Big Wildlife Says Plan Should be Scrapped Altogether
 

WILLIAMS, OREGON – Today the wildlife advocacy group, Big Wildlife, blasted the state's Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) for proposing to expand its highly controversial cougar plan (CMP) and accused the agency of "willfully misleading the public to promote failed and misguided policies for managing" the big cats. Big Wildlife said the agency should scrap its cougar killing plan because it was destabilizing the state's cougar population, causing havoc in natural systems where cougars play critical roles in maintaining ecosystem integrity, and would likely contribute to increased conflicts with the species. At a Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission hearing last week, the ODFW proposed killing cougars in four more areas in the state. Big Wildlife said instead of killing cougars, the agency should strengthen safeguards for cougars and educate the public about how to avoid conflicts with the animals.
 
"As many scientists and conservation groups predicted, Oregon's cougar killing plan didn't reduce conflicts  and probably made matters worse. Unbelievably, instead of scrapping the failed plan, the Department of Fish and Wildlife proposes to kill even more cougars," said Brian Vincent, Communications Director with Big Wildlife.
 
In its assessment of the CMP, Big Wildlife said the agency's report on the plan to the Commission was filled with inaccuracies, untruths, and misleading statements. For example:
 
·         The agency's claim that cougar numbers in the state are increasing is based on notoriously unreliable methodology for determining cougar populations;
 
·         The ODFW's claim that killing cougars boosts deer and elk populations failed to acknowledge that many factors influence ungulate populations (such as disease, forage conditions, climate, drought, habitat alteration, fluctuations in productivity rates, stress, over hunting, among others) and that cougars play a critical role in regulating healthy populations of deer and elk;
 
·         The Department's claim that killing even more cougars will reduce conflicts flew in the face of a large and growing body of science that shows indiscriminately killing cougars actually increases conflicts;
 
·         The agency's claim that aggressive lethal control in targeted areas had not impacted cougar populations failed to address the impacts such killing has on cougar population dynamics, composition, social structure, age class, and behavior;
 
·         The ODFW's reliance exclusively on killing cougars ignored the effectiveness of non-lethal, preventative methods (e.g. safeguarding domestic farm and ranch animals by penning them at night, erecting proper fencing, using guarding dogs, removing animal carcasses from pastures, bringing pets in at night, properly securing garbage)
 
Big Wildlife also said the ODFW was shifting its rationale for killing cougars. When the agency initially unveiled the CMP, it said aggressive lethal control of cougars was necessary to reduce conflicts with domestic farm and ranch animals, protect the public, and safeguard companion animals. When the agency's own data showed the plan had not worked as the ODFW had anticipated, it proposed expanding the plan to four new target areas to boost elk and deer populations.
 
"Its time to pull the plug on the cougar killing plan," said Vincent.
 

###


THE TRUTH ABOUT OREGON’S COUGAR “MANAGEMENT” PLAN

 
On October 2, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) presented a review of its Cougar Management Plan (CMP) before the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. Unfortunately, the ODFW evaluation of its own plan was filled with inaccuracies, untruths, and misleading statements. The cougar plan, launched three years ago by the agency, has been roundly panned by cougar biologists, wildlife advocates, and some state lawmakers. Below, Big Wildlife offers a point-by-point response to ODFW's report to the Commission. (Note: The ODFW quotes were taken directly from the agency’s recent evaluation of its cougar plan.)
 
ODFW MISLEADING STATEMENT: "It was also hunters that secured protection for cougars and transferred cougar management to state wildlife management agencies. After transfer of management authority to respective wildlife management agencies, application of science-based wildlife management practices led to successful recovery of most cougar populations."
 
REALITY: ODFW's cougar "management," as well as management by many state agencies, is guided more by appeasing hunters than protecting cougars. Since state wildlife agency budgets depend on income from hunting licenses and tags these agencies have a powerful incentive to cater to hunters. In fact, the ODFW has recommended expanding the cougar killing plan to four new target areas ostensibly to boost deer and elk populations, an obvious attempt to further accommodate hunting interests. Historically, hunters actually contributed to the dramatic decline of cougars, pushing the species toward near extinction in Oregon.

 
ODFW MISLEADING STATEMENT: "Most wildlife managers believe cougar populations are more robust now than at any time in recent history."
 
REALITY: Actually, a recent study by Washington State University's (WSU) Large Carnivore Conservation Laboratory found hunters have killed off many older males, as well as targeted female cougars, causing cougar numbers to plummet in the region.
 
