State mountain lion management policies leave rural residents, livestock managers and pet owners stripped of practical defenses. Under current laws, property owners must endure repeated livestock or pet losses under a rigid “three strike” model before qualifying for state assistance.
Mountain lions will often kill multiple animals in one night no matter how protected they are.
“Look at the Homestead Attack” (Feb. 28, 2025): in Fort Bragg a mountain lion breached a double electric fence to kill three family pets but only considered strike one. This family must still endure two more massacres to reach strike three.
This creates an impossible dilemma for pet owners. Standard pet adoption contracts explicitly require owners to provide a safe environment and protect their animals from preventable harm. By forcing citizens to tolerate multiple predatory attacks before intervening, state policy effectively compels residents to violate these legally binding adoption agreements.
I adopted mine from San Martin Animal Services. And although I supervise my pets when outdoors and carry bear spray, I know there is no way I could stop a 150-pound lion from exploding through the brush and attacking my animals.The stress toll is incredible every single day.
On Feb. 12, 2026, mountain lions were officially listed as threatened, and just five days later, the Coexisting Act was introduced, placing additional restrictions on families trying to protect their homes, pets and livelihoods.
Many local residents now live in constant worry, feeling trapped on their own land by laws that compel total tolerance of an apex predator without providing safe, usable remedies.
Although there are worse dangers to worry about, there isn’t a stack of laws forcing us to tolerate worse dangers on our own property.
Our only recourse is the unrealistic right to shoot a mountain lion during an active attack. This is both impractical and unsafe.
Mountain lions hunt by ambush. Expecting a resident to discharge a firearm in the dark at 3am at a fast moving target near neighboring homes is reckless and creates a severe public safety hazard for the entire community.
A major problem is the influence of activist foundations spreading incorrect non-scientific information. Having participated in the Feb. 12 public hearing, I witnessed first hand how these activists frequently drown out local residents who actually live alongside these animals.
First, activist groups misuse the term “extinction vortex.” As defined by federal agencies, this means a species is vanishing entirely. The correct term for localized decline is “extirpation.”
Because robust mountain lion populations exist nearby, local challenges represent potential extirpation, a status that allows for active management.
Second, the label “keystone species” is often misapplied. Historically, mountain lions were subordinate to predators like the grizzly bear, which truly reshaped the landscape. Mountain lions only assumed keystone status by default when grizzlies were eradicated.
Applying the keystone label simply by default sets a precedent where any remaining predator inherits the title. Following this method we would end up with a bullfrog on our state flag.
These false attributes lead groups of activists to view rural homeowners as villains for wanting to remove such a harmless endangered keystone species facing extinction.
The state must balance wildlife conservation with safety, property rights and legal obligations to its citizens.
Forcing tax paying citizens to bear the stress and financial burdens of laws promoted by unaccountable activists who are not even required to understand the laws they promote is unacceptable.
I urge local policymakers and state officials to reconsider recent restrictions and provide practical, timely support to the communities directly living with these predators. Our pets are family, not mountain lion food.
Phil Salgado
Morgan Hill
