to Peter Jacobs -

I own guns, but I do NOT hunt. I cannot kill an animal !! They have a right to live on this planet as much as I do. I HATE pics of hunters smiling broadly while kneeling next to a beautiful - but dead animal - their high powered rifle by their sides. Where is the glory ??

I don't much care for anything to do with California, but I DO agree with their animal conservation laws and principles.

george

Jacobs, same can be said about abortion which you libs aggressively promote

That is the typical right wing twist and spin. You cannot show, where anyone has aggressively promoted abortion. They do aggressively stand up for the right to make your own choice, unlike you. You also seemed to have over looked the part about, " Richards also came under fire for accepting the $7,000 hunting trip without paying any of the cost."

that is the big difference you call it choice to kill a baby you made the rest will call it murder and it is promoted aggressively in several states and called PRO-CHOICE. On the subject of excepting a $7,000 trip, I won a vacation worth that, does that mean my employer has a right to fire me

He didn't do anything wrong or illegal... Just because you may disagree with what he did doesn't mean he should lose his position.

Accepting a $7,000.00 valued trip had to be wrong or why would he reimburse the payer after he got caught and exposed?

On it...that's correct. Most public officials are prohibited from taking any of value over a small limit. I'm sure that's the "legal" justification for firing him. Otherwise, as liberal as the CA courts are, I'm sure he could have fought for and maintained his position on legal grounds.

The CA officials claiming they fired him for reasons related to the animals welfare are BS.

I'm a hunter but have never understood hunting just for the photo op. If your just killing for a trophy picture you give us all a bad name. Its pure ego and arrogance to kill any animal for that sole purpose.

California has several fish on the protected species list. (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/fully_pro.html)

So if the guy went fishing in Idaho and had a picture taken of him and a fish he had been proud to have landed, would they have fired him for that?

What if he had went to a store in CA and bought a fish and ate it?

The hypocrisy here is so deep.....

For all of you who think he shouldn't have lost his position for what he did, consider this...

If he had been the Chairman of a Board that opposed Gay Marriage in California, and he then went to NYC and married another man, would you be offended that he lost his position? It wasn't illegal after all...

I'm not up on California law so some-one, help me out.

1. Is it true some areas are posted in effect that people should stay out because mountain lions may eat them?
2. Is it true that those who act in violation of California law while in some other state are considered bad people and may have a price to pay in California?
3. Is it true that relatives of those eaten by mountain lines have no civil or criminal redress?
4. Is it true that mountain lions are not rare but in fact are starting to be seen in populated places? Like malls and school grounds?
5. Is it true that a definition of mental illness is when someone lacks a sense of proportion?

Why oh why do the "pro-life" crowd not understand that pro-choice people are for women having the right to make ALL the choices - including having the baby (and getting help paying for the medical costs associated with having and raising the baby as well as food to make sure that the baby grows up healthy) or giving it up for adoption? We're also for making sure our young people have the information in order to PREVENT pregnancies (which is what PLANNED Parenthood is all about).

I am pro-choice. I have a 5 year old son who was wanted and loved. I also am the wife of a hunter who goes out to help supplement our groceries with deer. What the wildlife official did was 1) accept a "gift" that was above the threshold for his office, 2) not repay the gift until the public cried out about the possibility of corruption (it could be seen as a BRIBE), 3) shoot and kill an animal out of state that the state he is a public official for protects, 4) HAVE HIS PICTURE PROUDLY TAKEN WITH THE DEAD ANIMAL, 5) not understand how that can be seen as a conflict of interest for his position. It gives at least the appearance of impropriety. Part of his position is to PROTECT the Mountain Lion in California, the fact that he would then go out of state JUST to shoot one is a little weird - it would seem to indicate that he would NOT protect the animal within his state.

I am not arguing that what he did in killing the mountain lion was against the law ... he is entitled to hunt and in Idaho, the hunt was legal. What he neglected to do was understand the APPEARANCE of what he did and how it might negatively effect his job. If you're a "law enforcement officer" who goes out of the jurisdiction to perform an activity that may be legal where you are but is instead illegal for where you live, it looks like maybe you're not going to DO YOUR JOB when you're at home. Someone else correctly compared it to a DEA agent going overseas where smoking pot is legal and then posting pictures of it ... they better expect that they will lose their job when they get home.