In addition, the ODFW has never undertaken a scientifically credible count to determine how many cougars inhabit the state. Rather, the agency has relied on notoriously unreliable methods – such as cougar sightings, depredation, and hunting levels – for reaching its conclusions about Oregon’s cougar population. The authors of the 2005 Cougar Management Guidelines, a compilation of peer-reviewed science on cougars, stated that “cougar sightings, depredation events and harvest levels are not reliable ways to index cougar populations.” The Guideline authors, including noted biologists, Drs. Paul Beier, Maurice Hornocker, and Ken Logan, concluded that reports of cougar sightings are especially poor indicators of cougar presence “because many sightings are cases where the observers misidentified a bobcat, coyote, domestic dog, domestic cat, raccoon, or deer.” They also noted that increased interactions with cougars are more likely a result of human population expansion, rather than that of cougar population increases or changes in cougar behavior.

 
ODFW MISLEADING STATEMENT: "However, cougars can cause direct conflict through predation on livestock and pets."
 
REALITY: While cougars sometimes prey on domestic animals, the ODFW has largely ignored the root cause of such conflicts. Most conflicts with cougars and other predators are the result of irresponsible human behavior. For example, many cougars pay a fatal price because some ranchers and farmers refuse to adequately protect domestic animals or remove animal carcasses from pastures. Landowners who neglect to properly dispose of garbage, safeguard pets, and remove pet food and other attractants essentially lure cougars and other predators onto their property. Conflicts could be significantly reduced if more emphasis was placed on prevention.

 
ODFW MISLEADING STATEMENT: "In Oregon, cougar management is guided by Oregon’s Wildlife Policy which directs the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) to maintain all species of wildlife at optimum levels, to provide optimum recreational benefits, and to regulate wildlife populations in a manner compatible with the primary uses of the land."
 
REALITY: Hunting and ranching interests have traditionally trumped other recreation interests, including the interests of wildlife advocates, wildlife photographers, and wildlife watchers. As noted previously, aggressive lethal control and trophy hunting of cougars have actually contributed to a decline in cougars throughout the region. Sadly, the ODFW has recommended expanding the cougar killing plan to four new target areas ostensibly to boost deer and elk populations, an obvious attempt to further accommodate hunting interests.

The cougar plan has not taken into account the public's wishes. Twice Oregonians voted to protect cougars from unethical hunting practices, including the use of hounds for pursuing the cats. Yet, the ODFW, enabled by the state legislature and Governor Kulongoski, has steadily eroded safeguards for cougars.


ODFW MISLEADING STATEMENT: "In Jackson County, non-hunting cougar mortality related to livestock and human safety/pet conflict did not decline as a result of administrative cougar removals. Further, reported conflicts related to human safety, pets/livestock/other concerns ultimately did not decline. However, annual cougar removal objectives were never met due to land ownership patterns in the target area. Thus activity in the Jackson County Target area did not appear to address conflict related to human safety/pet concerns."
 
REALITY: There are a number of problems with this agency assertion. First, the previously mentioned WSU study, as well as others, is clear that indiscriminate killing of cougars does not reduce conflicts since such killing causes social chaos in cougar populations. WSU team leader Dr. Robet Wielgus found, “killing large numbers of cougars creates social chaos...Trophy hunters often target adult males, which act as a stabilizing force in cougar populations. The adults police large territories and kill or drive out young males. With the grown-ups gone, the ‘young hooligans’ run wild.” Dr. Wielgus further noted, “Evidence suggests cougars under two years of age, just learning to live on their own, account for the majority of run-ins with people and domestic animals…Every time you kill a dominate male, about three of these young guys come to the funeral.”
 
Second, only extremely aggressive lethal control (e.g. wiping out nearly every cougar in an area) will reduce conflicts. Third, the agency did not implement non-lethal methods to determine if those methods were more effective. Fourth, the baseline of "complaints" and "conflicts" was not accurate since complaints are notoriously unreliable. Furthermore, since conflicts are more often caused by human activity, resources would have been better spent addressing the root of the problem by assisting landowners with avoiding conflicts.
 
It comes as no surprise that 20 of the 24 cougars killed by government agents occured on private land on the periphery of the target area in Jackson County. The cruel and indiscriminate use of snares and traps in the area undoubtedly resulted in the large killing of kittens. Fully one third of the cougars killed were kittens - and of those more than 45 percent were female. The area should have been closed to additional killing when female mortality reached 40 percent, the primary objective of the target area. Sadly, all that was accomplished in the target area was to kill off many cougars with no history of creating conflicts on large tracts of private land along the outskirts of the county. It is no wonder the results did not address safety concerns. On the contrary, it is likely conflicts with cougars will increase as the result of over-killing and disruption of cougar age class ratio.


