Good Morning!

In response to the Hearing for HB 2337, 3428 and 3326 I have pulled more research work from the Oregon State Police data files and I have contacted the California State Fish And Game concerning HB’s 2337, 3428, and 3326.

I spoke to Mark Kenyon of the California Fish and Game.  I must correct my numbers regarding CA cougar.  There are not 6000, there are according to Mark, only about 4800 to 5000 cougar and he stated CA are declining.    Mark stated they have no direct means of counting the cougar.  They use to rely on harvest tags to derive a population estimate put since Prop 117, they no longer hunt cougar.  They use a deer count and he stated their deer are healthy.  As we all know, a high percentage of Oregon’s harvest tags have it appears for many years NOT been reported!  We use the same method as CA to calculate our cougar population which is tag reports or sometimes deer population which are now thin or missing in some portions of Oregon.  Our cougar population numbers are wrong because of the fact we have not been able to have a reliable count of them apparently for many years.  These wrong numbers from poor management add up and wrongly claim we have many more cougar than we do.  Hence, why folks can’t find them and keep upping the quota and increasing the season. We don’t have the cougar.  California has only 4 to 5 thousand cougar and more land and according to Mark, plus a 30 million dollar yearly program for the next 30 years to acquire wildlife habitat for all species and they don’t hunt cougar;   then Oregon’s increased killing of the lions on less land common sense says, adds up to LESS cougar than California.  Mark also stated that they do not spend thousands of dollars per year on cougar issues.  He stated they have a 3 year contract with UDSA WLS for $66,000 ($22,000 per year) that deals with skunk, coyote, cougar and other animal conflict issues. They do have a 3 year contract Mark stated for $200,000 to protect California’s big horn sheep that includes habitat protection.  Mark stated they are not spending hundreds of thousands per year controlling cougar.  I have been told by other CA biologists that CA cougar are missing from their Northern boarder.  Oregon probably shot them adding to the decline of CA cougar and undermining their habitat programs.


Why are we worried over spending $100,000 per year to oversee cougar issues when we are letting millions slip through our fingers from poaching? 

According to the Oregon State Police status of poaching in Oregon presented by Lieutenant Steve Lane in April of 2009, poaching is costing Oregonians millions.  According to Lieutenant Lane, between the years 2001 and 2008, 2,874 deer illegal kills were documented.  Not all poaching kills are found so the numbers could be higher.  Needless to say, each deer was valued at $800.00 each for a whopping $2,299,200 loss to Oregonians.  Between the same years 1,738 elk were killed.  Elk are valued at $1,500 each for a loss to the State of $2,607.000. 

Other big game illegal kills for 2001 through 2008 include $70,400 for antelope, $61,200 for mountain goats, $115,600 for big horn sheep, $109,600 for bear, $62,400 for cougar, and $1,000 for wolf.  These total $420,200.
 
Our poaching issues need to be addressed before even considering any 3 of these Bills.  These Bills are a gift to poachers.  We simply cannot have a balanced ecosystem with the poaching of deer, elk and cougar at the numbers we have.  All the collard cat programs in Oregon have been undermined by poaching.  Often, only the collar was found on a shot cougar or unbuckled and left on the ground according to ODFW’s biologist Dr. Jackson.

Wages and administrative costs incurred from tying to deal with poaching are astronomical.  Now this is just the tax payer dollars, where as private property owners, livestock operations and insurance companies all pay a price outside of taxes for the damage done by poaching.  But the biggest loss is the environmental issues incurred from an out of balance ecosystem poaching contributes too.

