Top Fish And Game Official Poses With Dead Mountain Lion
Email
ABC News
A photograph of the California Fish and Wildlife Commission president smiling and holding up a dead mountain lion that he shot has ignited controversy in the state, where hunting the creatures has been illegal since 1990.
Dan Richards, however, shot the animal in Idaho, where hunting the cats is legal.
Richards isn’t supposed to bring it back to California, though, and it was unclear if he had.
California’s Prop, 117, which banned the hunting of mountain lions, also made it illegal for residents to bring dead mountain lions into the state.
“Californians sort of trust the Fish and Game Department and their commission to be the protecters of our wildlife resources, and this person is showing that he really doesn’t care,” Tim Dunbar, executive of the Mountain Lion Foundation, told ABC-owned station KABC.
One state legislator is even calling for Richards to be ousted.
“He’s thumbing his nose at California law,” Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, told the San Jose Mercury News. “He’s mocking it. Frankly, I think he should face the music and step down. He’s done something that’s a disgrace to his position and to responsible hunters in California.”
Richards did not respond to ABCNews.com’s request for an interview.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Just terrible . Leave the dang cat alone death stalker.
Posted by: davem | February 22, 2012, 1:31 pm 1:31 pm
Geez, why the heck would anyone want to kill such a beautiful animal? =(
Posted by: Coco Walter | February 22, 2012, 1:47 pm 1:47 pm
It’s obvious some folks didn’t read the article. Hunting cougars is LEGAL in Idaho. And if you knew anything about these “cats” – you don’t have a chance if you even come in contact with one.
Posted by: TJ in CA | February 22, 2012, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm
It is part of wildlife management. Cougars/mountain Lions and other predators need to be managed as well as prey. In southern Idaho there is an over abundance of cougars, so it is legal to even take a second cougar. There is nothing wrong with what he did. People just need to calm down, it’s not that big of a deal. People just need to understand why hunting even exists for predators as well as prey.
Posted by: Inshallah | February 22, 2012, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
Hunt that cat alone with a spear and a flimsy shield like the Masai warrior do losers and then crow about it . Otherwise it’s brutally killing a beautiful animal for no reason , using a telescopic sight from at least 200yds probably as well . Tough guy hunters, pfft. I used to hunt too , that is until I evolved ( when I was about 12-13 yrs old or so ) .
Posted by: davem | February 22, 2012, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm
And if there are plenty of cougars somewhere that means also that there is an abundance of
prey for the cougars there as well . Pumas are here (as predators) to keep the prey population in check and healthy , and they’ll starve out / move to new areas when prey levels get too low so there is no need to hunt them for any reason . They belong to Nature and no one else so leave them be unless they mess with you or you actually need them to survive .
Posted by: davem | February 22, 2012, 4:26 pm 4:26 pm
Animal taken in Idaho and no evidence of importation into California. What’s the problem??????
Posted by: what's wrong | February 22, 2012, 4:55 pm 4:55 pm
.’….One state legislator is even calling for Richards to be ousted…..”…..It had to be a Democrat legislator. Seems like that party has trouble understanding that in this country we abide by the rule of law. NO laws were broken.
Posted by: free_2_choose | February 22, 2012, 5:39 pm 5:39 pm
It’s not about breaking laws … it’s about taking the life of a beautiful creature for SPORT! I cannot think of anything more inhuman, brutal, or disgusting. Regardless of whether it was done in Idaho, California, or anywhere else … killing something for fun is just plain sick.
Posted by: Wiley in CA | February 22, 2012, 5:58 pm 5:58 pm
Ah the savory lunacy of my homestate rises for the occasion again. It’s ok to toke on a bong in the middle of the day on your front porch, A man to sue his former company for firing him because he showed up to work in a dress, But the guy legally hunted a cougar in Idaho is a “butcher” that needs to be fired? Uproarious.
Posted by: Gonzalez | February 22, 2012, 6:08 pm 6:08 pm
What a dirtbag. What kind of twisted dolt gets off by killing a beautiful mountain lion. Animals have a hard enough time surviving as it is; it is their world too so back off country boy. Do something more positive in the world like volunteering at the Humane Society.
