Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This man would not have been fined, arrested or anything in between in CA. To suggest otherwise is ignorant and ridiculous. California bashing is a hobby of some people it seems.
After reading the news story and scrolling through this thread, I decided to call a friend of mine who is a California game warden. He told me that the individual who was attacked would definitely be arrested, in regards to the death of the mountain lion. Whether he would be prosecuted would be totally dependent upon the outcome of the investigation and judgement of the respective district attorney and/or the state attorney general.
It appears to investigators that asphyxiation and some blunt force trauma to the head likely led to its death. The lion was pretty young - less than a year old - and likely a male, per CPW. It weighed less than 100 pounds.
I sincerely doubt the bow hunter killed a cougar in self defense. The guy who got shredded and choked the lion out - not the same, so no - there's no f'g way if he was in California or anywhere else would he have a problem.
It happened twice here. I know the second guy and as stated at the bottom, why would he call if he was trying to hide anything?
Wow. Crazy story. Damned if you shoot and damned if you don't. SSS in Ca.
He shouldn't have taken the second shot. He shouldn't have lied about taking a second shot. The second shot, that he claimed was to put the lion out of his misery, merely grazed its paw.
I wasn't there and I don't know, but it seems to me more likely that the second shot was really the first shot. It could have been by accident - thinking the PUMA was a deer or whatever. Or, it could have been intentional. At any rate, he would need a good shot after a shot that merely made the lion highly annoyed at him.
I wasn't there, but the guys story doesn't make sense, AND the fact he wasn't truthful from the get go doesn't help that fact. His punishment for killing a protected species in CA seems more than fair.
Ive seen people bikeriding in grizzly country and recording the bears chasing them. It seems for some, it is great fun to play cat and mouse with grizzlies. Will the bears become bad guys if they ever win the game?
There are easier ways to get exercise than to make tempting fate a part of that chore.
He shouldn't have taken the second shot. He shouldn't have lied about taking a second shot. The second shot, that he claimed was to put the lion out of his misery, merely grazed its paw.
I wasn't there and I don't know, but it seems to me more likely that the second shot was really the first shot. It could have been by accident - thinking the PUMA was a deer or whatever. Or, it could have been intentional. At any rate, he would need a good shot after a shot that merely made the lion highly annoyed at him.
I wasn't there, but the guys story doesn't make sense, AND the fact he wasn't truthful from the get go doesn't help that fact. His punishment for killing a protected species in CA seems more than fair.
Ive seen people bikeriding in grizzly country and recording the bears chasing them. It seems for some, it is great fun to play cat and mouse with grizzlies. Will the bears become bad guys if they ever win the game?
There are easier ways to get exercise than to make tempting fate a part of that chore.
1st, they shouldn't be a protected species in CA. all neighboring States all but give away tags because there are way too many of them. The person I talked to at Cal Forestry said they are tracking 22 cats in an area that should hold 2. This got very sneakily placed on a ballot by a special interest group.
At best he could have been charged without having a cat tag but instead it's worse than robbing a bank with a firearm.
The only thing he did wrong was call. If that happens you just get your arrow and walk away.
Thanks for providing this article, it proves that this guy would not have been charged with a crime.
"Jonathan Stillman killed a lion, which was wearing a radio collar transmitter, as it stalked and closed on his hunting partner, John Vega, during a turkey hunt. The kill was allowed because the wardens determined Vega’s life was in danger."
Stillman wasn't arrested because they determined the lion was shot with the bow in self defense. The other bow hunter they concluded his life was not in danger, that's why he got arrested and charged. When you shoot a lion that's 20 feet away and shoot it twice, you are going to have a tough time convincing the authorities it was in self defense.
The jogger in this case was severely wounded, and rather than shoot the lion from a distance, killed it with his hands - there is no more obvious ccircumstances that prove this lion was killed in self defense.
So no, the idea that the guy in this story would be arrested and/or charged is absurd. Of course people have a right to kill any animal or person in self defense anywhere and everywhere in the US, including California. The only question with protected species like cougars is whether the kill was in self defense.
What we can take away from this is that in California, if you shoot a Cougar with a gun or bow, you will have some 'splaining to do. If you are mauled and kill it with your hands and maybe a rock, you would be in the clear - nobody would ever question these circumstances.
If your housecat could kill you easy by just gaining an extra 10 lbs., please get off C-D and get to a GYM!!!
One time I was hunting ducks in the deep woods many miles from a paved road and had a wonderful day. The very last round I had with me brought one last duck out the air. So I went over to retrieve my duck in tall swamp grass. I reached down to grab what was moving in the grass to be met with teeth coming up at my hand. Here there was a raccoon out in the middle of the day in this swamp and it had me in it's sights. It very well could have been rabid; which was the very first thing that crossed my mind. So I backed up and it still came after me. I don't know if any of you have ever tried walking in tall swamp grass; it is very difficult (let alone trying to run). There were no trees to hide behind or limbs to pickup for a weapon. So I used the only thing I had with me and that was my empty Winchester Model 12. I had hand to hand combat training in the Army and this was the only time I ever got to use that training. I stopped the raccoon and my Model 12 suffered a chip out the stock (which it still has today). But it was not an easy battle; that raccoon was very tough.
I would like to think that raccoon weighed 20 pounds; but it was probably closer to 10 or 12 pounds. Even small wild animals can still be worthy opponents. I guess the moral of my story is to never fire your last round!
After reading the news story and scrolling through this thread, I decided to call a friend of mine who is a California game warden. He told me that the individual who was attacked would definitely be arrested, in regards to the death of the mountain lion. Whether he would be prosecuted would be totally dependent upon the outcome of the investigation and judgement of the respective district attorney and/or the state attorney general.
Uh huh.
Sure you did.
What you've written is complete nonsense. Demonstrably so. Here is the relevant California statute:
(a) The mountain lion (genus Puma) is a specially protected mammal under the laws of this state.
(b)(1) It is unlawful to take, injure, possess, transport, import, or sell a mountain lion or a product of a mountain lion, except as specifically provided in this chapter or in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2116) of Division 3.
(2) This chapter does not prohibit the sale or possession of a mountain lion or a product of a mountain lion, when the owner can demonstrate that the mountain lion, or product of a mountain lion, was in the person's possession on June 6, 1990.
(3) This chapter does not prohibit the possession of a mountain lion carcass or a product of a mountain lion carcass, if all of the following requirements are met:
(A) The carcass or carcass product is prepared or being prepared for display, exhibition, or storage, for a bona fide scientific or educational purpose, at a nonprofit museum or government-owned facility generally open to the public or at an educational institution, including a public or private postsecondary institution.
(B) The mountain lion was taken in California consistent with the requirements of this chapter and any other applicable law.
(C) The department has authorized the possession of the carcass or carcass product for the purposes of this paragraph.
(c) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. An individual is not guilty of a violation of this section if it is demonstrated that, in taking or injuring a mountain lion, the individual was acting in self-defense or in defense of others.
(d) Section 219 does not apply to this chapter. Neither the commission nor the department shall adopt any regulation that conflicts with or supersedes a provision of this chapter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
