CA Lion Ques.

Hiker of the Woods · Oct 26, 2009

I found this on another website and had the same feeling as the poster. Does anyone know why this has not been challenged?

?Many may know that we cannot hunt mountain lions here in CA. That is obviously a shame as they are decimating our deer and sheep herds. That law will never be overturned in this liberal state so it's not even worth discussing.
What some may not know, however, is that CA state law also prevents one from possessing any part of a mountain lion legally killed elsewhere. That means you cannot legally kill one in another state and bring the hide, mount, meat, etc back into CA.
Anyone with any constitutional knowledge would recognize that this is an obvious violation of interstate commerce provisions. It would only take a guide or taxidermist, etc to say that they lose potential revenue because CA customers cannot do business with them.
A hunter going to Utah, killing a lion with a legal tag, and bringing or shipping home a mount is no different than an art collector going to Santa Fe, NM purchasing artwork and bringing it back to CA. Yet one is legal and one is illegal. The legal ramifications notwithstanding, this is obviously illogical at the very least.
So why hasn't anyone taken this to task? Is no one willing to take the fall? Any enterprising hunter/attorney out there? I understand this would take a lot of time and money to fight so that is probably the answer, but what about a sportsman?s group like SCI?
Anyone have any insight?? SDHNTR.

D13er · Oct 26, 2009

well....you are by far not the first to raise this question.....I don't think it's been challenged because I don't believe it has ever been enforced. Do you know of an example??

great post/pic, thanks for sharing

JB

sageadvice · Oct 26, 2009

Goop point Bl Slyr!

As a side note i was talking to my hunting partner who is connected to state game officials and during our hunt this year, he explained to me of this law. He said that you can possess lion parts or a whole lion mount but it must have been taken before the law went into effect. He also said the cat must be registered to an certain address and if you sell or move, the mount must remain at that address, you are not allowed to take it with you.

I thought this strange as hell but he seemed to have a good grasp on the law and i don't.

Joey

popeyoung2 · Oct 26, 2009

I agree, I think it is a law that is not enforced. As far as the lions go, just like Wisconsin. They introduced wolves 11 years ago, 1 year after the elk introduction and the wolves are running all over the state , breeding and killing deer. Don't ask, don't tell policy. Last gun hunt 7 wolves got lead poisoning. One had a gps collar which was duct taped to the back of a semi going down I-94. Idaho is elated they finally opened season on them.

nickman · Oct 27, 2009

LAST EDITED ON Oct-27-09 AT 08:56AM (MST)[p]If you think for a moment that this law is NOT enforced, you would be way wrong.

In fact, I know of several businesses in this section of the State that have had to jump through their azz with DFG to prove that the cat they had on display was, in fact, taken prior to the law being enacted.......one to the point of an actual scientific test to determine how long it had been dead.

This is nothing new.....you cannot replace a single piano key with elephant Ivory here either.

BigPig · Oct 27, 2009

Hey that was me who made that post. I'd appreciate any insight. There is so much hearsay as to whether or not it gets enforced, anecdotal stories, etc. I also heard SCI has had some interest in taking it on but don't know where it now stands. Anyone know any higher ups with SCI. What I don't understand is if there is such public outcry against an obvious unconstitiutional ruling, why has nothing been done about it? Aren't there any enterprising lawyers out there who are also hunters who would love to take on a big case like this? I'm no lawyer but it seems like it would be a slam dunk.

glass_eye · Oct 27, 2009

I think that we'd get lawyers on our side if lions were declared to be gay.

BigPig · Oct 27, 2009

if that is what it takes, I hearby declare all lions in CA gay.

Castnshoot · Oct 27, 2009

Kinda on on this subject. I was going through the agricultural check point out side of Barstow the other day and there was 8 Fish&Game trucks and at least a dozen Wardens manning the little check point there. And people wonder why California is going broke.

BOHNTR · Oct 28, 2009

QUOTE: "What I don't understand is if there is such public outcry against an obvious unconstitutional ruling, why has nothing been done about it?"

Nate,

There is no public outcry.....just HUNTER outcry! Remember, the Ca VOTERS (liberals and anti's) are the ones who originally passed this law. They're obviously not going to repeal any portion of it.

As for bringing a lion into Ca......the law has been enforced (limited) in the state. But like I learned after you e-mailed me Nate.......apparently permits can be issued by DFG for those who bring a legally taken lion from another state. That's probably where we (hunters) should focus our attention, as I don't feel they are issued easily or even publicized. JMO

BOHNTR )))---------->

BigPig · Oct 28, 2009

Good point Roy!

OutdoorWriter · Oct 28, 2009

From the CDFG site:

Question:
What are the regulations on imported furs/pelts/trophies? If I'm buying from a source outside of California and they have a 3-177 form and proof that it was legally obtained, is it alright to have a wolf pelt shipped in? (Chelsea)

Answer:
According to game warden Todd Tognazzini, the importation law-Section 2353 of the Fish and Game Code requires that a declaration be filed when importing wildlife legally taken or possessed elsewhere. Section 3039 generally prohibits the sale or purchase of any species of birds or mammals found in the wild in California. There are a number of laws related to imported furs and pelts, so it depends upon the species. For instance, no part of a mountain lion may be brought into California, regardless of whether it was legally acquired through a state that allows for the hunting or purchase of lions.

However, in most cases an animal that is legally acquired in another state and declared upon entry would be legal. Of course, that same animal and/or pelt may not be sold once in California if it is from a species found in the wild in California.

In addition, be sure to review the list of prohibited species in the California Penal Code section 653(o). None of the species listed are allowed to be possessed in California for sale or with the intent to sell. This includes wolf pelts.

TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

Ozzman · Oct 28, 2009

This may sound dumb to ask, but that's because this issue is new to me... Why would they have a law like that in the first place? Seems to me you should be able to decorate or display anything you would like to in your home or office? If I went and bought a painting, or any other type of display or decoration to put up in my home it is my home that is up to me and no one else.

Any reasons as to why this law was put in place to begin with? Seems wrong all the way around to me.

glass_eye · Oct 28, 2009

>
>Any reasons as to why this
>law was put in place
>to begin with? Seems wrong
>all the way around to
>me.

That's because the Sierra Club came up with it.
Not only does it stop the hunting of lions in CA but it also prevents Californians from going out of state to hunt them.