Mountain Lion Hunt Ban Upheld : Environment: Appellate Judges scolded Fish and Game officials and said a report they circulated ‘swept the serious criticisms of this project under the rug.’

A state Court of Appeal, sharply criticizing fish and game officials, refused Tuesday to lift a 17-year ban in California on the killing of mountain lions for sport.

The three-member panel upheld an order by a San Francisco Superior Court judge blocking the proposed hunt until the state Fish and Game Commission more fully analyzed the environmental impact of the plan and gave the public more information on its consequences.

The panel said the commission’s environmental analysis was “woefully inadequate.” State officials, the court said, “chose to circulate a document that simply swept the serious criticisms of this project under the rug.”

“It was impossible for the public, which had actively asserted a keen and sophisticated interest in the proposed mountain lion hunt, to fully participate in the assessment of the cumulative impacts associated with this project . . . ,” Appellate Justice Zerne P. Haning wrote in an opinion joined by Appellate Justices Harry W. Low and William R. Channel.

The decision was warmly received by Michael H. Remy, a Sacramento attorney representing the Mountain Lion Coalition, a group opposing the proposed hunt. “We have maintained all along that before any such hunts can be authorized, the commission must take a hard look at the consequences,” Remy said. “We’re hopeful that the commission will take this ruling to heart . . . and that this is the end of the road on this matter.”

Spokesmen for the commission and the state Attorney General’s office declined commment, pending study of the panel’s opinion, but said an appeal to the state Supreme Court would be considered.

Tuesday’s decision came in a highly charged dispute over a plan by the commission to permit the killing of 190 mountain lions. The commission says there are more than 5,000 mountain lions now in the state.

California banned the hunting of the big cats for sport, or “trophies,” in 1972--becoming the only state in the west where such killings were not allowed. Killing lions who directly threaten livestock or humans is still permitted.

Gov. George Deukmejian refused to extend the ban when it expired in 1986 and the commission then made plans for a mountain lion hunting season, selling permits for $75 apiece.

But environmentalists, led by the Mountain Lion Preservation Foundation, launched a broad protest, questioning the commission’s lion-population estimates and the social value of hunting the animals for pure sport. In all, more than 100,000 persons joined in letters and petitions of protest. Lawyers for the foundation contended in their suit that the commission failed to follow state law requiring the preparation of an environmental impact report that would alert the public to the probable consequences of the hunt.

In January 1988, Superior Judge Lucy Kelly McCabe blocked the hunt, directing the commission to compile a report that considered a broad range of potential effects--including the impact of repeated annual hunts, the effect on lion populations in adjacent federal parks and how the cats were affected by wildfires in their habitats.

The commission prepared and circulated a new report, but the judge found it was inadequate. The commission then appealed, contending its procedures met the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. But the panel Thursday upheld Judge McCabe, saying her order should have been strictly obeyed with a “complete discussion” of the issues.

The appeals court said the commission’s analysis did not “meaningfully” address the impact of the hunt on lions in national parks and gave only “cursory treatment” to the effect of wildfires on foraging conditions for lions and other animals. The report simply concluded there would be “no long-term negative impact” of repeated hunts, without “explaining in even minimum detail how it arrived at this conclusion,” the panel said.

“Should (the commission) wish to proceed in the future with another attempt to authorize a mountain lion hunt, it must provide a cumulative impact analysis to the public that encourages rather than impedes meaningful public discussion of these important issues,” Haning wrote.