Posted by: Shoegal | February 22, 2012, 7:05 pm 7:05 pm
Lots of things are legal but don’t need to glorified. Where is the glory in killing this beautiful animal and holding its dead body up with a smile to be photographed? The man who is the head of taking care of wildlife in California doesn’t seem too concerned about the distruction of wildlife in Idaho so why would anyone feel comfortable with this man taking care of wildlife in California? The killing of the animal may be warranted but the glorification and all smiles over this animal being killed is offensive to me and I would never trust a man to take care of wildlife who does that.
Posted by: Karon | February 22, 2012, 7:27 pm 7:27 pm
Did he break the law? No? Then leave him alone.
Posted by: SamJ | February 22, 2012, 7:52 pm 7:52 pm
That beautiful animal and disgusting monster holding his dead body, literally makes me sick!!! I grew up in Wyoming and Colorado and these magnificent animals avoid humans, the real beast in this picture is human, maybe! I think he should be shot with a high powered rifle with a scope! Certainly he needs to be fired. And yes if he brings the animal into CA. he is breaking the law. Do you actually base your moral judgements on the law… truly misguided!!!
Posted by: lisa | February 22, 2012, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm
As someone who frequently hikes alone in the backcountry of Western Montana I can attest to the fact that these large cats can be dangerous. However, an encounter is extremely rare, they don’t seek the company of humans (as prey) nearly as often as the media might like to portray and an encounter with one does not guarantee you’re going to be killed. There really isn’t a valid reason to gun them down.
For an official of the Fish & Wildlife Commission to be seen in a photograph gleefully holding up his kill or anything other than upholding the habit and protection of the animal kingdom is appalling – laws be damned.
Posted by: RZ | February 22, 2012, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm
I hope he gets fired ! Then he can sue the state for wrongful termination. I think most of you need to educate yourselves on animal conservation before you start attacking someone.
Posted by: Mike | February 23, 2012, 1:35 am 1:35 am
What this report exposes is just how biased the Dept. of Fish and Game is in regards to hunting and other types of outdoor “sports”. People would be screaming “foul” if PETA were put in charge of wildlife management and yet most people see nothing wrong with big game hunters placed in top positions at an agency in command of “wildlife. I say we not only get rid of Dan Richards but we also get rid of DF&G and replace it with a valid conservation management agency to manage OUR wildlife!
Posted by: Heather | February 23, 2012, 3:37 am 3:37 am
What this report exposes is just how biased the Dept. of Fish and Game is in regards to hunting and other types of outdoor “sports”. People would be screaming “foul” if PETA were put in charge of wildlife management and yet most people see nothing wrong with big game hunters placed in top positions at an agency in command of “wildlife. I say we not only get rid of Dan Richards but we also get rid of DF&G and replace it with a valid conservation management agency to manage OUR wildlife.
Posted by: Heather | February 23, 2012, 3:41 am 3:41 am
Now Really, I dont think you bleeding hearts realize that the NUMBER ONE SOURCE FOR WILD LIFE MANAGEMENT FUNDS comes from the sales of hunting and fishing licenses. Actually having a hunter on the commission makes sense as he has first hand knowledge about the very thing he is regulating. Wow if only Washington could embrace this concept.
What you have to remember is that only a certain number of tags for the cat pictured above are issued. This is based on population.
Its not a freaken Disney Character… THIS ANIMAL WOULD KILL YOU IF GIVEN A CHANCE!!!!!!
LEAVE DAN RICHARDS ALONE!
Posted by: Mike | February 23, 2012, 5:22 am 5:22 am
I find it funny that everyone of you who have a problem with this, resorted to slinging names or threats. It seems that the only thing that evolved with you guys is a heightened sense of superiority that makes you feel compelled to force your views on everybody else. He hunted legally in Idaho, don’t like it? Then petition Idaho to ban Cougar hunting, Oh wait, Idaho doesn’t make decisions about their wildlife based on feel good Disney movies….
The arrogance of you people who feel “just because I dont like it, nobody else can do it” is disgusting..
