You Can't Fix Stupid - $87,000,000 California Lion "Crossing"

[Cheesehead]

So, this thread may be too far gone to salvage with CPA nerdiness

But the question I haven't seen addressed here is what the useful life of this structure would be? The consistent refrain seems to be $87M is crazy spend for overpopulated mountain lions.

I did a little digging and I can't vouch for it but here's a 3 min searched source from the FS. In short:

Wildlife crossing structures in many cases are designed to have a specific design lifespan similar to that for highway bridge structures (typically, 75 years). Design lifespan, however, is a theoretical timespan that estimates when major reconstruction or replacement is likely required based on materials used and the nature of construction. Accordingly, it may be appropriate to designate a shorter lifespan based on material composition or selection

I'll round down to include some annual repair / maintenance and say it's 50 years useful life

So rough math: $87m / 50 = $1.74m / year. If ~20% (quoting the above) was publicly funded it's ~$350k / year. That's not nothing but it's a bit more reasonable for something that would benefit a lot of wildlife. For reference, Biden's infrastructure package included $350M for animal-friendly infrastructure for ecological as well as traffic reasons.

As a minor note: Randy has worked to make and keep Hunttalk a decent place. Speaking in generalities, it seems the left-leaning set (myself included) tend to sometimes sneer at the more right-leaning set as troglodytes, and the right-leaning set tends to besmirch the left-leaning side as common-sense lacking woke hippies. I think if we all met at a bar and had a couple drinks we'd mostly get along, though. So let's all try to just play nicely in the sandbox together.

(https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr267/psw_gtr267.pdf)

 

[SwaggyD]

I think if we all met at a bar and had a couple drinks we'd mostly get along, though.

Me and another guy talk about this all the time. We agree on 95% of things. That’s 95% of shit we can talk about over beers and chuckles.

 

[rogerthat]

Me and another guy talk about this all the time. We agree on 95% of things. That’s 95% of shit we can talk about over beers and chuckles.

I don’t man. Whether using jigs or pulling harnesses is better for walleyes is the type of disagreement a few beers tends to make worse

 

[SwaggyD]

I don’t man. Whether using jigs or pulling harnesses is better for walleyes is the type of disagreement a few beers tends to make worse

Gotta be a multidimensional fisherwomen. Can’t only focus on one strategy.

 

[Trap]

Where are you getting that the lion population has increased 10x in 100 years? You've stated it several times, as you assuming 400-600 lions a hundred years ago, or is there a report out there?

As for the deer decline, here's a follow up to your graph yesterday with a bit of a more complete picture. It is often stated we lost mountain lion hunting in 1990 with prop 117. That is untrue. In 1971 then Governor Reagan went full Hollywood (as a nice follow up to anti-gun/racist signing of the Mulford Act....yes, that's a red herring) and signed a moratorium to ban hunting of mountain lions. You say "we could just allow hunting of lions", in theory yes, but in practicality it's never going to happen because it's going to take a 4/5ths vote. Believe me, I'd be dropping hundreds of dollars if there was an option for a draw or fundraising tag, but it isn't an option that can even be considered.



View attachment 218224

With respect to our deer population crash, it happened when sport hunting and bounty programs were in place. That crash has been documented to be far more closely link towards exploding population growth in CA.

View attachment 218228

Since elk have been brought up a couple of times in this discussion it should probably be noted that lions aren't to blame for the current elk numbers, it's largely landowners who don't want elk. The CDFW certainly has challenges, but what they have done with tule elk is pretty fricken remarkable.....but why does the word "conflict" show up 547 times in the elk management plan. We could have a lot more elk, if we just had a place to put them.

View attachment 218230

I too believe the NAMWC is pretty much gospel, and know the user pay model works. This project is just a privately funded user pay model, and is 100% the best use of funds because it was the intent of the funds. When I give to the "Give a Lamb a Drink" program at the CA WSF, I know my funds are being put towards the intended use.

