SB 1397 requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to maintain, enhance, and expand its human–mountain lion conflicts program, plus continue and broaden scientific research into methods that keep mountain lions out of communities and prevent their habituation to people. The bill directs DFW to undertake public education and develop best practices to reduce conflicts.
The statute frames these actions as public-safety measures aimed at areas with rising mountain‑lion activity and known “hot spots.” By creating explicit research priorities and outreach obligations, the bill seeks operational consistency across regions and a clearer channel for local engagement with state wildlife managers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds new sections to the Fish and Game Code requiring DFW to (1) sustain and expand its human–mountain lion conflicts program, (2) continue research on deterrence and habituation, and (3) run public-education and best-practices efforts. It authorizes DFW to employ nonlethal procedures under its existing statutory authority.
Who It Affects
Directly affects DFW staff and regional human-wildlife conflict teams, state and local wildlife researchers, county governments in high-conflict areas, livestock owners and pet-keepers in foothill communities, and agencies that issue depredation permits.
Why It Matters
The bill formalizes program priorities and research targets at the state level, shifts more of the operational burden onto DFW, and creates legislatively mandated transparency and outreach expectations that could change how local jurisdictions request and receive assistance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1397 instructs DFW to expand not just field response but the knowledge base used to shape that response. The department must pursue scientific work focused on practical deterrents—ways to keep mountain lions from entering neighborhoods—and on preventing animals from becoming habituated to human presence.
That research is expressly aimed at improving understanding of the multiple ecological and human-driven factors that contribute to conflict.
Implementation under the bill is collaborative: DFW is required to consult with the Department of Parks and Recreation and local agencies so that any field activities or research conform to applicable laws and park regulations. The bill also builds an expectation that DFW will engage communities directly by regularly attending local government public meetings in counties with elevated conflict to brief officials and residents and to explain how depredation permitting is working in practice.Operationally, the statute tells DFW to prioritize public education (materials and outreach about protecting livestock, pets, and people) and to develop best practices for municipalities and landowners.
The law explicitly ties program actions to DFW’s existing authority to authorize nonlethal techniques—such as capturing, pursuing, or hazing—so the statutory framework focuses on applied responses rather than creating new take authority.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires DFW to submit a written report to the Legislature on or before October 1, 2031, with program results, staff counts involved in the programs, and recommendations to improve protection of human health and safety.
Sections establishing the expanded program and the research mandate (Sections 4811, 4811.2, and 4811.4) automatically repeal on January 1, 2033.
The Director of Fish and Wildlife must appear annually before either the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water or the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife to provide status updates until the 2034 calendar year.
The report mandated by the bill must be transmitted to four specific legislative committees: the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water, the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife, and the budget committees in both houses.
The report submission requirement becomes inoperative on October 1, 2035, and the final section containing the reporting and oversight provisions is set to repeal on January 1, 2036.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
State human–mountain lion conflicts program: maintain, enhance, expand
This provision obliges DFW to keep running and to scale up its human–mountain lion conflicts program. Practically, DFW must build out public education, livestock and pet-protection guidance, and best practices for minimizing encounters. The clause references DFW’s authority under existing law for nonlethal measures, which means the provision leans on current permitting and operational rules rather than creating new statutory powers.
Scientific research mandate on deterrence and habituation
This section directs DFW to continue and expand scientific research into methods that deter mountain lions from communities and prevent habituation to humans, and to deepen understanding of contributing factors to conflicts. The research mandate is outcome-oriented—DFW must produce and evaluate practical methods—so the agency will need to translate field studies into implementable guidance for regional staff and local partners.
Local engagement and depredation-permit transparency
The law expresses legislative intent for close work with communities and requires DFW staff to attend public meetings in counties with high conflict levels to update local officials and residents. It also specifically directs DFW to update local governments on depredation permitting processes, including turnaround times from application to permit issuance—adding a transparency obligation that may change local expectations about responsiveness.
Reporting and legislative oversight
This section imposes two oversight mechanisms: a legislatively required written report describing program results, personnel involved, and recommendations to improve public safety; and an annual appearance by the Director before designated legislative committees through 2034. It also sets the statutory sunsets for the reporting obligation and this section, aligning legislative review with the program’s temporary statutory life.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents in high-conflict counties — they gain clearer state support, outreach, and access to DFW briefings that can improve local preparedness and reduce risk.
- Livestock and pet owners in foothill communities — expanded best practices and deterrence research aim to reduce losses and provide actionable steps to protect animals and property.
- Wildlife researchers and academic partners — the bill formalizes research priorities and expands state-supported research opportunities into deterrence and habituation studies.
- Local governments and school districts in ‘hot spots’ — regular DFW attendance at public meetings improves information flow and gives officials data to inform zoning, school safety, and local ordinances.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Fish and Wildlife — the bill increases programmatic responsibilities (field engagement, research, outreach, reporting, and legislative appearances) without specifying funding, straining staff and operational budgets.
- State budget and appropriators — even though the bill contains no appropriation, fulfilling research, outreach, and reporting obligations will likely require new or reallocated funding from the General Fund or special accounts.
- Regional offices and frontline technicians — expectation of more frequent travel, community meetings, and on-the-ground work could increase workload and overtime demands.
- Counties and municipalities — while benefiting from more information, they may face pressure to act locally (e.g., enforcement of livestock protection) or to supply matching resources for community outreach.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between public-safety expectations for rapid, visible action (clear outreach, quick depredation responses, and regular legislative updates) and the legal and scientific constraints that govern a specially protected species: meaningful deterrence and research take time and money, while rushed permitting or underfunded programs risk undermining both conservation protections and community trust.
The bill creates clear programmatic expectations but leaves funding unspecified. DFW will be required to expand research, staff outreach, and produce a detailed legislative report, yet the statute contains no appropriation or dedicated revenue source.
That gap raises the risk that implementation will depend on internal budget reassignments or uncertain future appropriations, which could create uneven service across regions.
The temporary nature of most provisions (sunset dates in 2033 and 2036 for different sections) solves legislative caution about altering protections created by Proposition 117 but creates discontinuity risk: research projects, community relationships, and staffing investments often require multi-year commitments. Short statutory windows increase the chance that promising programs are interrupted or conclusions remain unfinished.
Finally, the bill's transparency measures (public briefings and depredation-permit timing disclosures) improve accountability but also create political and operational pressure. Faster permit reporting may be demanded without regard for the technical steps required to assess depredation claims under protections for specially protected species, potentially exposing DFW to conflicts between speedy responses and legal constraints on take.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.