The ongoing debate surrounding mountain lion population is driven by a massive shift in the language used to describe the issue.
If we look back to the March 13, 2004 edition of Morgan Hill Times, Fish and Wildlife Lt. Dave Fox explicitly stated that mountain lions had reached carrying capacity, noting “there are too many to manage” under the restrictions of Proposition 117.
Fox even stated that males killing cubs over territory wasn’t enough to keep numbers down. (His statements were based on his field observations and not a miscalculation from outdated lion tracking.)
This type of public talk is no longer used.
To speak of “carrying capacity” or being “too many to manage” now, would utterly contradict the state’s new “threatened” listing. By law, a threatened listing mandates that the state work to recover, restore and grow the population.
But how do you grow a population that a field expert admitted hit maximum capacity more than two decades ago?
After their 2019 petition to list local mountain lions as an endangered species the Mountain Lion Foundation was facing collapse. By 2026, the foundation had lost its headquarters and its entire staff and was now in debt.
Aggressively pushing for the listing which became their lifeline to recovering, they could not argue listing a species that numbers in the thousands. So they focused on genetic isolation, facing long-term inbreeding depression.
With the help of the Center for Biological Diversity they were able to secure a “threatened” listing under the Endangered Species Act.
This triggers millions of state grant dollars, and public donations to protect an animal under the banner of it being threatened and facing extinction. And the grants and donations have already begun and this is why some expert researchers and biologists do not address mountain lion population.
To admit that mountain lions in the Santa Cruz mountains are showing textbook standard behavior for a habitat that has hit the ceiling would turn into a political paradox.
Rather than addressing total numbers, current policy now relies on wildlife crossings as a fix for genetic isolation.
This explains why ranchers and the outdoor community are feeling the brunt of an overpopulated mountain lion while being told they are “facing extinction” and not “overpopulated.”
Mountain lions in fact are genetically isolated, and they have reached carrying capacity. Since both realities are true, both require active management.
We must address both genetic isolation and local public safety. Blaming affected livestock and pet owners for “failing to coexist” simply dodges proactive management.
Phil Salgado
Morgan Hill