I believe Ginger (Ginger testified against all 3 Bills) with her two golden labs is correct. It is better to spend $100,000 per year on our existing program for trained and I will add, emotionally evaluated professionals that are accountable, than to turn untrained laypersons into the woods that are not accountable to kill randomly.  As we have seen in recent shootings, too many disturbed people are able to acquire guns and licenses to use them.  These guns become an extension of their personality often times displaying unaddressed emotional issues releasing otherwise suppressed negative emotions in such hostile manners towards the cougar (or, I have found, towards people who want to protect cougar) as to become almost at times sadistic.  Often dogs are no better than their owners or trainers.   I cannot justify the sadistic satisfaction hound hunters have when the cougar cubs are eaten and torn apart while still alive by the dogs as the frantic and helpless mother is treed.   Hundreds if not thousands of cubs horrifically suffer because maybe someday someone or a child might be attacked by a cougar someplace in the world, while we stand by and watch children practically every day be attacked someplace in our State by pet domestic dogs or shot in the back as 15 year old Matthew was while out poaching.  But no one is doing anything about the dogs and guns that every year kill children.  Often times the mother cougar is treed for days until the person who hired the houndsmen arrives to shoot the cat.  One such party at the hearing confessed to treeing 30 cats and only shooting one.  He also stated that he spends $1000.00 on gas for these hunts.  What he did not state was that it was highly probable that other parties who hired him, killed the other 29 cougar.  Somehow he had to pay for his gas.  Hound dogs sell for up to $6000.00 per dog, and $12,000.00 per hunt.  I know of a party who holds an office with the Farm Bureau whose family specifically raise hounds for the purpose of killing cougar.  He told me they lost business after M18. Judging from the Eastern States and the cougar decline in CA in spite of the land use programs and no hunting, this is not a sustainable business or good for Oregon.  These Bills are about the money behind the trophy, and they are not at all about safety.  I believe most children would be appalled if they had the chance to understand how they are being exploited in order for a few to profit from killing the cougar.

Killing the cougar will cause more danger for humans and livestock. Nothing speaks better than experiance.  California does not hunt cougar and has less cougar issues than Canada who has the highest cougar hunts and conflict issues.  ODFW Dr. Jackson stated Oregon had less cougar conflict and livestock issues before M18, than we now do after M18.  This is because after M18 ODFW increased killing the cougar by increasing tag sales from 1000 to 4500, increased the season, lowered the cost, added the tags in a package program and started a public safety program with a mandatory kill of 3000 lion.

Just for the record, when my family refused to allow hound hunters to hunt on our land, later that night the hunters turned some of their dogs into my FFA sheep project, and the dogs killed all 50 of my sheep before I could stop them.  No one had a special Legislative session to prevent dogs from killing livestock or attacking children after my issues happened.  There is no money in killing dogs [like there is in killing cougar]. 1/2 million US citizen including children are crippled or maimed each year by pet domestic dogs and each year more livestock are killed by pet domestic dogs than cougar and bobcat combined.  Having been a victim of this, I simply cannot stress this enough.



However and most important.  There have been enough changes in our ecosystem, our communities, and our climate environment; that this issue now needs to go back to the voters for their consideration and vote.  We need to present factual information to the public and an unbiased outside Peer Review is necessary and then the public needs to vote.


Thank you and kindest regards,

Jayne Miller
Director, OreCat.org

hope that this document will work for you.

 

You might punch up an opening paragraph (I don't know what works, but maybe some hook):

 

The People voiced their choice in the matter of using dogs to hunt cougars in open season--People do not want cougar hounding. This document shows that the State's opinion surveys, recognized scientists, safety statistics, and financial incentives to farmers, provide a counter to the Bills' supporters that the People's choice should be overturned for any or all reasons. In fact, The People have generously allowed hunting seasons in spite of accumulating facts that independent scientists now warn of trophic collapse where people hunt cougars. Empirical evidence shows that cougar hunting increases human/cougar problems while reducing the viability of wildlife habitat and increasing abiotic deterioration such as stream-bed erosion.

 

I always think of Washington and Oregon as two 'green' states, and it is disheartening to see that a small percentage of hunters and ranchers would destroy the ecosystem for personal gain and satisfaction with the help of the legislatures and the regulatory agencies, just as the world's financial system collapsed while lawmakers and regulators watched.

 

Thank you for your efforts (and encouragement)

 

Bob

 

**********************************Handout below*******************

 

RE: Allowing the use of dogs to hunt cougars (SB5356 and HB1124)

 

I am requesting that you vote NO on these respective bills.

 

In 1996 63% of voters approved Initiative 655 to limit the use of dogs to hunt cougars to specifically defined circumstances. Since then, the WDFW and legislature have bypassed the people by allowing temporary pilot programs of hounding cougars in selected counties. Now these two bills would again open the use of dogs in general cougar hunting.