ODFW MISLEADING STATEMENT: "In the Beulah Wildlife Management Unit (WMU), non-hunting cougar mortality related to livestock and human safety/pet conflict declined from 13 prior to cougar removals to six during the removal period. Similarly, the number of reported conflicts in the Beulah WMU related to livestock and human safety pet concerns declined from 16 prior to cougar removals to three during the removal period. In the comparison area (Malheur River WMU), both the number of cougars taken for livestock/human safety conflict and number of reported conflicts related to livestock/human safety concerns remained high. With two years of successful cougar removals in the Beulah Target Area, administrative cougar removal appears to be reducing cougar conflict associated with livestock."
 
REALITY: The non-hunt mortality and complaint numbers used as objectives and criteria for "treatment" were faulty in this target area. The 1994 non-hunt mortality was zero, not 11; the 1994 complaint threshold was 10, not 27. In 2007, the complaint threshold was reached and the zone should have been closed. Instead, it remained open for another year and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission recently agreed to keep the target area open for additional killing for another year.

Also see previous reality check.

 
ODFW MISLEADING STATEMENT: "In the Heppner WMU, the number of elk calves observed per 100 cows increased from 17–21 in the three years prior to administrative cougar removal to 15–30 during the cougar removal period. Comparatively, calf ratios in the Ukiah WMU remained low (13–19:100 cows) during the same period. After three years of implementation, administrative cougar removal appears to have had the desired affect on the elk calf ratio. In the first year of the treatment in the Heppner WMU, most of the calf mortality had occurred prior to initiation of treatment."

REALITY: Ungulate populations are influenced by a host of complex factors (e.g. fluctuations in productivity rates, stress, habitat loss, fragmentation, drought, disease, harsh winters, snow pack, food source depletion, over hunting, and predation). Blaming cougars for declines in ungulate populations is over-simplistic and ignores these many other factors.
 
In addition, cougars play an important role in regulating deer and elk populations. In fact, the effects of cougar predation on their ungulate prey’s populations can be beneficial. There are numerous historical records of ungulate populations outstripping their resources and subsequently crashing in the absence of predation. Research has revealed that cougars can actually reduce the intensity of these population fluctuations by preventing a prey species from reproducing beyond its biological carrying capacity. The CMP offers no hard data to bolster the agency’s claims of cougar populations having a possible negative impact on mule deer or elk populations in any zone. Any recorded reductions in elk or mule deer populations may also be attributed to increased hunting pressure, intense forest management practices, human population growth, and/or climatic effects in the zones outlined in the plan.
 
Broad statements like "cougar removal increased the cow/calf ratio" cannot be made with any degree of scientific reliability when so many other factors effect ungulate populations. Hunting in the Heppner target area is intense and overall mortality of ungulates is higher in this target area than anywhere else in the state. Hunting pressures on ungulate populations in this target area should be eliminated entirely, especially anterless hunting of females and young.

 
ODFW MISLEADING STATEMENT: "Data indicate that cougar populations in respective cougar management zones for the target areas were not adversely affected by administrative cougar removals. Population models indicate that the cougar population remained stable in Zone B, declined slightly in Zones E and F. Further, the proportion of adult females in the total mortality both within the target areas and throughout respective Zones was well below the 40 to 45 percent that would be indicative of heavy exploitation rates."
 
REALITY: It is too early to determine how cougar populations have been effected by the plan. The agency produces little data to address how the plan may have impacted cougar population dynamics, composition, social structure, and behavior. And as noted previously, the ODFW has not conducted a credible count of cougars in the state, making it difficult to assess the overall impact of the cougar plan on local and state-wide cougar populations. Additionally, nearly 60 percent of cougar mortality under the plan was female. That alone is indicative of overkill and declining populations.
 