Hunt with a telescope lens and shoot a picture instead of killing a majestic animal.

Good Ole Dog, Thank you sir, you are right. Dad always instructed us to never kill unless hungry and need to eat. Otherwise, leave life alone. We have weapons all over our ranch and they are utilized to protect life and not take it for no reason.

If your definition of a pompous @$$ is not killing an animal then you are right, I am. If you definition of a pompous @$$ is voicing my opinion trying to protect animals that can not shoot back, then you are right, I am. My definition of a pompous @$$ is someone signing a contract and agreeing not to attack personally other Vine members instead of adding something positive to the conversation.

This dumb decision could be fought in a court (outside California) and easily won.

He did NOTHING wrong within his scope of responsibility. He honored all California laws. He honored all laws concerning the taking of this animal... I don't get it...

I can't use a rifle to shoor deer in my state (I am a hunter), but I can go to a neighboring state and use a rifle to shoot deer. Does that mean I should have something taken away from me in my home state if I use a rifle to hunt in another state? See, it doesn't make sense!

Don't worry folks. At the rate Utah, Idaho, and several other such "red" states are destroying their environment, there soon won't be anything left there bigger than a ground squirrel to kill. Still, the squirrels are more likely to succumb to lung disease than a bully's bullet.

http://www.uphe.org/latest-news/lawsuit-against-rio-tintokennecott-for-violating-the-clean-air-act

http://www.standard.net/topics/opinion/2010/08/19/dont-burn-ogden-houses

http://www.standard.net/stories/2011/12/09/smog-debuts-weber-county

"Business friendly" indeed. It's more like "business patsy".

Some of these "hunters" lie in wait just outside the bounds of Yellowstone National Park for any unsuspecting creature that wanders outside.

http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/11094.htm

http://www.hubya.com/hyo/

Pompous @SS said 'back east'? Pot, kettle... Hahahaha... Too funny.

Some people apparently don't know the difference between "wrong" and "illegal." Not everything that is wrong is illegal, and vice versa. I hunt, but not for trophies. He may have done nothing illegal, but if he doesn't eat mountain lion, he did something wrong in my opinion.

denver bill 2 -

Apparently you don't understand the population has to be controlled in our modern world. Animals exceeding specific population levels (established by wildlife officials) that exceed self-sustaining level but approach nuisance levels dictate the harvest of ANY wild animal. To maintain a healthy cat population, while protecting the interests of the human population, harvests of animals are warranted.

If the animals are hunted by permit, the money paid to the state goes directly to the state wildlife management funds. With the lawful harvest of one cat, this and other wild game species benefit. The predator population is kept in check so your dogs or cows or sheep or deer or any native nonpredator species do not disappear at an increasing rate.

It is a fine line we walk with wildlife management. Hunters are also conservationists. You as a hunter should already know this stuff.

Just another case of a large ego teamed up with a small pecker, shooting and killing a defenseless animal so he can feel like a big man. Truly pathetic.

This is just more typical intolerance from the left. I guess that is how regimes like the Nazi's and Soviet Union take control. We start trying to destroy the lives of individuals just because we disagree with them. This shows all the more reason we need to stand together to protect people from the vicious and hateful left with their close minded ideas and vindictive actions. California shoud be embarrassed by this type of political intolerance. I guess democrats have a history of this type of action. They used to not let "colored" people drink in the same drinking fountain. Now they want to control the actions of hunters the same way.

Any man that hunts down a defenseless animal with a gun is a pos. This man should be hunted down like the animal he became the day he shot and killed this innocent lion that was doing no one any harm.

I 100% understand hunting deer for food, but what purpose is served killing a mountain lion? A little to small somewhere else? What a brave man.

Robert Duckworth - Either we keep the predator population in check, or humans move out of the rocky mountain states and give it to the predators. It is fine to have mountain lions. We all want that layer of diversity. But look at post 1.22 and keep an open mind...