 

A WDFW sponsored survey in 2008 included this analysis on one section:

“Trend: Support for reducing predators is less in 2008 (unweighted data) than it was in 2002 for three of the four reasons:

·        to address human safety (84% in 2002, 63% in 2008),

·        to protect threatened or endangered species (76% in 2002, 64% in 2008), and

·        to prevent loss of domestic animals or pets (69% in 2002, 53% in 2008).

·        Support for reducing predators to increase game populations was about the same in the two years of study (40% in 2002, 42% in 2008).”

 

The majority of the people are against using dogs to hunt cougars, still. The legislature should not override this majority to please a small contingent of hunting enthusiasts who would help WDFW manage cougar populations using, among the specified weapons, bows and muzzle loaders.

 

In a hunting attitudes survey sponsored by WDFW one of the outcomes was that:

“90% of respondents thought that scientific information was very or somewhat important in making game management decisions, with a large majority (68%) rating scientific information as very important.”

 

The sciences of trophic cascade and trophic collapse indicate that the reduction of apex predators such as cougars actually have far reaching effects that result in a reduction of wildlife habitat, as well as increased soil erosion. Some of the nation’s foremost authorities in trophic sciences are at the University of Washington and Oregon State University, yet WDFW seems unaware of current science when they present a push-pull question such as:

“The overall health of deer and elk populations can vary due to factors like severe winters or poor habitat conditions. In some cases, when a deer or elk population is already depressed, predators such as cougar can hinder the population's ability to rebound. In cases like this, do you support or oppose using cougar hunting as a management tool to reduce cougar populations to increase deer or elk herds that are below population objectives?”

 

Wouldn’t the information that hunters in Washington killed over 42,000 deer and elk in 2008 lead one to better ask “…In cases like this, do you support or oppose restricting or canceling hunting season as a management tool to increase deer or elk herds that are below population objectives?”

 

From the 2008 survey regarding cougars:

“Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of eleven statements pertaining to cougar management in Washington State. Over three-quarters of respondents agreed with the following statements:

·        “Livestock and pet owners who live in cougar habitat should be held responsible for taking steps to secure their animals” (93%);

·        “Cougars are an important and essential component of Washington ecosystems” (92%);

·        “Cougars were here before humans and have an inherent right to live in Washington” (92%);

·        “Cougars are part of the legacy I want to leave to future people of Washington” (91%);

·        “Individuals living near cougars should be held responsible for taking steps to minimize the chance of human/cougar conflict” (90%);

·        “I derive satisfaction from just knowing cougars are present in Washington” (83%);

·        “Large predators such as cougars help to control populations of large game species” (77%).””

 

Politically, the surveys do not support the override of Initiative 655.

 

Once I-655 passed, WDFW literally declared open war on cougars, selling low-cost tags in package deals. According to Donny Martorello, WDFW Bear, Cougar, Furbearer Section Mgr in a Fall 2003 report titled “Cougar Harvest,” cougar hunting tags “increased from less than 1,000 annually prior to I-655 to about 58,000 post I-655.” The number of cougars killed exceeded the pre-I-655 seasons.

 

Dr. Martorello also testified to the committee that the hunting statistics and the complaints are unrelated. Since WDFW showed the cougar complaints dropping in hounding counties since the pilot program, I picked the complaint data from WDFW’s bar charts posted on their website to create this graph:

 

What is noticeable is that complaints dropped statewide, and that the ratio of complaints in hounding counties is currently rising. Complaints do not indicate success of the program, and if we use complaints as a goal, one would expect words to indicate complaint ratios should decrease rapidly relative to non-hounding counties. Since, as testified, they are unrelated, we should base our goals on stated objectives such as health and viability of cougar populations.

