cougerbait
New member
Cougar-management plan delayed
Several disparate groups want more time to reach a consensus
By MARK FREEMAN
Mail Tribune
State wildlife officials have delayed the scheduled February adoption of its draft cougar-management plan by at least two months to gather more public comments on a proposal that has angered hunters and animal-rights groups alike.
Among other things, the plan proposes to reduce regional spikes in cougar-human conflict complaints by killing cougars in specific areas and it uses computer models to predict that the statewide cougar population estimate is about 5,100 animals — almost 2,000 more than there were when hound-hunting was banned for cougars and bears in 1994.
Critics have taken potshots at the plan since the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife unveiled it last spring.
Animal-rights activists have claimed it relies too heavily on killing cougars and others say it doesn’t go far enough to curb conflicts or help sport-hunting interests.
"I don’t want to give the impression that there’s anything that would make the plan right, but there are things that can improve it," said Rod Klawitter, the Portland-area hound-hunter whose formal request led to the delay.
Advertisement
A delay in adoption by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission also was sought by the Humane Society of the United States and the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club.
Those groups said the draft is not based on sound science, leans too strongly on unconfirmed complaints and runs counter to some cougar experts who believe killing cougars won’t decrease damage or damage complaints.
"It’s a complex issue and it’s not real black and white," said Sally Mackler, the Sierra Club’s wildlife chairwoman in Oregon. "This gives us more time to contact a broader range of biologists and get more significant biological comments in."
The commission is scheduled to discuss and adopt some version of the cougar plan April 9 in Salem.
While the public-comment portion of the process was extended, no new public hearings will be scheduled. Written comments will be accepted until April 8 and verbal testimony will be taken during the commission meeting, said Ron Anglin, the ODFW’s Wildlife Division administrator.
The plan calls for killing more cougars around urban "fringes," such as the hills above the Rogue Valley, to help reduce public-safety and damage reports to 1994 levels. The plan does call for ensuring the cougar population does not dip below 1994‘s estimated population of 3,100 animals.
The plan does not seek any new authority for ODFW and contains no requests for new laws, money or authority from the Oregon Legislature. Anglin said there are no plans to add those to the draft because the commission has not asked for them.
Klawitter said he believes the plan relies too heavily on hiring federal Wildlife Services agents to kill damage-causing cougars instead of relying on sport-hunters, whose fees and taxes pay the lion’s share of the ODFW wildlife budget.
"Semantics aside, (the plan) is to take cougars from being a big-game animal to a bounty predator," Klawitter said. "Whether you pay by the head or by the week, its the same."
Klawitter wants the agency to take a page from its recent wolf management plan and specifically ask the Legislature to repeal Measure 18, the 1994 initiative that bans sport-hunting of cougars with hounds — once the most common method for killing cougars.
Not doing so, Klawitter said, likely will increase conflict under the plan.
"I don’t think this is a slippery slope," Klawitter said. "This is the cliff at the bottom of the slippery slope."
Klawitter, the Humane Society of the United States and the Sierra Club all petitioned for a delay under a state statute that grants delays of 21 to 90 days in the public-hearing process.
"That’s indicative that there’s unrest over this plan from several segments of the community," said Mackler, of Jacksonville.
A similar request delayed adoption of the state’s wolf plan last fall.
The ODFW formally set the delay based on Klawitter’s request because his Jan. 20 letter reached the agency first, Anglin said.
The statute allows for only one such delay, regardless of whose request is granted, Anglin said.
April was chosen because it was too late to get it on the March 16 agenda and the May 11 meeting in Burns fell outside the 90-day cap, Anglin said.
Reach reporter Mark Freeman at 776-4470, or e-mail mfreeman@mailtribune.com.
Several disparate groups want more time to reach a consensus
By MARK FREEMAN
Mail Tribune
State wildlife officials have delayed the scheduled February adoption of its draft cougar-management plan by at least two months to gather more public comments on a proposal that has angered hunters and animal-rights groups alike.
Among other things, the plan proposes to reduce regional spikes in cougar-human conflict complaints by killing cougars in specific areas and it uses computer models to predict that the statewide cougar population estimate is about 5,100 animals — almost 2,000 more than there were when hound-hunting was banned for cougars and bears in 1994.
Critics have taken potshots at the plan since the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife unveiled it last spring.
Animal-rights activists have claimed it relies too heavily on killing cougars and others say it doesn’t go far enough to curb conflicts or help sport-hunting interests.
"I don’t want to give the impression that there’s anything that would make the plan right, but there are things that can improve it," said Rod Klawitter, the Portland-area hound-hunter whose formal request led to the delay.
Advertisement
A delay in adoption by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission also was sought by the Humane Society of the United States and the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club.
Those groups said the draft is not based on sound science, leans too strongly on unconfirmed complaints and runs counter to some cougar experts who believe killing cougars won’t decrease damage or damage complaints.
"It’s a complex issue and it’s not real black and white," said Sally Mackler, the Sierra Club’s wildlife chairwoman in Oregon. "This gives us more time to contact a broader range of biologists and get more significant biological comments in."
The commission is scheduled to discuss and adopt some version of the cougar plan April 9 in Salem.
While the public-comment portion of the process was extended, no new public hearings will be scheduled. Written comments will be accepted until April 8 and verbal testimony will be taken during the commission meeting, said Ron Anglin, the ODFW’s Wildlife Division administrator.
The plan calls for killing more cougars around urban "fringes," such as the hills above the Rogue Valley, to help reduce public-safety and damage reports to 1994 levels. The plan does call for ensuring the cougar population does not dip below 1994‘s estimated population of 3,100 animals.
The plan does not seek any new authority for ODFW and contains no requests for new laws, money or authority from the Oregon Legislature. Anglin said there are no plans to add those to the draft because the commission has not asked for them.
Klawitter said he believes the plan relies too heavily on hiring federal Wildlife Services agents to kill damage-causing cougars instead of relying on sport-hunters, whose fees and taxes pay the lion’s share of the ODFW wildlife budget.
"Semantics aside, (the plan) is to take cougars from being a big-game animal to a bounty predator," Klawitter said. "Whether you pay by the head or by the week, its the same."
Klawitter wants the agency to take a page from its recent wolf management plan and specifically ask the Legislature to repeal Measure 18, the 1994 initiative that bans sport-hunting of cougars with hounds — once the most common method for killing cougars.
Not doing so, Klawitter said, likely will increase conflict under the plan.
"I don’t think this is a slippery slope," Klawitter said. "This is the cliff at the bottom of the slippery slope."
Klawitter, the Humane Society of the United States and the Sierra Club all petitioned for a delay under a state statute that grants delays of 21 to 90 days in the public-hearing process.
"That’s indicative that there’s unrest over this plan from several segments of the community," said Mackler, of Jacksonville.
A similar request delayed adoption of the state’s wolf plan last fall.
The ODFW formally set the delay based on Klawitter’s request because his Jan. 20 letter reached the agency first, Anglin said.
The statute allows for only one such delay, regardless of whose request is granted, Anglin said.
April was chosen because it was too late to get it on the March 16 agenda and the May 11 meeting in Burns fell outside the 90-day cap, Anglin said.
Reach reporter Mark Freeman at 776-4470, or e-mail mfreeman@mailtribune.com.