Posted by: JOHN B | February 23, 2012, 8:39 am 8:39 am
The same people complaining about hunting cougars are the same people who complain when their cat, dog, or child gets nabbed in the back yard. They have started popping up in Missouri again, even in the Suburbs of STL, Plenty of prey and the SUVs are not doing a good enough job culling the deer herd.
Posted by: snewsom2997 | February 23, 2012, 10:20 am 10:20 am
Disgusting to kill such beatiful animals for fun. Can you just leave them alone? What a shame.
Posted by: nick | February 23, 2012, 11:08 am 11:08 am
What is most tragic about this article, is that a man that surely spent many years of his life learning about biology and wildlife management? Had to leave his home environment, to actually practice it!
Some of the comments here, are so biologically ignorant, that it numbs the human imagination!
Yes, California did pass an ink based social policy legalizing the hoarding of mountain lions, and now they are going to be faced with the inevitable question of how to feed them all. The deer are disappearing at roughly the same rate that the lions are increasing, and the hoarders still deny the fact that lions eat deer!
The lions are now moving to the city to find food, and again the obvious is overlooked. The blame is conveniently placed on the ecologically invasive human ecology. While singular human ideology and statistics, are used to delay the mathematically inevitable conclusion that the lions are going to have to change their diet, or starve to death.
Nature is a very cruel environment in which to learn, and had the minority in our culture now claiming legislative dominion over it, had received their information with the wind in their face? Rather than a handful of popcorn, and a soda straw? We would not be having this conversation!
Posted by: RDReadmond | February 23, 2012, 11:19 am 11:19 am
Society generally concedes that hunting was once an essential aspect of our existence. Will someone please explain why this is any less true today? Is it because we do not “need” to hunt? After all, supermarket shelves sag under the weight of frozen chickens, bacon and fish, not to mention vegetable options galore. But before patting himself on the back in acknowledgement of his imagined enlightenment, I wonder if the anti-hunter considers a comparison of the damage caused in producing his own meal. Growing chickens, beef, broccoli or beets requires the wholesale destruction of entire ecosystems. We have turned millions of acres of forest, grassland and wetland into monocultures incapable of supporting anything besides wheat, gophers and insect “pests”. And then we dump thousands of tons of fertilizer and pesticides into the air, water and soil to sustain our “enlightenment”. And what became of the wildlife that once inhabited that tofu field, anyway? Please do not confuse willful ignorance with environmental consciousness. To argue that the complete elimination of wildlife habitat is ethically superior to the controlled harvest of individuals from within their natural environment is ridiculous.
Posted by: mark | February 25, 2012, 4:34 am 4:34 am
Looks like Nick gets his information straight from industry funded biology studies. State biologists are paid directly from hunting licensing fees. In effect, the biologists are accountable to hunters, hence their studies and recommendations reflect a pro-hunting bias.
The biological truth is that animals regulate their own populations based on available food and habitat.
Culling does not prevent overpopulation as demonstrated by an 8 year study of mountain lions in Canada. The lion population recovered from hunting and stabilized at an optimum density for its habitat range.
In another study in Utah, an area was closed to mountain lion hunting for 9 years while researchers (not hunter paid biologists) monitored the lion population. During that same period, despite heavy hunting, the deer population increased, yet the number of adult mountain lions remained stable.
Over 600 million acres of land is funded by tax dollars, and much of that land, including National Wildlife Refuges, are open to hunters.
Hunters are a small minority, yet they have all the control of our nations wildlife and their habitats, AND are subsidized by the rest of the non-hunting public.
For more information, check out The Hunting Myth by Ron Baker.
This corrupt system has to go, along with Richards.
Posted by: Michael Simmons | February 25, 2012, 4:48 am 4:48 am
Apparently Michael has overlooked the fact that the 600 million acres of land he mentioned does not require tax dollars. Land is land. It sits there, free of charge, until someone decides it is necessary to conduct “research”, open visitor centers, etc. Please explain to me how this expense is a subsidy to hunters. And why should these lands not remain open to hunters? They were acquired (free of charge, since they were stolen from Native Americans who, incidentally, hunted them) for this very purpose, and others–”multiple use” as they say in Researcher-Paid-to-Observe-the-Land speak. What difference does it make if hunters are a small minority. So are mountain bikers. And to claim that hunters have complete control is disingenuous, as the very fact that lions are protected in California well demonstrates.