Yes I will see if I can post the population figure on the lions. I googled it and yes the estimate was 600 lions in 1920 in California state. I took the high end of the current population of 6000 so that is where I came up with the 10 times. It’s great that you also see the benefit of the nawm I feel like many people today don’t realize what that has actually accomplished. It does depend on having a lot of surplus elk and deer to sell tags for the system to work. An excess of predators will break the nawm. I realize there are many factors affecting the deer herds down there and would 100 percent agree the human population is the main problem. That’s kind of my point with urban sprawl gobbling up and separating habitat and migration corridors wouldn’t 87 million be way more beneficial to protect what’s left of that? I feel it’s great to raise that level of private funds for any conservation effort. It’s also very deceptive to even raise funds for that bridge when there are other animals in need of much greater help. I would venture to guess the overall lion population is the last thing that needs additional protection. Maybe this small sub population does but that can’t even be close to the top challenge facing California wildlife overall. I would think habitat loss and water would be the number 1 priority. Why not raise 87 million to purchase or even buy a 100 year lease on tule elk habitat? I mean just googling it looks like California could have more lions than elk! That’s a problem in most peoples mind. I won’t argue with you about California you have lived there a long time it sounds like. I have been there I think a total of 4 times for just a few days. To me it’s absurd and actually really dishonest to take peoples money for this when there are such bigger needs wildlife have in California. You would know better than me what really needs help but it can’t be this. I appreciate your perspective as a resident and I was not trying to say the lions ate all the deer. It’s a multitude of problems they face some of which you pointed out. Lions do eat a lot of deer,52 on average per year. If you do have 6000 cats that 312,000 deer a year!

 

[Trap]

Wondering what you mean here? I think you either have a slightly different take on the NAM than I do or I'm misreading your meaning in the phrase "maximizing consumptive use"

Not sure what you are asking ha ha. Quote from google(lol) of the nam- The North American Model rests on 2 principles- Fish and wildlife are for the non commercial use of citizens and should be managed such that they are available at optimum population levels forever. Ok my view on the nam in practice is that wildlife agencies would manage for surplus game to sell us tags and raise revenue to manage for surplus game the next year and rinse and repeat. When they do this they are maximizing consumptive use or hunting opportunities. So wildlife is held in trust for all citizens and people like to twist the model to say well I dislike hunting so you need to manage wildlife for my viewing pleasure and I want ultimate diversity at the expense of optimum population levels. But that's not how it works-they have to manage for optimum population levels to sell tags and create revenue to continue to pay for future management. Thats how the user pay system works. So they are maximizing consumptive use if they are following the basic principles of the North American Model.

 

[sapperJ24]

Little late to the party here, but there were some questions regarding the claim that these sub-populations could go extinct within 50 years.

I believe this claim is from a 2019 paper titled "Extinction vortex dynamics of top predators isolated by urbanization" and published in Ecological Applications (from the Ecological Society of America). I've attached the paper for those that don't have access, and here is the direct link which includes the appendices: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/eap.1868

And since CBD came up, here is their 2019 Petition to List the Southern California/Central Coast Mountain Lions as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Either way an interesting read, the above paper is cited in their analysis. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org...n-California-Central-Coast-Mountain-Lions.pdf

I suppose this post is just to spell out why some people think these sub-populations need protection, and clearly, that is up for debate. This is not an endorsement or repudiation for (C)ESA listing by sub-populations, which I think is probably a discussion for another day.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not sure what you are asking ha ha. Quote from google(lol) of the nam- The North American Model rests on 2 principles- Fish and wildlife are for the non commercial use of citizens and should be managed such that they are available at optimum population levels forever. Ok my view on the nam in practice is that wildlife agencies would manage for surplus game to sell us tags and raise revenue to manage for surplus game the next year and rinse and repeat. When they do this they are maximizing consumptive use or hunting opportunities. So wildlife is held in trust for all citizens and people like to twist the model to say well I dislike hunting so you need to manage wildlife for my viewing pleasure and I want ultimate diversity at the expense of optimum population levels. But that's not how it works-they have to manage for optimum population levels to sell tags and create revenue to continue to pay for future management. Thats how the user pay system works. So they are maximizing consumptive use if they are following the basic principles of the North American Model.

