dksuddeth

I know that awhile back I started a thread about how screwed up cali was and got kinda roasted for it, so I thought that I would amend that and say that cali's 'lawmakers' are kooky and screwed up. That way I don't offend anyone here and can tell it like it is.

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/mo...l/14286218.htm

So, what I want to know is, will the mountain lions get a public defender, or do they have to prove their indigency first?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Topper

How soon before the first faked mountain lion attack claim would be made I wonder....

Rodney

As a native Californian, I won't argue with you on that one!

But actually, this is the old California political game of trying to siphon off dedicated funds and use them for a different purpose -- in this case, compensating victims of mountain lion attacks. Which, I admit, is kookier than usual. I'd love to hear the backstory on that one.

As for the first faked claim -- not long. Some joker with a half-decent dogbite will try his luck, and probably even convince himself that he deserves the money.

xepherys

It's not a kooky law, per se. It's trying to work around current limitations. It would make more sense just to propse legislature that alows "victims of mountain lion attacks eligible for compensation for their injuries through the state crime victims' fund" without making it unlawful for an attack to occur. *shrug* Decent plan, very bad wording and conceptual plan.

dksuddeth

well, heres what I know of the history........I think.

Last year there was a man who killed a mountain lion in his backyard. Now, I believe that mountain lions are 'protected' species in california. If i'm wrong on that, please correct me.

This man who killed the mountain lion claimed self defense (obviously, panthers have killed people in the past) yet the local prosecutor charged this man anyway.

So, this LOOKS like an attempt to keep the killing of mountain lions illegal by setting up some sort of 'victim' fund for those that are attacked by a mountain lion, as long as they don't kill it.....what happens if the lion kills the person?

sorry, I can't wrap my head around this one yet.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Rodney

I went and checked out the analysis of the bill over at the ca.gov website, and it comes down to this:

Mountain lions are a protected species, and the legislator (from a rural area) doesn't think the species should be protected. But he realizes he's got no way of changing that, because the mass of voters are in favor of protecting endangered species.

So his reasoning goes like this: since the government mandates that mountain lions should be protected, the gov't is therefore responsible for anyone hurt by a mountain lion, and should pay. It just so happened that one person in his district was attacked; one of 12 confirmed mountain lion attacks in the last 20 years. The author is quoted:

""As mountain lions reproduce - with no predator higher on
the food chain - their numbers have and will flourish. This
has set California on a crash course with nature and has
resulted in multiple vicious attacks. We are responsible to
those victims. They should have a resource to go to for
assistance with medical bills and similar expenses related to
those attacks."

What this really shows is the prediliction for the average California legislator to grandstand on minor issues (there are 30 million of us here) while not addressing any of the hard problems in this state, like imploding schools, lack of health care, prisons in crisis, and other things that are politically dangerous to deal with. But mountain lion attacks -- yeah, I'm all over it.

Here's the URL to the analysis of the bill, performed by one of the staffers for the assembly committee that heard it.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/a..._asm_comm.html

samcol

Well when you put it like that, I actually agree with this guy. If your not allowed to shoot them when they endanger your livestock or family, the government should pay for the damages.

Yes there are always "bigger" issues, but our lawmakers work on this type of legislation all the time. They can't always be working on the number 1 issue.

Rodney

No they don't. They avoid working on them, because California public policy is basically paralyzed; whatever you need to fix, there's an interest group with money -- and just enough bought-and-paid-for legislators, if not the governor -- standing in the way. Your basic California legislator keeps his head down, does what the party bosses say, and in return is allowed to bring a little pork home to his district (so he can get reelected) and get silly little bills passed that make them look effective but don't upset any entrenched interests.

I spent some time in the company of a few state legislators just the other day and, as always, I in the main was not impressed. The majority of them, I wouldn't have in my house.

Elphaba

I think some responsibility should be taken with the encroachment into cougar territory. Catch and release would be a good solution to this problem. Remove the big cats into the mountain ranges and they will thrive.

We catch a glimpse of a coug now and then, but we live in bfe and have not yet encroached on their territory. We only see them during the summer when they come down for a drink of lake water. We don't bother them and they don't bother us.

samcol

My fault. I've always been terrible at grammar. I was implying that they work on the smaller issues like this all the time and rarely hit the bigger issues.