Think I am wrong? Google predator attacks on humans and livestock over the last 30 years. High populations of predators absolutely means an increase in negative contacts with said animals!

I own guns.

I Hunt

I kill

I eat the meat

I do not trophy hunt

I do not hunt for fun

I hunt for food

I only take what i can consume

I support game management

I support hunting

I do not support trophy killing

I think the right to hunt is one thing

The right to just kill is different

If you are just a tag filler then that is not hunting in my book

Kill for fun bad

Kill for food good

As for the hunting - no big deal, if the wildlife officials determined that a hunt was appropriate for management in that state. As for photo-posing with the kill, and allowing it to be posted - sheer stupidity.

The action that was unethical, perhaps illegal, was accepting a $7,000 gift (article does not say who paid for the hunting trip and what was included.) Above, getoveryourself12 asks if he would be fired for winning a trip. No, unless "winning" your trip were due to your employment. As a public official, a member of a California commission has restrictions on acceptance of gifts, to make it less likely that gifts (bribes) will affect decisions. Many private companies also have restrictions on gifts from coworkers, vendors, shareholders or customers. The key is the relationship to the job - a gift from a hunting lodge (even out-of-state) to a wildlife commissioner is obviously unethical, because it could affect official actions.

So, we are supposedly blogging about someone resigning their position for legally shooting a mountain lion and yet the thread is twisted and we find that somehow "libs" who support pro-choice are the problem?

Attention! No matter which side of the political aisle you are on, if you are denigrating entire groups of people rest assured that many will rightfully attribute your post to someone with a weak mind. Lazy minds, take the words or deeds of individuals and apply them to entire groups. The complete lack of real thought necessary for this is proof your conclusions are flawed on nearly any given subject. We are all prone to this behavior from time to time, but I urge us all to let individuals words or actions stand as representative of ONLY the individual! Those who label entire groups are prone to racism, sexism, and a whole host of ignorant, backward thought.

As to the official losing his job, those within the state he has jurisdiction over have an expectation that he will enforce the laws of his state. When he goes out of state to hunt animals it is illegal to hunt in his own, it could lead some to conclude that he may not be in agreement with the laws he is expected to uphold. Whether this is true or not, the actions of the official instilled doubt in the minds of the people of the state of California.

I live in an area where Mountain Lions are fairly common, I have personally confronted a lion who was holding my daughters dog in it's mouth. Lions do pose threats to people, pets and livestock. In my case, I understand that where I live, is my choice, the lion was here first and was just doing what any predator does to survive.

Small dog + hungry lion + opportunity = small dog in lion's mouth. NOT the lion's fault! BTW, the dog survived, and so did the lion!

So, I support protecting wildlife and taking wildlife when it's appropriate to do so. The official who resigned seems to understand the situation. Shooting the lion aside, taking advantage of a 7,000.00 hunting excursion IS inappropriate for any public official. Those who work on behalf of the public are fully aware of the need to act in ways that reinforce, not undermine, confidence in their ability to be fair and unbiased.

If only more of our elected officials were held to such standards!

....population has to be controlled in our modern world. Animals exceeding specific population levels (established by wildlife officials) that exceed self-sustaining level but approach nuisance levels dictate the harvest of ANY wild animal. To maintain a healthy cat population, while protecting the interests of the human population, harvests of animals are warranted.

Totally agreed. Humans are animals as well. What needs to be done to keep a healthy human population? When are we going to put in place population control licenses and birth control licenses. A mountain lion is no more a predator than we humans moving into their habitat. I remember the scene in Matrix describing humans as viruses. We go in and overpopulate and destroy the Nature which supports our lives and move on when there is nothing left. We need to learn to live within our means. This would include a healthy respect for life on our planet.

Arieus

Any man that hunts down a defenseless animal with a gun is a pos.

So, I take it you are either a vegetarian or a hypocrite.

