Save P-22 From Being Killed!

Why Euthanasia for LA’s Resident Mountain Lion Would be Unlawful

After demonstrating recent signs of medical distress, the National Park Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife captured resident Griffith Park mountain lion, P-22.

For those who are unaware, P-22 is the resident mountain lion of Griffith Park, a frequent visitor to the Los Angeles neighborhoods of Hollywood Hills, Loz Feliz, Toluca Lake, and Silverlake (though until very recently, he mostly has stayed within the confines of the park and avoided human contact). He was first discovered in Griffith Park in early 2012 though he has likely been living there for longer than that.¹

P-22 is beloved by Angelenos.²

The city has declared October 22nd to be his official day (P-22 day) and the week leading up to the annual P-22 Festival, his official week (P-22 week). Numerous artists have painted public murals of him. And the Save LA Cougars campaign has used his image on countless pieces of merchandise (sold to raise money to build a wildlife crossing over the 101 freeway in Agoura Hills).

Part of the reason for this love is that P-22 has lived in peaceful co-existence with his human neighbors for at least 11 years. He has never attacked a human or even a pet dog or cat during his time in Griffith Park.

Unfortunately, this changed on November 9, 2022, when P-22 attacked and killed a chihuahua (Piper), who was being walked on a leash on the streets adjacent to the Hollywood Reservoir. Security camera footage showed P-22 stalking the dog and then pouncing. P-22 did not harm the human walking Piper or even the other dog accompanying them. Nor did he even show aggression towards them.

Having never attacked a dog before, P-22’s behavior was considered unusual. On December 8, 2022, P-22 attacked another chihuahua (Taz) who was being walked on a leash in Silverlake. Taz’s owner intervened. He kicked and punched P-22 until he withdrew from the attack. Taz survived and is expected to make a full recovery. This followed P-22’s previously unusual behavior of attacking Piper. It also was unusual because the attack took place in Silverlake, which is far from Griffith Park and a place P-22 has not visited very often.

But it is not just the attacks on chihuahuas that demonstrate a change. P-22 has also been exhibiting unusual behavior this year in the form of repeated face to face contacts with his human neighbors. Sometimes occurring even in near daylight hours. In the past, P-22 often made headlines when he was recorded on security camera video in the proximity of humans. However, on these occasions, he remained unseen by the public.

But starting this year, P-22 has repeatedly come face to face with members of the public. Not once has he been aggressive towards the humans or endangered their lives. The encounters could almost be described as friendly. But it is a marked change in behavior for him, even for a unique mountain lion like P-22.

Given his changed behavior, the National Park Service and Department of Fish and Wildlife decided to capture P-22 and give him a full medical evaluation. P-22 was captured on December 12, 2022 in a Loz Feliz backyard.

Today at a press conference by the National Park Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, officials stated that due to his health issues, P-22 likely cannot be returned to Griffith Park.³ Instead, the director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife suggested that P-22 may be euthanized.⁴

This is a horrifying prospect. P-22 has been a model of peaceful co-existence. For 11 years, he witnessed millions of humans a year and routinely visited neighborhoods with pets without any negative interactions. He is the reason that funds were raised for the Liberty Canyon Wildlife Bridge, which will ensure the long-term survival of his species as well as other local wild animals. He has shown that mountain lions can exist even within the City of Los Angeles. We owe him a debt of gratitude, not death.

The fact that he may be ill hardly seems like a reason to end his life. If he is battling illness, he’s shown only a willingness to live by attempting to survive. There is an added aspect of cruelty to the prospect of euthanasia. The National Park Service has captured P-22 no fewer than five previous times to study him and care for him. In 2014, P-22 contracted mange, which nearly killed him. However, the National Park Service successfully treated him, and P-22 made a full recovery.

Would the same humans who once saved his life and have spent over a decade looking out for his health and well-being now be tasked with ending his life? Is it fair to ask the same humans who have gained this mountain lion’s trust (enough that he is reportedly resting comfortably) to betray it by ending his life?

While euthanizing P-22 is morally and ethically wrong to do, euthanizing P-22 is also unlawful.⁵

California law has banned mountain lion hunting since 1972. Voters made the ban permanent with the passage of Proposition 117 in 1990.

The law is clear. The mountain lion is a specially protected mammal in California.⁶ “It is unlawful to [kill] . . . a mountain lion” except under very narrow and limited circumstances.⁷ Killing a mountain lion can result in up to a year in jail and a ten thousand dollar fine.⁸ If a person does kill a mountain lion, they must show that they did so for purposes of self-defense or defense of another from an actual attack by a mountain lion.⁹

Thus, under ordinary circumstances, P-22 cannot be killed.

And while there are very narrow and limited exceptions the mountain lion hunting ban, none of them apply in this case.

“The [Department of Fish and Wildlife] may remove or take any mountain lion, or authorize an appropriate local agency with public safety responsibility to remove or take any mountain lion, that is perceived to be an imminent threat to public health or safety or that is perceived by the [Department of Fish and Wildlife] to be an imminent threat to the survival of any threatened, endangered, candidate, or fully protected sheep species.”¹⁰ However, “nonlethal procedures shall be used when removing or taking any mountain lion that has not been designated as an imminent threat to public health or safety.”¹¹

One might casually suggest that an urban mountain lion is an imminent threat to public health and safety.

However, “imminent threat to public health or safety” is defined as “a situation where a mountain lion exhibits one or more aggressive behaviors directed toward a person that is not reasonably believed to be due to the presence of responders.”¹² A “person” is defined as “any natural person or any partnership, corporation, limited liability company, trust, or other type of association.”¹³ While I love dogs, they clearly fall outside the definition of a person.