 

The impact on cougar populations as WDFW radically increased the sale of cougar tags became apparent as noted in this article:

Journal of Wildlife Management 70(1):246-254. 2006
doi: 10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[246:CPDAVI]2.0.CO;2

“Cougar Population Dynamics and Viability in the Pacific Northwest.” The authors concluded their abstract thusly (my emphasis):

“Contrary to accepted belief, our findings suggest that cougars in the Pacific Northwest are currently declining. Increased conflicts between cougars and humans in this area could be the result of the

 1) very young age structure of the population caused by heavy hunting,

2) increased human intrusion into cougar habitat,

3) low level of social acceptance of cougars in the area, or

 4) habituation of cougars to humans. To help preserve this population, we recommend reduced levels of exploitation, particularly for adult females, continuous monitoring, and collaborative efforts of managers from adjacent states and provinces.”

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3803567

 

Cougars make their living staying out of sight; inability to stay out of sight may well reflect a stress upon their population. Neither poaching nor non-compliance (with kill reporting) statistics seem to be available. Orphaned kittens or cats killed by poachers do not count in kill statistics, so one must wonder how WDFW or any other entity can manage the population by creating kill quotas. Oregon statistics imply that hunters and poachers kill far more cats than the one-third of Oregon hunters who respond to mandatory reporting requirements.

 

The WDFW Game Management Plan July 2003 - June 2009 states:

“A more realistic estimate of statewide cougar abundance is about 2,600 animals.”

 

On the (undated) WDFW web page “Living with Wildlife,” the section titled “Cougars (Mountain Lions)” states:

“The cougar population for the year 2008 was estimated to be 2000 to 2,500 animals.”

http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/cougars.html

 

In “Cougar Outreach and Education in Washington State November 2010,” we learn that

“Washington’s cougar population is about 1,900 to 2,100 resident animals (excludes transient subadults), including kittens.”

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01162/wdfw01162.pdf

 

The WDFW Game Management Plan July 2003 - June 2009 states:

 “Since 1996, the shift to harvesting more females and younger animals (as well as more total animals) likely is causing the statewide cougar population to decline.”

 

The GMP issue statement makes clear that hunting is not a prime goal and that reliable population data is a necessity (my emphasis):

 “A fundamental goal of WDFW is to preserve, protect, and perpetuate wildlife populations and their habitats to ensure healthy, productive populations. The starting point for achieving this goal is reliable information on the status of wildlife populations and the potential impacts of particular management actions, such as hunting. Given a variety of limitations, the accuracy and precision of the biological data to assess populations are often lower than biologists would prefer. In these situations, management decisions favor a conservative approach, to reduce the probability of causing significant negative impacts to the wildlife resource.”

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00399/wdfw00399.pdf

 

An estimated population loss of as much as 25% should give WDFW pause in issuing 60,000 boot tags for cougars, especially since cougars are a keystone species.

 

In an article about counting cougars, more research about the deleterious effects of cougar hunting:

“Rob Wielgus, director of the Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at WSU…. His research team has found that in parts of the state where the number of complaints has been highest, cougar populations are either holding steady or declining. That the big cats are becoming more visible, but not more numerous, is just one of the paradoxes stemming from the same source: much of what we thought we knew about cougars is wrong.

 

"The science is the science," [Wielgus] says. "People say, 'I know that there's more cougars than ever, because I just know.' What we're saying is, there aren't more now, you've just seen more, because you've killed all the big guys that kept out these young troublemakers.'”

http://wsm.wsu.edu/s/index.php?id=592

 

When we artificially remove dominant male cougars from their territory, that opens the territory to prematurely dispersing young males that are disproportionately more likely to get into trouble with humans.

 

When we artificially remove female cougars from the population, up to ½ of the time that action will orphan dependent kittens that are disproportionately more likely to get into trouble with humans.

 

Some cougar experts now speculate that hound hunting selects for stronger and more aggressive cougars since a typically timid cougar will tree and be killed.

 

California does not allow cougar hunting for sport. These statistics are from California:

“The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) logs hundreds of Wildlife Incident Reports annually related to mountain lion sightings. On average, fewer than three percent of these reports result in a mountain lion being identified as an imminent threat to public safety and killed under the CDFG’s Wildlife Public Safety Guidelines.

The vast majority of these reports (79 percent) are resolved by providing information about the natural history and behavior of mountain lions. Another 18 percent of cases are legitimate threats posed by mountain lions that can be resolved by modifying human behavior.”