This guy did absolutely nothing wrong!!! Note, I did not say he did nothing illegal, that is obvious, what I said is he did nothing wrong. In Idaho hunting mountain lions is legal for a reason. The state has a thriving population of mountain lions and that population must be controlled. As an apex predator, mountain lions have no natural enemies. That means that unless they are hunted the population will continue to grow until there is not enough food for them in their natural environment. This leads to two problems. First, it leads to mountain lions becoming a problem for ranchers and even average citizens as the mountain lions start taking animals from ranchers herds and even going into developed areas and taking pets just so they have something to eat. Second, it leads to animals starving because they can not find enough food. Wildlife management is a delicate balance. You want to maintain a healthy population of a species to make sure it survives but you also want to make sure that the population does not get too large such that animals start to starve to death or become problems by coming into developed areas. I am sure that people with small children or pets would not be happy with a mountain lion roaming through their neighborhood looking for something to eat because their food supply in their natural environment is not sufficient to support all of the animals. Idaho grants a set number of licenses to hunt mountain lions each year as a way to control the population. This is not only not wrong, it is actually a humane thing to do on the larger scale. While some animals will be killed, it helps ensure that those that remain have enough to eat and that they do not become a problem in developed areas resulting in calls for open season on the animals. Just because CA has not reached the point where they feel it is necessary to use limited hunting as a method to control the mountain lion population does not mean that holds true in other states. Participating in this hunt was part of a controlled wildlife management effort, not an indiscriminate killing of an animal. This is what conservationists are supposed to be all about. This guy did nothing wrong and should not have lost his job.

Concernedone - mountain lion populations had been decimated in the Americas, especially in the eastern part of the US, throughout the 20th century. Up until 2011 the animal was protected under the Endagered Species Act. Much of Central and South America still have protections on the animal as well.

While they are legal to hunt with permit in all states, defending hunting of big cats as "population control" is a joke. We must get real, and call it what it is, trophy hunting - nothing more. In terms of "predator attacks on humans and livestock" only one state in the nation labels the mountain lion as a nuisance animal - that's Texas, where the government says it's OK to kill people just as easily as animals.

Now let's take a look at a native species that we do need to control via hunting: white tail deer. The reason their population has exploded - we have killed all of their natural predators. There is NO danger of deer "disappearing at an increasing rate," in fact, evidence shows quite the opposite. I would argue deer cause more harm and damage to humans. Predator attacks on humans are exceedingly rare relative to the number of people who hit deer in every state every single day causing loss of property and in some cases loss of life.

I used to own a lot of guns (17), but not anymore. I don't hunt and hate the taste of deer meat, but have no problem with people hunting. Mountain Lions can overpopulate just like deer do, except younger mountain lions will be forced to move into human populated areas posing a threat. If Idaho has an excess population that needs culling then take out the mature alpha males and wildlife is the better for it. If there are as few there in Idaho as there are in California and should be protected, but aren't then I can see the guy losing his job. If Idaho has excess then the guy did a wonderful job helping to promote wildlife genetic diversity. NOW, the part of the $7,000 "gift" makes me shake my head thinking how stupid can that guy be? Seriously, who in the heck "gifted" him $7,000 and what did they expect to gain for it??

For those who wanted to turn this into a discussion about abortion for some stupid reason you should know that so-called "pro-lifers" are the ones most responsible for abortions in this country. We who are pro-choice hate abortion as much as anyone does, so we try to make sure women have many options to choose from. We promote sex education classes starting before children reach puberty, we promote greater access to birth control, we do all we can to prevent unwanted pregnancies. You so-called "pro-lifers" teach abstinence in school which is a huge failure and leads to abortion. You deny access to birth control which leads to abortion. You deny access to pre-natal screenings and family planning programs which leads to abortions. Plus, on top of all that you are against programs that help feed the child if it does get carried full-term. My god!! You people support taking a 12yr old rape victim and having a metal probe shoved up inside her if she doesn't want what you consider God's gift to her from the rape. You people make me sick!!

The True pro-lifers out there support the same programs we pro-choice people do because they know as well as we do that if every pregnancy was one that was wanted, instead of unwanted, then there wouldn't be any abortions at all except in the more extreme circumstances.

Stop worrying about the mountain lion, if the guy had tried killing it with a knife he'd have ended up dead and eaten and if the mountain lion had been left alone it had the potential to kill an innocent child/adult. As long as there are enough of them to be considered a viable breeding population then don't fear, it's possible you could have a member of your family killed by a mountain lion one day down the road.

