DISCUSSION

The parties agree that defendant’s conviction for grand theft must be reversed for want of substantial evidence showing UCSC owned the mountain lion. For the reasons we shall explain, we agree with the parties. A jury found defendant guilty of grand theft for killing a mountain lion alleged to be the property of UCSC worth more than $950, as charged in count 2 of the information. An essential element for this crime was that UCSC had a proprietary or possessory interest in the mountain lion. (People v. Brady (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 954, 957.) The well-settled rule in California is that no one holds a “personal property right in wild animals or fish unless captured, tamed or otherwise reduced to possession. (Civ. Code,

2 § 656; [citations].)” (Ibid.) Civil Code section 656 provides: “Animals wild by nature are the subjects of ownership, while living, only when on the land of the person claiming them, or when tamed, or taken and held in possession, or disabled and immediately pursued.” Thus, although wild animals are collectively owned by the people of California generally, the state does not have a possessory interest in wild animals for purposes of the theft statutes. (See, e.g., Brady, pp. 957-959 [the wild “abalone caught in the state’s coastal waters belong to the People of the State of California in their collective, sovereign capacity” but this interest does not include an “individual property right” for purposes of Pen. Code, §§ 484, 487].) Fish and Game Code section 4800 protects Californian mountain lions from being taken or possessed except under specified circumstances. (Fish & G. Code, § 4800, subds. (a), (b)(1).) As relevant here, Fish and Game Code section 4810 authorizes the temporary capture and possession of mountain lions for the purpose of outfitting the animals with a tracking device. (Fish & G. Code, § 4810, subds. (b)-(c), (e).) UCSC captured and outfitted 4M with a tracking device pursuant to this authority. We agree with the parties that UCSC’s temporary capture and release of 4M into the wild with a tracking collar did not vest UCSC with an interest in the mountain lion protectable by the theft statutes of this state. (C.f. Moerman v. State of California (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 452, 457-458 [state did not own for purposes of inverse condemnation tule elk captured, tagged, relocated, and monitored as part of state program].) Accordingly, defendant’s conviction for grand theft must be reversed. (People v. Brady, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at p. 962.)

3

DISPOSITION

Defendant’s conviction for grand theft (count 2) is reversed for insufficient evidence. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended probation order omitting reference to defendant’s conviction under Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a).

/s/ Duarte, Acting P. J. We concur:

/s/ Mesiwala, J.

/s/ Wiseman, J.

 Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

4