 -- California Department of Fish and Game Website http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/lion/trends.html

 

Scientists now understand better the environmental effects of removing apex predators, and the results are not good. A scientific study compared Zion National Park to a nearby area, North Creek. North Creek had a stable cougar population.

“Increases in human visitors in Zion Canyon apparently reduced cougar (Puma concolor) densities, which subsequently led to higher mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) densities, higher browsing intensities and reduced recruitment of riparian cottonwood trees (Populus fremontii), increased bank erosion, and reductions in both terrestrial and aquatic species abundance. These results may have broad implications with regard to our understanding of alternative ecosystem states where large carnivores have been removed or are being recovered.”

 

 “Linking a cougar decline, trophic cascade, and catastrophic regime shift in Zion National Park”

William J. Ripple, Robert L. Beschta

College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Forest Resources, Corvallis, OR 97331, United States

http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/cougar_cascades_ripple_beschta_2006.pdf

 

 

 

 

The People understand the need for ranchers to maintain profitability; the citizens of Washington have excused ranchers from the B&O tax, and have allowed them property tax incentives for open lands:

“84.34.010

Legislative declaration.

The legislature hereby declares that it is in the best interest of the state to maintain, preserve, conserve and otherwise continue in existence adequate open space lands for the production of food, fiber and forest crops, and to assure the use and enjoyment of natural resources and scenic beauty for the economic and social well-being of the state and its citizens.

84.34.020

Definitions.

As used in this chapter, unless a different meaning is required by the context: 

     (1) "Open space land" means

 (a) any land area so designated by an official comprehensive land use plan adopted by any city or county and zoned accordingly, or

 (b) any land area, the preservation of which in its present use would

 (i) conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources, or

(ii) protect streams or water supply, or

 (iii) promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes, or

 (iv) enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space, or

 (v) enhance recreation opportunities, or

 [….]”

 

Additionally, compensation may be available under RCW 77.36.

 

Certainly, the citizens of Washington expect that these incentives reduce the financial risks of agriculture, and since we are compensating for risk and for environmental conservation, the ranchers cannot expect to have zero risk with regard to depredation by removing a keystone species from the environment—a species that over 90% of the population believe are an essential part of Washington’s ecosystem and has a right to life. Over 90% believe that humans must make adjustments to co-exist with Puma concolor. The cost to the ecosystem to try proactively to reduce a miniscule risk to zero is far too high to contemplate.

 

I again quote Dr. Wielgus (from an article):

"Look, you have a belief. Fine. Test the belief. That's what we're doing now. We have study areas where they're heavily hunted, and we have areas where they're virtually not hunted at all. And the interesting thing is, the areas where we aren't hunting cougars heavily, it's virtually zero in human complaints."

He understands the concern over encounters with cougars, but says we need to find a different response than killing more of the big cats.

"Our management actions are achieving the exact reverse of what is desired," he says. "It's the shift in the age structure that results in the increased complaints. It's just disastrous. The heavy hunting that we're doing in Washington State is causing increased human-cougar conflicts. The putative solution is causing the problem."

http://wsm.wsu.edu/s/index.php?id=592

 

We pay for conservation; we shoulder some financial risk to benefit farmers--shouldn’t we listen to the scientists about what works? We cannot afford to pay to “achieve the exact reverse of what is desired!”

 

The People started an initiative, collected signatures, and won an overwhelming majority on I-655. The People were reasonable in allowing for the use of dogs in specified cases, and there are no overwhelming scientific, legal, safety, or popular political reasons to overturn the results of that initiative.

 

Please vote NO on these bills.

 

Bob McCoy

****************************************************************************************************************************************

3/19/2010

Corrections to Jayne's Hearing Response:

Marc Kenyon from the California Fish and Game contacted me with corrections regarding the amount of money funded from the Federal Fish and Wildlife for the 3 year contract  protecting California's Big Horn sheep and their habitat.  It is a 3 year contract costing $200,000 every two years for a total of $600,000.  Marc stated the $600,000 is not exclusive to cougar.  The $600,000 covers poaching issues, bobcat and coyotes and other predators including the cougar as well as habitat maintenance replanting vegetation appropriate to Big Horn Sheep.  Marc was unable to get a breakdown of the costs and does not know how much has been dedicated out of the $600,000 per issue.  Again, there is no special funded program to handle cougar issues in the State of California.