@MmmMmmBeer, how right you are on deer. Being from the south we don't see a lot of road kill deer and been 3yrs since I saw one personally, scared hell out of me at 4am as it stood looking at my headlights on the shoulder of I-75 South. The north is a whole nother story, first time going into PA up I-79 I started counting about 5 road kill deer per mile between state line with WV and I-70. My run-in with one in my path was in a curve on Hwy 844 West out of Washington, PA, missed him by 50' when he crossed into the other lane and I swear his butt hit the pavement when I laid on my horn going by him. That was early in the morning, I also seen one jump in front of traffic in the late afternoon about 100yds ahead. Deer up there need some serious hunting done.

mmmbeer - Yea, I know all about the history, range, etc... of mountain lions. I live in the midwest. One was spotted across the road from my house (about 75 yards from the front door), then again in MY BACKYARD by a neighbor, then about a quarter mile away from my house. All sightings were within a 3 month period. The last confirmed mountain lion in my county was in 1886.

I've read up extensively regarding mountain lions over the last year. You can't really educate me and "help" me to understand... I already get it... And if you have one roaming around your house, around your animals, and around your family who FORMERLY went for walks in the woods, you might look at this differently!

You are correct on the deer population. I personally have harvested around 65 myself - none of which went to waste. Either my family ate them, or the food bank distributed them, or they were personally given to needy families after I processed them.

defending hunting of big cats as "population control" is a joke

Walk into a town hall meeting in a rocky mountain community and tell them this - especially if ranchers are present... They might help educate YOU!

Awwww, don't take it too personally there Pete... my horoscope said that I'd piss off a liberal today...

@Keith and @Concernedone - at least we can all agree that deer overpopulation is a problem in the US. Keith where in the south do you live (along I75?) because in central NC, I typically see about 1-2 deer nightly off to the side of the road, and my average drive to work there is at least 1 carcass that has been hit. Some studies estimate the white tail population at 25 million. I'm simply saying that from a "population control" perspective, hunting deer should be much higher priority.

Concerned, I never claimed that you were ignorant about mountain lions in general, however, you did a great job reiterating my point. Your county had no confirmed sighting for over 125 years. Now that our conservation efforts have improved and the population is on the rebound, the first thought should not be "let's hunt them to control their populations." And clearly, as you can tell from the Wildlife Commissioner's photo and gifted hunting trip, population control was not on their mind. I will give you that in very niche areas of the country, there may be a problem. That is why hunting mountain lion is still permitted (albeit highly regulated). But even in those niche areas, they are hunting an animal causing a nuisance, not hunting an animal that has over-populated its habitat.

concernedone

@ denver bill 2 -

Apparently you don't understand the population has to be controlled in our modern world. Animals exceeding specific population levels (established by wildlife officials) that exceed self-sustaining level but approach nuisance levels dictate the harvest of ANY wild animal. To maintain a healthy cat population, while protecting the interests of the human population, harvests of animals are warranted.

... protecting the interests of human population? Could it be that in your self-centered biblical world, the precious human ubermensch are on the bring of extinction or are you suffering god syndrome? Well let me break it to you denver bill, there are about 30000 mountain lions in US and 314,125,342 humans. Now clearly it is us, human species, who have exceeded the self-sustaining level and not the mountain lions.

varg - wasn't sure where your 1.40 comment was coming from. I went to your home page to get a better idea of who you are.

I saw you like to post how plentiful humans are and how few the animals are.

What is your solution, all men take up with men, and women take up with women for sensual fulfillment, so we stop the human population growth?

Let's follow your line of thought above... If there are 30,000 mountain lions in the continental United States, and the average "territory" for a mountain lion (provided there is a sufficient food supply) is 100 square miles, and there is a total of roughly 3.5 million square miles in the continental US, the mountain lion population is right where it should be when accounting for HUMAN population centers and inhospitable territory (water, high altitude, dessert, etc...).

Oh yes, I DO suffer from a God syndrome. I know my savior lives and he knows me!