As noted previously, a WSU study found indiscriminate killing of cougars had caused cougar populations to plummet in the region and actually increased conflicts with the big cats. Other researchers support WSU's findings. Cougar researchers have found:
 
·         Non-targeted killing of cougars through broad lethal control and trophy hunting may be exacerbating likelihood of attacks. Dr. Hornocker, considered the dean of cougar researchers, said “sport hunting may be exacerbating the likelihood of attacks by removing those cougars that are more wary of people – and thus quicker to climb trees when pursued – thereby skewing the population towards those more aggressive cougars that are also more likely to attack humans.” Dr. Beier found trophy hunters tend to seek out larger and older cougars as trophies, which increases the proportion of younger cougars that are more frequently implicated in attacks than adults
 
·         Non-targeted killing of cougars is not an effective tool for reducing conflicts. According to Dr. Beier, “It is not valid to initiate hunting [of cougars] on the grounds that it will reduce the risk of cougar attacks. Quite simply, sport hunting will not reduce the risk of cougar attacks on humans. ”
 
·         “Short-term, non-selective cougar population reduction [as occurs via hunting and non-targeted lethal control] has not been demonstrated to reduce depredation” on domestic animals.  In addition, these programs do not select for problem cougars (most cougars are hunted in wild areas far from humans).
 
·         Killing of resident cougars that have not preyed on domestic animals opens up habitat for other cougars which may be more likely to prey on domestic animals.
 
It should be noted that in response to the WSU study, Washington has redcued hunting quotas of cougars. Oregon should follow Washington's lead.
 
ODFW MISLEADING STATEMENT: "The total cost of implementing administrative cougar removal for three years in three target areas was $310,501. Initially salary accounted for 78 percent of implementation costs. However, as activities progressed and staff became more efficient, salary costs declined. Because existing employee salaries were not additional costs to ODFW, the increased costs for implementing target area cougar removal was $201,522. No state general funds, tax dollars or federal funds were used for implementing cougar removal in target areas. All funds used for target area implementation were ODFW license fee dollars."
 
REALITY: While hunting licenses and tag fees may have paid for the plan, some general funds are used to pay the salaries of staff who administer the plan. Furthermore, monies from hunting licenses and fees could be better used to fund education programs to help avoid conflicts with cougars.

It should be noted that the cougar plan benefits hunters, especially now that four of the five target areas are designed to kill cougars to ostensibly boost deer and elk numbers. The number of cougar tags sold has increased to a whopping 44,000, up from an average of 200 prior to 1994. The annual income from these tags more than pays for the killing program.
 
 
ODFW MISLEADING STATEMENT: "The Ukiah and Wenaha WMUs were selected as new target areas for improving elk populations. The number of calves counted per 100 cows has been below 23:100 for three or more years in both units and elk populations are well below Management Objective (MO). Personnel hired to implement the Heppner Target area will conduct cougar removal activities in the Ukiah Target Area and volunteer agents will implement activities in the Wenaha Target Area. Success of target area activities will be evaluated by comparing elk population data from the Ukiah WMU with comparable data from the Heppner WMU, and the Wenaha WMU will be evaluated by  comparing elk data to with that in the Mt Emily WMU. Based on published research, data collected during routine cougar management activities, estimates of cougar density based on zone specific cougar population models, and habitat characteristics of each area, the initial proposed cougar removal objective is 35/year for Ukiah and 20/year in the Wenaha. Cougar removal objectives will be evaluated annually dependant on trends in trends in elk calf ratios and elk populations.
 
For mule deer, the Steens Mountain and Warner WMUs were selected for target areas. Both units have been identified as Mule Deer Initiative units in 2008. One of the goals in Mule Deer Initiative Units is to increase mule deer populations to MO levels. Wildlife Services personnel will be used to implement the Steens Mountain Target Area and volunteer agents will be used in the Warner Target Area. Initial removal objectives are 20/year and 14/year for Steens Mountain and Warner WMUs respectively, with annual evaluation based on mule deer population response. Deer population data from Steens Mountain will be compared to Beatys Butte WMU, and the Trout Creek Mountains. Warner WMU mule deer population data will be compared with data from the Interstate and Beatys Butte WMUs.”
 
REALITY: See ungulate population point above.
 
 
ODFW MISLEADING STATEMENT: "A new component of the CMP was to utilize adaptive strategies to actively manage cougars in areas with chronic conflict between cougars and human safety, livestock depredation, or ungulate population dynamics. In November 2006, the ODFW selected three areas to evaluate the efficacy of administratively removing cougars for human safety/pet concerns (Jackson County Target Area), livestock depredation (Beulah Target Area), and elk population recruitment (Heppner Target Area)."
 
REALITY: The agency used lethal control as the sole tool for controlling cougars. Without implementing other strategies (e.g. non-lethal methods), it is impossible to determine if lethal control worked more effectively than non-lethal means.

Additionally, when target area objectives outlined in the plan were met, the area was supposed to be closed to "administrative removal" of cougars. Unfortunately, that did not happen. In the Beulah target area, for instance, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission agreed to extend the target area for another year even after the proportion of females killed reached the plan's objective and after complaints decreased to the 1994 level.