Here, P-22 is not an imminent threat to public health or safety. He has not attacked any humans nor has he exhibited any aggressive behaviors towards humans. Even on the two occasions in which he recently attacked the chihuahuas, P-22 did not attack the humans who were present. In fact, in the second attack, the human’s physical intervention on behalf of his dog caused P-22 to cease his attack and withdraw, not attack the human.

Even with his recent change in behavior, no longer hiding from humans, he has not attacked humans or even shown aggression towards humans. Mountain lions are notorious for being stealth stalkers. When they hunt, they often move silently and their prey is unaware until the mountain lion kills them. If P-22 intended to hunt humans, he would not make his presence known to humans. Indeed, when attacking both Piper and Taz, P-22 did exactly that.

Could P-22 still be legally killed even with the mountain lion hunting ban in place?

Yes. “Any person . . . whose livestock or other property is being or has been injured, damaged, or destroyed by a mountain lion may report that fact to the [Department of Fish and Wildlife] and request a permit to take the mountain lion.”¹⁴ These are known as depredation permits.

Who would then be able to pull a depredation permit against P-22? The owners (or guardians) of Piper and Taz. Legally, their dogs are their property. And their dogs were killed and injured, respectively, by P-22. But it appears that neither guardian has requested a depredation permit from the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Piper’s guardian, Daniel Jimenez, told the press “I don’t want anything bad to happen to P-22”¹⁵ Taz’s guardian, Rene Astorga, told the press that he was “‘bummed out a little bit’ about P-22’s health evaluation capture, adding ‘I’m hoping no harm comes to him.’”¹⁶

I commend both Mr. Jimenez and Mr. Astorga. I’m a dog lover and I would be devastated if a mountain lion ever killed or attacked one of my family’s dogs. Even if it was P-22. But it highlights again that no one who legally could request a depredation permit to euthanize P-22 has actually done so.¹⁷

Euthanasia of P-22 may be humane, but it is still the taking of this mountain lion’s life.¹⁸ And it is still the taking of P-22’s life without P-22’s consent to do so.¹⁹

Could someone take legal action to stop the euthanizing of P-22?

Most likely yes.

There is a key legal distinction here. In federal court, a lawsuit likely could not be brought as the only one who would have standing to bring the lawsuit is P-22 himself.²⁰ While he is extremely smart, it is unlikely that P-22 could bring a lawsuit in federal court against his own euthanasia (it’s also unclear that P-22 could even proceed with a lawsuit even if he met the Supreme Court’s test as he’s not a human). But under California law, P-22 would not have to bring a lawsuit against his euthanasia himself.²¹

California law authorizes a taxpayer to bring a lawsuit to restrain an illegal expenditure of public money.²² A taxpayer lawsuit does not require a taxpayer to show injury to themselves to bring the lawsuit, just that the person who brings the suit is a taxpayer.²³

Additionally, “citizen suits may be brought without the necessity of showing a legal or special interest in the result where the issue is one of public right and the object is to procure the enforcement of a public duty.”²⁴ Citizen suits promote “the policy of guaranteeing citizens the opportunity to ensure that no governmental body impairs or defeats the purpose of legislation establishing a public right.”²⁵

If P-22 cannot be safely returned to Griffith Park because he is too medically infirm to survive on his own in the wild, I fully support the decision to not return him. It is not humane or kind to P-22 to knowingly place him in a position of near certain death.

It could even further harm his species, particularly if another male mountain lion comes to Griffith Park and fights P-22 for the territory. A younger male mountain lion would likely kill P-22 though could wind up dying from injuries inflicted by P-22 at a later time. This would be cruel to both P-22 and the other mountain lion.

P-22 could also be killed if he again attacks a dog on a leash and is killed by the human who legally kills him in self-defense.²⁶ This would be even crueler to a human resident, who would hold responsibility for killing Los Angeles’s most beloved mountain lion. Thus, P-22’s removal from Griffith Park is currently warranted.

However, P-22 should not be euthanized. He has shown every indication that he wishes to live and his death should be a natural one, not one at the hands of us. Simply put, euthanasia is not fair to P-22. But above all, euthanasia of P-22 is unlawful. None of the circumstances that allow for the depredation of a mountain lion are present with P-22.

While I understand he likely cannot be returned to Griffith Park, there are alternative options. He should be moved to a special wild animal sanctuary where he can live out his final years in peace, security, and comfort. He can be humanely cared for, a just reward for what he has given to us and his species. We owe no less of a duty to P-22. #SaveP22

1. He is named P-22 because he is the 22nd puma in the National Park Service, which has studied him since early 2012. He is assumed to be 12 years old though perhaps older as his biological father, P-1, died in 2009.

2. Subsequent to the original publication of this article, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife euthanized P-22 on December 17, 2022. While the issue is now moot, I stand by initial analysis. R.I.P. P-22.

3

Laura J. Nelson 🦅 @laura_nelson

"At the moment, it's not likely that P-22 will be released back into the wild," because he's underweight and facing other health issues, says Ed Pert from CDFW.

4. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-12-13/what-happens-to-p-22-after-captured-no-options-off-the-table?utm_id=79679&sfmc_id=1872597

5. The author of this article is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and the District of Columbia. This article and all of the works on this Substack page are statements of the opinions of the author, only, and do not constitute legal advice; they are not intended to be relied upon by any individual or entity in any transaction or other legal matter, past, pending, or future. A paid subscription to this Substack page supports the author’s scholarship and provides access to research that the author has compiled, but does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The author does not accept unsolicited requests for legal advice or representation, and this Substack page is not intended as legal advertising. The opinions expressed on this Substack page reflect the personal views of the author only.