According to CFG “Poaching for profit” is second only to the illegal drug trade in black market profitability, (more than $100 million per year since the 1990s). It is the most compelling cause of an unprecedented increase in commercial poaching and the blatant disregard of wildlife laws over the last decade. It is readily acknowledged by stakeholders, constituents and members of the Legislature that the lack of game wardens and the ensuing inability to investigate and prosecute such violators has put the state’s resources in crisis. The impact on recreational fishing and hunting opportunities, and conservation and restoration efforts is of significant concern to both consumptive and non-consumptive group. 

http://165.235.95.70/search?q=poaching&output=xml_no_dtd&site=ca_dfg&client=ca_dfg&proxystylesheet=ca_dfg

Marc Kenyon
Statewide Coordinator
Bear, Mountain Lion & Wild Pig Programs
California Department of Fish and Game
1812 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
916.445.3515 (office)
916.212.3233 (mobile)

March 20, 2011

Outdoors

---

Study: Poachers kill as many deer in Oregon as hunters
By Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has found that poachers are killing as many mule deer as legal hunters.

 

The poaching is considering a contributing factor to a decline in the state mule deer population, which has fallen to 216,000 animals from historic peaks of more than 300,000.

Research supervisor DeWayne Jackson in Roseburg said poachers typically kill female deer, which are more important to reproduction. Licensed hunters kill more bucks than does.

"If we look at the illegal take, it's basically equal to the legal take — it's bad," said Michelle Dennehy, a Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman in Salem. "Poaching is not ethical, it's not hunting."

State biologists discovered the level of poaching during a five-year research study of deer between Bend and the California border, The Oregonian reported. The state study of 500 mule deer fitted with radio collars was conducted between July 2005 and last January.

Researchers said 128 deer died during the study. Of those, poachers killed 19 and hunters legally shot 21. Cougars killed 15 and eight were hit and killed by cars.

Of the rest, five succumbed to coyotes, disease claimed five and four others died while tangled in fences or from some other accident, Jackson said.

Biologists listed 51 as "cause of death unknown," but poachers could have taken some of those, he said. "Sometimes we just find the radio collar laying out in the sagebrush," he said.

Because the study wasn't designed to detect poachers, biologists don't know if other areas have comparable numbers of deer taken illegally, said Don Whittaker, Fish and Wildlife ungulate coordinator.

But wildlife managers suspect poaching is happening across Oregon.

Poaching "is out of hand in Oregon," said Ken Hand of Klamath Falls, regional director of the 11,000-member nonprofit Mule Deer Foundation based in Salt Lake City. "It's going on all over the state, 365 days a year. From all the contacts I have around the state, I just hear about it constantly."

The chance of Oregon's mule deer population ever rebuilding seem pretty slim "with the predators out there, including the humans," he said.

Oregon mule deer are native to the state and typically found east of the Cascade Range crest. Wildlife managers say the deer are under intense pressure from predators, including an estimated 5,700 cougars roaming Oregon's forests and high deserts, up from 2,600 two decades ago.

Oregon also has 25,000 black bears, and Canadian gray wolves have staked claim to the state's northeastern corner. All three species prey on mule deer.

Automobiles, too, account for plenty of mule deer deaths. A Fish and Wildlife study documented 1,626 mule deer killed by motor vehicles along 150 miles of U.S. 97 and Oregon 31, south of Bend, between October 2005 and January.

Dennehy said habitat issues are also a concern in central Oregon, where resort development, new homes and other human activities have sharply reduced winter range for mule deer.

It's difficult to catch poachers in the act, said Oregon State Police game officer Chris Hawkins of La Grande.

Many areas simply don't have many officers, he said. Wallowa County, which is the size of Delaware and Rhode Island and has a population of 7,150, has three game officers, Hawkins said.

Dennehy said the Oregon Hunters Association's "turn-in-poachers" program, or TIP, offers rewards, but that won't cure the problem.

"It's a very vast landscape," Dennehy said. "We can't have eyes everywhere."

___