In a recent CRPA TV segment, host Kevin Small and California Rifle & Pistol Association legislative director Rick Travis made the case for Senate Bill 1397 as one of the more serious wildlife-management bills moving through Sacramento this year.
Small described SB 1397 as a measure designed to keep building out California’s mountain lion conflict program, with the goal of producing “better science for better results.” That is also how the bill reads on paper.
The measure would require the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to maintain, enhance, and expand its human-mountain lion conflicts program, continue scientific research into deterrence and habituation, and provide legislative updates and a longer report to lawmakers. The bill is currently moving through the 2025–2026 session and, as of April 14, had advanced out of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee to Appropriations.
That may sound technical, but the issue underneath it is not.
At its core, this is about what California does when mountain lions stop fearing people, start moving deeper into communities, or repeatedly create dangerous encounters near homes, pets, livestock, parks, or schools. Small and Travis argue the state has spent too much time reacting case by case and not enough time building a stronger, smarter prevention system.
What SB 1397 Would Actually Do
Small read from the legislative digest during the segment, and the bill’s main goals are fairly easy to follow even if the title is not especially flashy.
SB 1397 would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to keep and expand its conflict program, including nonlethal procedures where the department already has authority to use them. It would also require more scientific work aimed at deterring mountain lions from entering communities and preventing habituation to humans. In addition, the bill includes public-outreach requirements, a report to the Legislature by October 1, 2031, and annual status hearings for a set period after that. The bill’s current text also includes a future repeal date of January 1, 2033, which means lawmakers are not treating it as a forever blank check.
That reporting requirement matters more than it may seem at first glance.
One of the biggest frustrations in wildlife policy is that agencies are often asked to “do something,” but the public rarely gets a clean accounting later of what was tried, what worked, what failed, and whether the approach actually made people safer. In that respect, SB 1397 at least tries to force a paper trail.
That is a good thing. Even people who disagree over predators should be able to agree that public-safety policy ought to come with measurable results.
Rick Travis Says The Fight Is Really Over Bad Science And Bad Interpretation
During the CRPA TV discussion, Travis argued that one of the biggest problems in California is not that biologists are doing no work, but that the science is too often filtered through politics, pressure campaigns, or ideological messaging before it reaches the public or lawmakers.
He was careful to say he was not attacking every field biologist or warden. In fact, he said many work hard to provide sound science. His complaint was more focused on what happens after that, especially when certain groups elevate one species above everything else in the ecosystem and then package that position as if it were settled science.
That distinction is important.
Too often, debates like this get flattened into caricatures. One side is painted as anti-wildlife, the other as anti-human. But what Travis was really describing is the gap between research in the field and how that research is later interpreted, sold, or suppressed inside the policy process. Whether people agree with all of his conclusions or not, that criticism is not hard to recognize. It happens in a lot of environmental fights, not just mountain lion policy.
The bill, in his telling, is partly an attempt to put more structure around what the department studies and reports, so that bad assumptions do not get to dominate the entire conversation unchecked.
Why The Issue Has Become More Urgent
Travis tied the bill directly to growing conflict in parts of California, especially in rural and foothill counties.
He pointed repeatedly to El Dorado County, where he said lawmakers and residents have faced a rising number of serious interactions involving mountain lions. Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil, the bill’s author, has also framed the issue in those terms, saying rural communities in her district live with the reality of these encounters on a regular basis. Her office said this week that SB 1397 is intended to strengthen nonlethal deterrence, research, public education, and proactive response.
Small and Travis also referenced last year’s failed Senate Bill 818, which they said was introduced after a deadly 2024 mountain lion attack in El Dorado County and a series of other alarming encounters. SB 818 would have dealt more directly with hounds and nonlethal hazing tools, but it did not make it through. This year’s bill takes a different route by focusing more broadly on the state’s conflict program and the research and reporting behind it.
That may end up being the smarter legislative path.
A direct fight over predator-control tools can turn into a culture-war argument almost immediately. A bill centered on program quality, public outreach, and scientific evaluation is still controversial, but it is harder to dismiss as just a reaction bill.
The Bigger Debate: Nature, Safety, And Habituation
One of the most effective parts of the CRPA TV segment came when Travis pushed back on sentimental views of wildlife.
He said, bluntly, that nature is not Disneyland.
It was a sharp line, but it got at something real. A lot of modern wildlife debate gets tangled up in imagery that makes predators seem either mystical or harmless until proven otherwise. Travis argued that this kind of thinking encourages people to ignore what habituation actually means. If a predator repeatedly associates people with food, easy access, or no consequences, that animal does not become “friendly.” It becomes bolder.
That is not an abstract issue. It is one of the reasons conflict programs exist in the first place.
Small backed up that point by saying policy should be guided by science rather than emotion, and that is where this bill is trying to plant its flag. Not on broad calls for killing more mountain lions, and not on pretending every interaction is harmless, but on building a system that responds before things get worse.
That is a much more defensible place to be than some of the slogans that tend to dominate these fights.
Why This Bill May Have A Better Shot This Time
Near the end of the segment, Small asked Travis the obvious question: why might this effort get farther than last year’s?
Travis gave two answers. First, he praised Alvarado-Gil and other legislators for continuing to come back after defeats instead of dropping the issue. Second, he said the number of negative encounters keeps growing, which is pushing the “coexistence” debate further into the center of the legislative conversation.
That tracks with the bill’s movement so far. SB 1397 has already cleared its first committee hurdle unanimously, at least according to the public bill history now available.
That does not guarantee it becomes law. California politics can still turn a seemingly modest wildlife bill into a lengthy ideological brawl.
Still, as bills go, SB 1397 is more practical than theatrical. It asks the state to improve a program it already has, study what is actually happening, use nonlethal tools where possible, and explain itself to lawmakers and the public along the way.
For a state that often talks big about science, that is a pretty fair test. If California really wants a better way to manage mountain lion conflicts, then this bill gives Sacramento a chance to prove it can do more than argue.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.
