystem health” anti-hunting groups claim to protect.

Predators need prey. Ignoring prey dynamics is not science-based management; it’s wishful thinking.

3. Why “Hands-Off” Failed

Anti-hunting advocates insist lethal take and hound pursuit are “cruel, unnecessary, outdated.” Peer-reviewed fieldwork says otherwise:

• Washington non-lethal pursuit (Parsons et al., 2024). Controlled hound hazing doubled lions’ flight distance from humans and kept cats away from settlements—prompting WDFW to launch a statewide “Non-lethal Pursuit Pass” program. Data Portal

• Nevada vs. California dispersal study (Randolph et al., 2024). Juvenile lions exposed to hunting or hound pursuit avoided human landscapes far more than fully protected California lions. Cal Fish and Wildlife

Non-lethal deterrence and selective lethal take are complementary tools that keep predators wild and people safe. Remove both, and lions learn backyards, barns, and schoolyards are easy territory—until a depredation permit or autopsy ends the experiment.

4. “What Has Been the Benefit?” - If this is “co-existence,” who’s benefiting?

• Human safety: Anti-hunting advocates promised fewer conflicts once lion hunting ended. Reality? California suffered its first fatal attack in two decades (the Brooks tragedy) and a steady rise in close encounters.

• Livestock protection: The expectation was that ranchers would see fewer losses. Instead, counties like El Dorado now tally hundreds of pets and livestock killed each year, with depredation claims climbing statewide.

• Total lion mortality: A hunting ban was billed as a way to spare lions’ lives. But as conflicts soared, wardens issued more lethal depredation permits than ever before—meaning more cats are shot, just without hunter dollars funding research.

• Deer and elk herds: Advocates argued that removing hunting pressure on lions would have no impact on prey. In practice, several deer units show stagnant or declining fawn recruitment where lion densities remain unchecked.

• Agency costs: Critics alleged hunting was a special-interest subsidy. In truth, hunting license fees once paid for mountain-lion studies and response teams; now, the California Department of Fish & Wildlife spends millions from its general wildlife budget to handle emergency lion calls.

So far, the promised benefits—for people, prey, or predators—have failed to materialize.

5. A Path Forward: Full-Toolbox Management

• SB 818 (Tree & Free). Re-introduces tightly regulated non-lethal hound hazing in El Dorado County, paired with a five-year data mandate.

• Targeted lethal removal. Remains essential when a specific lion repeatedly kills livestock or threatens people; quick, decisive action prevents copy-cat incidents.

• Science-based harvest. Limited sport seasons distribute take across the landscape, fund research, and maintain public tolerance for predators.

In short: educate first, remove problem individuals when necessary, and maintain sustainable hunting quotas that finance the system.

Bottom Line

California’s predator woes are not a mystery—they are the direct, measurable outcome of policies written by groups that now point to the carnage they created as proof we need more restrictions. Decades of data show the opposite: balanced, evidence-driven management—including non-lethal hazing and selective lethal take—protects people, prey, and predators better than any blanket ban.

It’s time to judge policy by results, not slogans. Californians—and their mountain lions—deserve nothing less.