"I love animals. That's why I like to kill 'em."

Monty Python

They were here before us so you go live on a preserve. I will share the planet with all species as it was intended.

Why don't you stop whining about something that actually has nothing to do with you, and then project it on everyone who doesn't think like you? "PC crap and stuff" is your code phrase for the beliefs of people who do not believe in everything you do. Whether you disagree with the decision to oust him or not, that's your opinion, and it means nothing. Got it? Nothing.

But that's all this is: PC and crap - and you're opinion about anyone elses opinion is irrelevant.

Mymomdidnotraiseafool

And I will QUOTE you!!

Whether you disagree with the decision to oust him or not, that's your opinion, and it means nothing. Got it? Nothing.

Lookslikemomraisedafool Contradict yourself much?

Smoking pot is legal in the Netherlands. Being a DEA agent from the US and going to Amsterdam to smoke weed on vacation should get you fired, however.

You're absolutly correct riverman.... I hunt dear every once in a while.. but today there were two baby deer, their mom, and a brood of turkeys behind my house... I went out there an poured a heap of grain for them... All the hunters that I know respect and preserve animals... but they are just that... animals.. People eat deer and turkeys... does that mean they have to lose their jobs or positions over it??? wow, these people are nuts.

California can break off and float out to the Pacific for all I care.

"California can break off and float out to the Pacific for all I care."

What exactly do you have against the Pacific?

Sorry for my State being so F'd it's the politicians and some of the population that has helped some of the communist politicians thrive 8(

This is the only value Facebook has- getting your stupid a** into trouble. This is why the stock isn't worth the (now symbolic) paper it's printed on....LOL...

As for this, I agree with your sentiment. I'm sorry- that's a lawsuit. The man did nothing illegal, period. Killing mountain lions in Idaho is likely legal, because there is an overpopulation. That's how "conservation" works. Anyone whose seen my posts before knows I'm generally a liberal, but these are real, live animals, not cartoon characters with French accents. They are likely killing livestock in Idaho, and need to be controlled. I'll say the same thing I tell Republicans about actual economics, in opposition to their supply-side fantasy- deal with reality, please....

George--nah, but if BLOOMBERG were spotted over in Joisey with a big gulp, HE should be forced to resign!

Lawsuit would be irrelevant - Dan Richards voted with the others to appoint another president of the commission. How could he sue to reverse a decision he approved?

... just like they are doing with regard to 'climate change.'

George--too true--did you read just today about how 'carbon credits' is backfiring?

Imagine -- a member of the fish and game commission that hunts and fishes -- how strange can it get.

most of your game and fish employees do hunt, this is because they understand the importance of what is needed to be done to properly conserve the wildlife and control the population so that way people don't end up with these animals in their living spaces and having a public outcry.

I am sure California's Fish and Game Commission, while constrained to enforce stupid policy forced upon them by the stupid, has enough knowledge about fish and game management to know the policy is stupid. This was a PR gesture done to pander to the lame-brain PC crowd. And that's no news to anyone here.

Animal rights groups are some of the vilest groups in America. When some poor kid was attacked and killed in Colorado some years back, these monsters stated, "The kid would have been happy to die this way; he loved animals, too!" When a bear destroyed an infant in New York's Catskills some years ago they laid the blame on the mother.

I'd believe this, if it was somewhere that has its collective sh*t together, but it's California. This is not about the interest of a state- it's about fiddling while Rome burns. If I lived in California, my question would be- so, we're bankrupt, and this is all you got? This is the best you can do? Seriously? Anything to distract us from actual reality...

Please explain to me how that by participating a legal hunt in Idaho he was somehow acting against the state of California.

PutAmericaFirst:

It has nothing to do with California whatsoever. This is just another sensationalised story to elicit an emotional response from readers. If you've noticed from the responses everything has been covered in the responses from:

politics

abortion

morals

ethics

challenges to masculinity

firearms (whether one should have or not have)

All of which has nothing to do with the article, or in other words: typical responses

Dan--I agree with your statements about the limited amount of food only supporting a certain amount of animals. The hunt in my area of mid MO was VERY light last fall (deer) and now with the drought, I fear many deer will starve this winter. I hope for a good hunt to ease that situation.