I'm normally with you a great deal, Trap, but I think you're google-fu is a bit off here: https://www.rmef.org/hunting-is-conservation/

BASIC PRINCIPLES​

Their efforts are the backbone of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. The model has two basic principles – that our fish and wildlife belong to all Americans, and that they need to be managed in a way that their populations will be sustained forever.

The principles of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model are explained more fully through a set of guidelines known as the Seven Sisters for Conservation.

Sister #1 – Wildlife is Held in the Public Trust
In North America, natural resources and wildlife on public lands are managed by government agencies to ensure that current and future generations always have wildlife and wild places to enjoy.

Sister #2 – Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife
Commercial hunting and the sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations.

Sister #3 – Democratic Rule of Law
Hunting and fishing laws are created through the public process where everyone has the opportunity and responsibility to develop systems of wildlife conservation and use.

Sister #4 – Hunting Opportunity for All
Every citizen has an opportunity, under the law, to hunt and fish in the United States and Canada.

Sister #5 – Non-Frivolous Use
In North America, individuals may legally kill certain wild animals under strict guidelines for food and fur, self-defense and property protection. Laws restrict against the casual killing of wildlife merely for antlers, horns or feathers.

Sister #6 – International Resources
Wildlife and fish migrate freely across boundaries between states, provinces and countries. Working together, the United States and Canada jointly coordinate wildlife and habitat management strategies. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 demonstrates this cooperation between countries to protect wildlife. The act made it illegal to capture or kill migratory birds, except as allowed by specific hunting regulations.

Sister #7 – Scientific Management
Sound science is essential to managing and sustaining North America’s wildlife and habitats. For example, researchers put radio collars on elk to track movements to determine where elk give birth and how they react to motor vehicles on forest roads.

Humans like to think that the management of wildlife should be for their benefit, but the reality of the NAM is that we manage human consumption & regulate our take while utilizing science to ensure a full suite of biodiversity. Nowhere in the NAM does it make the over-simplification that more carnivores = less deer or elk. While we know that this dynamic happens in some instances, predation still seems to be a side-effect of lessened habitat functionality than anything else.

In fact, I could easily argue that the current suite of regulations, laws and practices in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and many other states does not specifically follow the NAM when it comes to managing under #2, #5, #6 & #7 while this overpass does meet those criteria and is therefore more likely to be a product of the NAM than open-seasons on recently restored species.

 

[TOGIE]

i keep thinking about how for me, any wildlife crossing in my state for any "stated reason" with funding coming from anywhere gets a thumbs up from me.

at the end of the day IDGAF what cali does anyway.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

i keep thinking about how for me, any wildlife crossing in my state for any "stated reason" with funding coming from anywhere gets a thumbs up from me.

at the end of the day IDGAF what cali does anyway.

I would agree with your first statement, provided there were an endless supply of money. I think given the constraints of funding, prioritization is mandatory.

I completely agree with your second statement.

 

[Ben Lamb]

C'mon folks. CA is ok. They're just one of your 49 other crazy cousins.

 

[Trap]

I'm normally with you a great deal, Trap, but I think you're google-fu is a bit off here: https://www.rmef.org/hunting-is-conservation/



Humans like to think that the management of wildlife should be for their benefit, but the reality of the NAM is that we manage human consumption & regulate our take while utilizing science to ensure a full suite of biodiversity. Nowhere in the NAM does it make the over-simplification that more carnivores = less deer or elk. While we know that this dynamic happens in some instances, predation still seems to be a side-effect of lessened habitat functionality than anything else.

In fact, I could easily argue that the current suite of regulations, laws and practices in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and many other states does not specifically follow the NAM when it comes to managing under #2, #5, #6 & #7 while this overpass does meet those criteria and is therefore more likely to be a product of the NAM than open-seasons on recently restored species.

