| In 2017, Californians responded seriously to public concerns about certain dwindling populations of mountain lions (Puma concolor) affected by the practice of issuing permits to kill upon a property owner's request following documented loss of domestic animals. The year-long story of what the California Department of Fish and Wildlife termed a Conceptual Mountain Lion Depredation Policy highlights the parallel but distinct communication paths and persuasive and informational messaging that form the basis for most wildlife policy change. An initial outcry crystallized following repeated depredations in the Santa Monica Mountains and the issuance of a permit to kill one lion, P-45. Opposing public positions became entrenched and increasingly vitriolic as news and social media focused on the conflict. Those who experienced livestock losses, activists, scientists, local governments, and nonprofits were caught in the crossfire. Within state government there seemed to be potential for consensus change, but motivated communicators were constrained by structural, economic, statutory, and regulatory factors as well as by the complexity of the issues. Legislators, agencies, lobbyists, nonprofits, agricultural associations, and academic institutions struggled to crystalize communications to overcome misconceptions, bridge deep divides, and re-evaluate existing policy based on facts, science, conservation goals, and the public good. |