In my last letter, I used conservative data from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to argue that mountain lion populations are exceeding sustainable levels. But the issue isn’t just mathematical—it’s behavioral.
If mountain lions were truly threatened by low population numbers, we would expect to see large gaps between territories. Young lions would disperse into open areas with abundant prey and little competition.
Instead, we are increasingly seeing them pushed into residential neighborhoods.
This shift is not simply the result of new housing development displacing wildlife. Rather, it reflects intense territorial pressure. Adult mountain lions defend their ranges, forcing younger or weaker animals out—often into our communities.
Describing this as “encroachment” places the burden on homeowners, when in reality it may be a symptom of overcrowding.
If housing alone were the cause, we would have seen a rise in sightings and conflicts decades ago when many of these homes were first built. The fact that incidents involving pets and livestock are increasing now suggests a different dynamic at play.
The situation is especially concerning in already fragmented habitats, where mountain lions remain protected despite limited space and resources. Current strategies emphasize wildlife crossings, but these projects do not create new habitat—they simply connect existing areas.
In the meantime, populations remain constrained, increasing the risk of inbreeding and reduced genetic diversity.
Waiting years for additional crossings without addressing population pressures may not serve either the public or the long-term health of the species.
Phil Salgado
Local mountain lion researcher