Thanks for the post Ben I agree with both links-I must not have articulated my view very well. I think sometimes I come off as a "smoke a pack a day" guy. I am not. I have been blessed to live my life in Montana and then Idaho so I have had the opportunity to hunt most everything. I was thinking about it and if they made me choose to hunt only predators or ungulates I would probably pick the predator category. I don't want predators managed out of existence just to benefit deer and elk. In fact I think Idaho is over harvesting both lions and bears right now with current seasons and tags. I have been vocal about this and would be hopefull we would actually reduce the lion season length and quit offering 2 lion and 2 bear tags in certain areas. From the RMEF link it states that 62 billion has come from sportsman through license, gun etc sales. This is 60 percent of wildlife managers annual operating budget. Idaho fish and game receives no tax money and is entirely funded through license sales but they get some federal grants and private grants-and they sell license plates ha ha. This is why I feel managing for consumptive use is most closely aligned with the nam. As stated in the rmef link you cant monetize wildlife viewing but a by product of managing for optimum population levels has the side effect of great wildlife viewing. Managing for optimum population levels means managing predators at a level that allows for a surplus of deer and elk to sell tags for. If you dont manage predators at the optimum level(which means you have to manage them) you wont have anywhere close to the optimum level of deer or elk. If you don't have an annual surplus of deer and elk you cant ethically sell tags for a dwindling resource and no one would probably want them. Like Rmef link stated hunting is conservation and funds a great deal of all states conservation budgets. I always state on threads like this that if you dont manage predators the NAM will be broken. That is just the truth. There is an optimal level of predators that allows for an optimal level of ungulates -the optimal level for ungulates is a SURPLUS. The whole thing is built on revenue created by managing for hunting opportunities both predators and ungulates. When states quit managing one part of the equation the whole thing falls apart including the main funding engine. My objection to this lion bridge really has nothing to do with California not managing lions. That's water under the bridge and they will most likely never pull their heads out on that one. I am 100 percent for wildlife crossings and 110 percent for private funding of conservation. There is a limited amount of capital both private and public that will be directed towards conservation. This is directing a huge some of money to, in my opinion, the last thing that needs conservation in that state. I googled Tule elk population and compared it to the lion estimate-California could possibly have more lions than Elk! Wouldn't 87 million be better spent on tule elk habitat? I always check that funds I donate do go to the intended purpose. A bunch of people contributed to a lion bridge for a city dwelling sub-population. Do you think these donors even realize the plight of deer in that state? Did the fundraisers even let the donors know that there are a multitude of other (bigger) problems california wildlife is facing? I think it was dishonestly presented as a major conservation need when I am guessing there are thousands more important things. I dont really care what California does and all states make ridiculous decisions. This is an Absurd and wasteful use of funds in my opinion. That is my only point-this is ridiculous

 

[Ben Lamb]

To be sure, the NAM is primarily used for the management of game species. That model has worked well in the past, but we're coming to end of the user pay model without finding a way to get non-consumptive users to start footing the bill for management.

• The USFS & BLM have options in that regard such as the permit fees for camping, use, etc
• and the states can do this through a variety of local option taxes relative to tourism hotspots & bed taxes, opt out options for license renewal (Lots of states do this for state parks, why not wildlife?).
• Agencies can and SHOULD charge floaters for the use of sportsmen funded fishing access sites by simply purchasing a Conservation Licenses.
• Excise tax on non-hunting/angling sporting goods to fund programs like PR/DJ
• Weed $ (MT does this for nongame, trails and Habitat MT, which is one of the premier access & conservation programs in the nation).

The elk issue in CA is not related to lions, or anything other than habitat and the type of industries that don't want more elk. Look at what's happening at Point Reyes. CA's got some weird priorities, but this one helps all species (the most expensive wildlife bridge in the universe) in severely compromised habitats and that's ultimately a good thing.

Nice work @Cheesehead breaking down those costs. It would be interesting to see what the Auto Insurance industry thinks they'll save (and you will save) with a bridge in that location as well.

 

[Trap]

To be sure, the NAM is primarily used for the management of game species. That model has worked well in the past, but we're coming to end of the user pay model without finding a way to get non-consumptive users to start footing the bill for management.

• The USFS & BLM have options in that regard such as the permit fees for camping, use, etc
• and the states can do this through a variety of local option taxes relative to tourism hotspots & bed taxes, opt out options for license renewal (Lots of states do this for state parks, why not wildlife?).
• Agencies can and SHOULD charge floaters for the use of sportsmen funded fishing access sites by simply purchasing a Conservation Licenses.
• Excise tax on non-hunting/angling sporting goods to fund programs like PR/DJ
• Weed $ (MT does this for nongame, trails and Habitat MT, which is one of the premier access & conservation programs in the nation).

