Why did authorities kill Malibu puma who attacked a boy? 'We don't have mountain lion jail'

[Zorro]

After a mountain lion attacked a 5-year-old boy over the weekend, some commenters on social media blasted officials’ decision to kill the big cat and accused the boy’s family of provoking the animal.

It was hard for some to understand why there wasn’t another way to deal with the issue, given all the efforts to help the dwindling mountain lion population in Southern California and the love L.A. had for its favorite cat, P-22.

“That’s what happens when we are in their territory!” wrote one woman on Facebook.

“Couldn’t relocate the lion had to kill it!! But that’s we what we do we destroy everything like a plague to make more room for more in the way people,” wrote another.

But experts said that the killing of the puma was likely the only responsible answer after the cat pounced on the young boy, who was in a designated picnic area with dozens of other people.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-09-04/officials-had-to-kill-mountain-lion-that-attacked-child-expert-says

[jimfields33]

1. They seem to do that with most animals who attack humans.

[Wonder Why]

5. Because once they taste human blood, they may find it an easier meal than searching for traditional prey.

[jimfields33]

6. Good point.

[Auggie]

2. Assholes

[stopdiggin]

4. probably not. this was much more likely

a decision made with some real consideration and regret in play. Just not a whole lot of real (viable) options.

[stopdiggin]

3. clearly aberrant and dangerous behavior

there are animals that are not going to make good neighbors (and should not be attempted)
re-homing these animals - does not have the successful conclusion that many readily assume. oftentimes it is a deadly option for the animal, with a lingering and miserable end. and so, regrettably ...

and, sadly - no, we are not going to move the population of LA elsewhere.