However, I thoroughly disagree with your premise that Tea PARTY folks are Klan.

And I'm NOT a tea partier.

Dan, I disagree with your assertion that cougars live in herds. Except for limited mother/cub groups, they are solitary.

I have a buddy of mine who is a member of the tea party and he is black 8) I also have never seen Klansman outfits being worn by Tea party members on the news heh 8p

Some species if left unchecked will kill humans. They just will; there is no arguing, no debate; they always have and they always will. Some, wolves, will do it just for fun. I don't imagine anyone can make a case for the protection of say, wolves or mountain lions around cities and suburbs, although I am sure some of the odd people here will immediately do so. But I hope saner opinions prevail and these beasts be eliminated from all the new territory they seem to be appearing in.

OK hank-1773286 its all good to suggest he tranquilize the animal but where is he, and how will he move it to an area that will not disturb the balance of the population and the ecosystem in which it will be placed, oh and not to mention there are laws in place about transporting animals across state lines do to the invasive nature of non-indengenous species. He was on a controlled hunt to control the population of a species in a completely different state.

The Californians did not vote to protect the cats. They voted to ban hunting - a completely different action. If they wanted to protect the cats, they would vote for scientific (not emotional) management of their populations.

They would also vote to restore habitat lost to development, which is the real cat-killer. They would vote to establish large (very large, for mountain lions) preserves, where humans are excluded completely. They would vote to establish a limit on human population for the state, which is the only way to ultimately protect wildlife populations.

Mailman -

"They would vote to establish a limit on human population for the state"

In California? Really? Don't know much about them do ya?

We have too many mountain lions.

Amen!

Me too, stay away.

Trust me you don't want to be here it's only gotten worse the last 10 years & it's getting worse and worse 8(

Utah is largely unpopulated. I guarantee there is more pollution in orange county than the entire state of Utah, drone.

Ian.....Obviously you haven't visited those areas or you would know that your claim is completely false. These are minor violations that do not significantly harm the environment. Please be a little more tolerant of others views in the future and become a litte more educated. So what if hunters wait for trophy animals to wander off the park?

Some of us are quite familiar with large sections of those areas. Furthermore, we have witnessed the deterioration over the past several decades. The increases in pollution are both shocking and disgusting. That is particularly true when, as you mentioned, the relatively small population is considered.

Regarding your statement:

Quote.....So what if hunters wait for trophy animals to wander off the park?......EndQuote

Probably, most Americans are unaware that some folks in those states are selling access to kill animals the rest of us pay to protect. This is yet another disgusting provocation.

The references speak for themselves.

They are as intolerant as one can get. They're hypocrites. I loathe liberals as well. They're stupid and not to be trusted with anything.

Do you mean I'm not welcome in your trailer park?

Sammy these liberals have utterly destroyed California 8(

Back when I was a kid in public school we all stood up and said the pledge of allegiance every day 5 days a week all year long 8) not one kid complained or didn't do it we were proud of saying the pledge.

The 4th of July and New Years we used to have fireworks and would let them off and have a blast doing it NOT ANY MORE 8(

How sad how bad things have gotten in our state..

He agreed to fire himself as president, but he remains on the commission until his term expires.

Being a member of a state commission is more an honorary position than a job. The members get paid for their participation (probably a big wad in CA), but it is not intended to be a full-time job. The appointments are political, and for a limited term.

I actually don't understand people taking joy in such an activity either. It's certainly not for me.

But the fact remains that the man went on a legal hunt and legally shot and killed the animal and absolutely should not have lost his job over it. This is all about liberals viciously punishing people for daring to break one of their "rules". And yes, I know there's the issue of the free trip as well, but the article contains almost no details about who gave him the trip or why so it is almost impossible to make a judgment about that. What the article DOES make clear is that the man lost his job PRIMARILY because he dared to go on a LEGAL hunt in another state.

math, your comment unnecessary, derogatory verbiage unwelcome. Add some thing constructive or go home.

Not far from the truth mathuin take a trip to Santa Ana 8p

Uh, no.