The elk issue in CA is not related to lions, or anything other than habitat and the type of industries that don't want more elk. Look at what's happening at Point Reyes. CA's got some weird priorities, but this one helps all species (the most expensive wildlife bridge in the universe) in severely compromised habitats and that's ultimately a good thing.

Nice work @Cheesehead breaking down those costs. It would be interesting to see what the Auto Insurance industry thinks they'll save (and you will save) with a bridge in that location as well.

Agreed but I think its dangerous to move away from user pay and I don't understand why we would want to. The proof is in the track record -I want to stress I was not making this about needing to hunt lions or the lack of any management at all. I just think its a stupid use of resources when you have issues like Point Reyes. I would think tule elk would be the priority since there is very few and they only exist in California. Why not raise the funds to purchase habitat for tule elk? California donors only care about city mountain lions? Or was that presented to well meaning donors as the primary wildlife issue? I always stress predator management ha ha but in this case I am not making a case for California to manage lions, that ship has sailed. Its a really stupid use of limited resources in my opinion-they could have an actual threatened sub-species of elk that only exist there. Instead they are spending millions supporting a sub-population of city dwelling lions when they have an overabundance in the rest of the state. Has nothing to do with lions eating their deer or elk for me, its just terrible stewardship of conservation funds. I dont care if its public or private money this is not the best use, not even close.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Agreed but I think its dangerous to move away from user pay and I don't understand why we would want to. The proof is in the track record -I want to stress I was not making this about needing to hunt lions or the lack of any management at all. I just think its a stupid use of resources when you have issues like Point Reyes. I would think tule elk would be the priority since there is very few and they only exist in California. Why not raise the funds to purchase habitat for tule elk? California donors only care about city mountain lions? Or was that presented to well meaning donors as the primary wildlife issue? I always stress predator management ha ha but in this case I am not making a case for California to manage lions, that ship has sailed. Its a really stupid use of limited resources in my opinion-they could have an actual threatened sub-species of elk that only exist there. Instead they are spending millions supporting a sub-population of city dwelling lions when they have an overabundance in the rest of the state. Has nothing to do with lions eating their deer or elk for me, its just terrible stewardship of conservation funds. I dont care if its public or private money this is not the best use, not even close.

Well again, the marketing hype versus the reality is getting lost. That bridge is going to be beneficial to every form of wildlife, not just lions. And work like this helps keeps potentially endangered species from getting on the ESA lists as well, so I think it's still well spent, even if we can quibble over the wisdom of using lions as the hook. From what I've seen of the SoCal conservation community, appealing to a disney sensibility tends to raise more funding, and get things done faster.

 

[Cheesehead]

Well again, the marketing hype versus the reality is getting lost. That bridge is going to be beneficial to every form of wildlife, not just lions. And work like this helps keeps potentially endangered species from getting on the ESA lists as well, so I think it's still well spent, even if we can quibble over the wisdom of using lions as the hook. From what I've seen of the SoCal conservation community, appealing to a disney sensibility tends to raise more funding, and get things done faster.

Love the new avatar, mate

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hanzo's a good cop in a corrupt world. My kind of fella.

 

[Sytes]

Who? WTF? Huh? @Ben Lamb , give a PG (if it exists) run down. I'm too skeered my wife may use my phone only to see some query for some mini Han Solo nic named gay porn something or other...

*side note: does "WTF" constitute Ken's Harley racket he posted up in the Admin naughty thread?

 

[Pucky Freak]

I would imagine that all the space under that cougar pass will provide great habitat for the homeless.

Under? A homeless camp will pop up on the top of that structure faster than you say “Hepzibah”. I hope the 87MM includes human hazing measures, or else they’ll be hitting up the donors for more funds.

 

[MarvB]

Would a homeless camp atop a cougar crossing be akin to a drive through for kitties?. Asking for a friend