Posted by: mark | February 25, 2012, 5:05 am 5:05 am
Michael also believes that the “studies” done by Ron Baker, author of the following quote “Sport hunting is an evil that has no redeeming virtues.” is unbiased.
Posted by: JOHN B | February 26, 2012, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm
In the California State Assembly members’ letter to Richards, they said to him that, “Your actions have raised serious questions about whether you respect the laws of the people of California….[Our] laws are a representation of our collective values….” First, understand there’s a difference between “Respect/Disrespect” and “Legal/Illegal.” Richards has not been accused of doing anything “illegal”; he has been criticized for not showing “respect” for the values held by a majority of Californians as expressed in their law prohibiting the hunting of mountain lions; and, as the letter to Richard states, he not only hunted and killed the animal, he “took extra efforts to publicize” the killing. He did nothing “illegal,” but most assuredly, he did something “disrespectful” to Californians, the people whom he supposedly represents.
Consider this analogy: A Christian high school in Texas employs a young woman… as a teacher of their young, impressionable students. The teacher excels as a teacher and has positive reviews from the school administration. Later, however, during summer break, parents of one of the students visit family in Las Vegas; while there, they pick up a copy of the Las Vegas Sun, and upon opening the “Entertainment” section of the paper, they discover a picture of the young teacher posed with some other young ladies in front of a legal/licensed brothel. The parents are shocked. Upon further investigation, they learn that the young teacher engages in prostitution during summer breaks. Why are they so shocked? After all, in Las Vegas, the brothel is “legal”; and prostitution is “legal” at such a brothel. So why are they shocked? The young woman has performed well in her employment as a teacher at the Christian school in Texas. She’s done nothing “illegal”; she didn’t work as a prostitute in Texas where it’s illegal; rather, she traveled to Las Vegas and worked a “legal” summer job as a legally licensed prostitute in a “legal” and licensed brothel. So why the shock and outrage?
Parents who send their children to a Christian school expect to have their Christian values upheld and supported by the school, the school’s administration, and certainly by the teachers themselves; if a teacher cannot reinforce such values in her out-of-school behaviors, then she needs to seek employment in a different type of school or in a different career field. This teacher showed no “respect” for the Christian parents, the Christian students, and the Christian school whom she serves. She betrayed them. She hurt them.
And that’s how the majority of Californians feel; when they see this picture of Richards holding up a mountain lion that he has hunted and killed, they feel that he has thumbed his nose at their values, at what they hold dear, at what they see as important in their effort to “lead a dignified campaign to raise world-wide standards” regarding this issue. Not only did he kill the mountain lion, but also he presented himself and the dead animal as a public spectacle.
He showed no “respect” for the people whom he supposedly represents. He betrayed them. He hurt them.
Posted by: Rachel Allen | February 27, 2012, 11:06 pm 11:06 pm
Mark, state conservation departments aid their federal counterparts in wildlife administration on 187 million acres of national forests, 28 million acres on natural lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and 473 million acres of other public lands. Hunting is encouraged on most of these lands. Almost without exception these natural areas were purchased with federal tax money. Non-hunters’ tax money supports these lands at a rate of over 25 million a year.
State agencies also use public funds for habitat manipulation, which includes burning and clear-cutting forests to increase the food supply for game species, such as deer. The 1978 Draft Environmental Impact Statement estimated that $180 million would be spent on habitat manipulation between then and 1985, which included bulldozing on parts of two million acres and half a million acres poisoned with pesticides and herbicides. In addition, 260,000 acres would be logged, 41,000 miles of roads and trails developed, and 8,400 hunting blinds constructed. According to the DEIS, these ‘alterations’ would benefit deer, and make hunting more accessible.
According to Save America’s Forests, habitat manipulation is done at the rate of billions of tax dollars a year. Our forests are undergoing a crisis of survival, ancient forest ecosystems are being lost forever – IN THE NAME OF HUNTING.
Posted by: Michael Simmons | March 1, 2012, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm