|
Archive of Statements by the Cougar Fund
August 14, 2006 Mr. Terry Cleveland, Director Dear Director Cleveland,
Sincerely, The following groups have signed on to this letter and endorse
the position of The Cougar Fund: Oregon's Management Plan based
on faulty science Dear Commission Chair Rae: The Cougar Fund, a Wyoming based non-profit educational organization dedicated to the long-term conservation of the cougar throughout its present and historic range, adamantly opposes the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's (ODFW) draft Cougar Management Plan (CMP or Plan). Citizens from 48 states, including Oregon, and throughout the world support The Cougar Fund. Several prominent figures serve on its Board of Directors. Among them are eminent scientists (e.g., Drs. Jane Goodall, Marc Bekoff, and Rick Hopkins, an expert on the cougar), businessman and farmer Howard G. Buffett, nature photographer Tom Mangelsen, and writer Cara Blessley Lowe. It is from our considerable experience with this species that we believe that Oregon's Plan is not only imprudent, but also reckless as it is based on very limited empirical data about the status of the cougar and its impact and interactions with humans throughout the state. The Cougar Fund advocates the use of sound science in the development of conservation and management strategies. Unfortunately, the Plan and the supportive information noted in it rely less on sound science and much more on prejudices, perceptions, anecdotal evidence and assumptions. The Plan to manage cougars at levels no fewer than those extant in Oregon in 1994 appears to be based more on conjecture and emotion than on sound science. Although the plan looks comprehensive at over 100 pages, it is concerned more with the speculative history of the species in the state (as no empirical evidence on population numbers exist) than a true science-based management strategy. At this time, The Cougar Fund takes issue with so many aspects of the Plan, that for the sake of brevity we have limited our comments to the following three topics.
In the draft CMP, the ODFW asserts that cougar populations in Oregon hit a low of 214 cats in 1961 based on an unpublished letter written by Warren W. Aney. Mr. Aney's letter was not only unpublished (and thus was not subject to any scientific peer review process), but contained no empirical evidence derived from unbiased survey techniques. What was his study design, what areas did he sample, how did he sample, what are his measures of variance and associated confidence intervals? If any of this information exists, ODFW has not provided it to the public. We find it remarkably sad that a scientifically-based state agency has elected to rely on unsupported guesses of statewide population estimates instead of following standard, acceptable scientific practices. Instead, ODFW chooses to rely on a convenient opinion — one based on personal observation rather than empirical fact. Why is this figure important? This number was extrapolated using a 1954 formula to estimate cougar populations based on presumed known mortality of cougars in Oregon. The use of simplistic (and thus unrealistic), canned population models for any analysis has long been rejected within the scientific community as unacceptable, particularly in the context of developing of conservation strategies. The recently published Cougar Management Guidelines (Cougar Working Group 2005) clearly highlights the risk of these canned programs — even more so when the models are based on assumptions as simplistic as those found in the Plan. In 1994, ODFW transitioned to the use of a zone model in the estimation of cougar populations. These models indicate that the 1994 statewide population of the cougar in was 3,114 individuals. However, as cougars are widely disbursed and an individual has a home range of unpredictable size, the zone model's approach of adding the estimated number of cats in each of the six zones to reach a total number of cats statewide is faulty. Further, even if we are to use the models of state Game Managers, the carrying capacity of Oregon is 7,628 cats, a full 40% lower than the population targeted by the CMP. Even ODFW points out that zone models are most useful for determining a change in cougar populations over time — not to determine the number of cats at a given point in time. Yet, in the CMP, the state chooses to base its entire strategy on an unreliable and unverifiable population model. The fact of the matter is that it is not known that there are 5,100 cats in Oregon now, that there were 3,114 in 1994 and it is disputed that the state population of cougars was only 214 in 1961! The insistence on the state to force a management plan through a series of unverifiable model results supports the conclusion of Vic Van Ballenberge (Forest Service Wolf Ecologist) that predator management is 90% political — an approach akin to forcing a square peg through a round hole. 2) Cougar “Complaints”Why elect to manage cougar populations at the 1994 number? Is there a perceived increased safety risk to humans beginning in 1995? Have there been an increasing number of verified incidents involving Oregonians since 1994? There are no data to support the argument that Oregonians are at greater risk of a cougar attack today then they were in 1994. Given the number of annual recreational visitors days (well over one billion) across all of North America the risk of an attack is on the order of 1:200 million or more. The CMP shows that ODFW recorded a huge jump — on the order of 230% — in cougar related “complaints” between 1993 and 1994, but does nothing to explain the increase, or even to define a complaint. Why is this anomaly in reporting not addressed by ODFW? In 1994, Measure 18 brought a huge amount of attention to the presence of cougars in Oregon to the Oregon public. Since that time, there has been a push for Oregonians to report cougar sightings. The problem? Only a miniscule number of such sightings are ever verified. Complaints may be a reasonable measure of changing human perceptions toward wildlife, but are generally considered by cougar biologists and other ecologists to be one of the poorest measures of cougar populations or potential changes in risk. We direct Commissioners to review the Cougar Management Guidelines (CMG) that clearly noted, “Cougar sightings, depredation events, and harvest levels are not reliable ways to index cougar populations.” This section of the CMG goes on to note that, “Reports of cougar sightings is the least reliable because they vary in response to a number of factors including media coverage of incidents involving cougars.” Because of the inherent unreliable nature of sightings data, and particularly given the biased and unverified way ODFW continues to collect these data, a management strategy that bases any management objectives on these types of data is inherently flawed and doomed to failure. For example, on September 23, 2005, it was widely reported that a cougar had been sighted at Fanno Creek Park in Beaverton, Oregon (The Oregonian 09/23/05; KOIN TV 09/23/05). The next day, as KATU cameras were rolling, it was determined that the “cougar” was, in fact, nothing more than a large domestic tabby cat. How was this “sighting” recorded by ODFW? Was it removed from the tabulation once it was confirmed that the animal was not a cougar? How many such tabby cat sightings are included in complaint figures since 1994? A study conducted in 1996 by the Eugene-based Predator Defense Institute found that of 832 cougar incident reports (644 were recorded as sightings; 188 damage complaints) only 40 incidents were actually confirmed by Game Managers. Further, a number of reported “sightings” were based on nothing more than rumor, mistakes or worse (Eugene Register Guard 10/10/96). Such findings lead one to question not only the system by which “complaints” are handled, but also the motivation of the ODFW in recording such reports. Moreover, such errors show that it is impossible to make empirical decisions based on the subjective categorization of “complaints.” The effort to “turn back the clock” on complaints to 1994 levels is also flawed because Oregon's human population has increased dramatically. US Census estimates indicate that the State's population has increased by nearly 500,000 residents (14.28%) between 1994 and 2005 (US Census website 10/2005). Any aerial photographs comparing the Medford of 1994 to the Medford of 2005 drives home the fact that urban sprawl is driving suburbia into the heart of Oregon's cougar country. So, not only are residents encouraged to report interactions with cougars today more than in 1994, but also more people are living where cougars once roamed without the possibility for human contact. As Oregon continues to grow, the trend will be for increasing numbers of people living in cougar habitat, not less. More people, plus efforts to encourage people to report every suspected cougar — even while ignoring the need to verify each sighting — means the number of reports can only increase. The answer to reducing the number of unverified complaints is not killing cougars, but rather a concerted effort to educate the public with a balanced approach so as not to induce an aura of fear about the remarkably small risk of human attack, to provide ways of minimizing loss of pets and livestock, and to focus attention on removing the offending cougar that kills pets or livestock or poses a credible risk to humans. If feed back from our wide base of supporters (including many hunters) is any gauge of the mater, seeing a cougar in cougar habitat is not a risk, but a privilege. 3) The myth that sport-hunting equals safetyFinally, there is not one article in scientific literature indicating that increasing sport-hunting of cougars will make Oregonians, their pets or their livestock more safe from the threat of cougar attack. Dr. Rick Hopkins (who has studied cougars for nearly two decades and is a member of the Board of Directors of The Cougar Fund) has previously noted that the intensity of sport-hunting is not at all correlated with a concomitant change in the risk to humans. Simply put, sport-hunting is irrelevant with questions related to human safety threats. When attacks on humans are standardized for the number of humans living in cougar habitat, there are no indicators showing that the absence of hunting in any given state reduces the likelihood of attack. For example, on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, cougars are hunted aggressively and have a significantly higher rate of attacks than in California where cougars have not been hunted since 1972. Further, the taking of older, resident male and female cats increases the proportion of sub-adult, transient males in the population — an age and gender that has been shown in several western states to be disproportionately involved in depredation incidents (the killing of livestock and pets) and attacks on humans. Simply put, increased hunting increases turnover in the resident cougar population, thereby increasing the likelihood that a “problem” cat will move in. Some may argue that sport-hunting may reduce depredations, but as with human safety risk, facts ruin a good story. When states are ranked by the number of depredations (i.e., predation on livestock or pets), it is shown that Oregon has a greater rate of depredation than, say, California despite the absence of sport-hunting in that state AND a about five times greater total number of livestock living in cougar habitat. Therefore, any argument or notion that sport-hunting is necessary to minimize conflicts with humans is not based in science and is little more than a myth. Therefore, for states with healthy, viable populations of cougars, the concept of sport-hunting becomes more a values debate and less about science. If sport-hunting is chosen as an option by a state with healthy populations — such as Oregon — then science's primary role is determining the limits and distribution of the off-take. The lack of science in establishing these limits within the cougar's range was best expressed by two eminent cougar ecologists (Ken Logan and Linda Sweanor) in their seminal work, Desert Puma , “hunting management [for the cougar] in most western states is a far cry from science.” And, while predation by cougars may be implicated in a portion of the reduction of Oregon ungulate populations, killing cougars will not — in and of itself — restore ungulate populations to 1994 levels. A number of factors, including drought, increased habitat fragmentation and the natural highs and lows of the population cycle have likely contributed to the decline of ungulate populations in Oregon. Indeed, ODFW's 2003 Elk Management Plan points to the dramatic increase in the number of All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) in Oregon's backcountry as a contributing factor to the decrease of calving rates for elk. Even while arguments are being made that cougar predation is responsible for a dramatic decrease in elk populations, the annual take of elk in Oregon remains nearly constant (ODFW Elk Management Plan). Conclusion:The constellation of scientific evidence points to the inherent flaws of Oregon's Draft Cougar Management Plan — namely that it is based on an imaginary number pulled from the timeline of Oregon's history: 1994. The only rationale The Cougar Fund can determine for electing 1994 (an assumption on our part as this issue is not addressed in the CMP) as the target year for Oregon's Plan is the passage in that year of Measure 18 — an effort to protect the cougar through the elimination of the use of baiting and dogs in the use of cougar and bear hunting. The fact is, even with Measure 18 in place, more cougars than ever are being killed by sport-hunters in Oregon than before the Measure passed. A fact that, incidentally, lends little credence to legislators' claims that the only way to hunt cougars in Oregon is with dogs. While ODFW pays lip service to the conclusions of the CMG — going so far as to cite their work and adopt many of the terms used in the Guidelines — it is just that, an effort to legitimize the CMP's dearth of scientific fact by framing its arguments in statistics that haven't been validated, verified or reviewed. Further, given the lack of empirical evidence cited for reverting cougar populations and complaints to 1994 levels, The Cougar Fund and its constituents are beginning to seriously question the motivation of the ODFW in drafting the current CMP. Perhaps it is prudent to instate an independent panel to review the findings of the ODFW and the motivations in developing the proposed plan. It is for the preceding reasons, and others too numerous to mention in this letter, that The Cougar Fund strongly opposes the adoption of the proposed Cougar Management Plan in the State of Oregon. Sincerely, K. Zeenie Mei Scholz On behalf of The Board of Directors of the Cougar Fund: Thomas D. Mangelsen, co-Founder and President cc: Governor Ted Kulongoski 503.378.6827 (fax)Recent cougar killing raises
concerns As the co-founders of The Cougar Fund, we feel responsible to respond publicly to the recent news reported about a female cougar and her kitten that were killed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) on or about August 23, 2005 near the Atherton Creek campground. The female cougar, F32, was radio-collared and part of Beringia South's cougar research project — which The Cougar Fund supports financially through member fees and foundation funding, including the JH Community Foundation. Given the diverse shareholders in this research, as well as concerns from our supporters regarding news of the killing of F32 and her cub, this issue became of increasing concern when we received phone calls regarding events not reported to the general public. To recap, F32 and her cub were killed near Teton Valley Ranch (TVR), a 63 year-old, 150 acre ranch mostly known for hosting summer camp for kids from such notable families as the Rockefellers, DuPonts and Kennedys. No longer a summer camp, it was recently sold. Bordered by Teton National Park, Bridger-Teton National Forest, and the National Elk Refuge, it is in the middle of some of the best cougar habitat in North America. A few years ago, the local WGFD game warden, Bill Long, who is in charge of the swan breeding program, decided that the TVR would be a good place to captive-breed trumpeter swans. When started, this breeding plan reminded us of a story of a pig farmer from Iowa who decided one summer to raise hogs along the shores of Hudson Bay near the town of Churchill, Manitoba. He did, and when fall came and the polar bears migrated toward the bay, they discovered nirvana — pork chops in a pen. F32 and her kitten were accused of killing penned and pinioned (when their wings are clipped so they cannot fly) swans. The “hunt” would require little more than jumping over a three-foot fence, about as easy as it gets for a cougar. Beringia South researchers offered to help with predator-proofing the swan pens, which would deter any potential interest of foxes, coyotes, wolves, cougars and bears. Long and the WGFD failed to respond to the offer and never did enclose the pens. Before the captive breeding trumpeter swan program, there were also a number of resident raccoons on the ranch. Crafty, smart and agile, raccoons can also easily climb chicken wire fences. wans are big and powerful, but when flightless and penned, they and their cygnets may become prey for not just cougars, but raccoons as well. Why, after all those summers — all those kids at camp — not one being hurt by a cougar, did cougars suddenly become a problem? Eighteen raccoons later, caught in live traps and drowned in the creek, their bodies discarded near the swan pens, are what likely attracted cougar F32. Beringia South researchers, Howard Quigley and Derek Craighead, discovered evidence that a cougar had fed on the raccoon carcasses, indicating that the swans may have simply been dessert to a readily available feast of dead raccoons. The concerns voiced by our members and echoed by Teton county residents are specific:
There was no evidence that F32 was either habituated or a threat to humans. Killing F32 and her kitten was not about threats to children at Atherton Creek campground. When seen by the camper, she was likely returning to her den and kitten(s), according to the radio signals received and downloaded the following day. October 18, 2005 It has been almost one year since The Cougar Fund last submitted a letter to the Commission urging it to adopt a female cougar sub-quota for its cougar hunt. Since that time, the Colorado Division of Wildlife has made a number of important strides toward more responsible management of Colorado's cougar population. Thank you for your efforts to help hunters differentiate between male and female cougars through a link on your web site and for your careful consideration of science projecting Colorado's cougar population thereby reducing the state's lion hunting quota from 790 to 567 cats in 2004. However, more work still needs to be done in Colorado to ensure that a healthy population of cougars exists well into the future. When The Cougar Fund was established in 2001, the Board of Directors made a commitment to work toward stricter sub-quotas on female cougars in hunted populations due to the evidence provided by Ken Logan and Linda Sweanor's work on the puma in New Mexico. Colorado's 45% kill rate of female cougars is higher than the combined average of other Western states. This figure indicates that there are not enough male cougars in Colorado's population to fill available quotas, or that hunters are not sufficiently educated or motivated to prevent the killing of female cougars. While the document provided on your web site is a start to educating hunters as to how to fferentiate between male and female cougars, no regulations are in effect to encourage a more conscientious and conservative approach to cougar hunting in the form of female sub-quotas. In our conversations with sportsmen and hunters, we have found that few would choose to consciously shoot a female if they knew she had cubs. Unfortunately, many hunters are unaware that females are either pregnant or raising young cubs to independence (a 14-22 month endeavor), for more than 70% of their adult lives. The Cougar Fund asks that nominal sub-quotas for females be set immediately throughout the state of Colorado for the pending cougar season. As an organization and through individual support, we both applaud and support the Colorado Division of Wildlife's research efforts to bring bout greater knowledge of Colorado's valued cougar population through sound peer-reviewed science. Sincerely, K. Zeenie Mei Scholz The Board of Directors, The Cougar Fund Orphaned Cougar Kittens in Washington from Cara Blessley-Lowe October 10, 2004 Many of you across the
country and around the world have been following the story of the
three orphaned cougar cubs discovered on August 21, 2004 in Washington
state by a homeowner on her property. The little ones were just
five weeks old when they were found. DNA testing verified that the
cubs were indeed the offspring of a female cougar who was killed
on August 9 by a depredation permit which was issued after their
mother killed 18 domestic chickens.
< Return to Newsroom | back to the top^ Popular
Culture and Carnivores by Cara Blessley-Lowe Last night’s season premiere episode of HBO’s “The Sopranos” features a black bear who aimlessly wanders into Carmela Soprano’s suburban New Jersey backyard. Carmela is a middle-aged mother of two who is recently separated from her mob kingpin husband and protagonist of the show, Tony Soprano. The bear is discovered by her wailing teenage son, trapped on the other side of the bear, who does nothing more than stand poolside before ambling into the night. Later in the show, the bear appears a second time, once again inciting fear and a frenzied reaction in the household. After Carmela refuses to wait out the perceived danger in a hotel, Tony responds by appointing one of his mob underlings to stand guard at the house with a machine gun, taking the law into his own hands and openly shunning the show’s Fish and Game officials, who remind the Sopranos that the bear has caused neither any property damage nor threatened the human residents in any way. In any given episode of “The Sopranos”, someone invariably gets "offed", sometimes by accident but almost always by revenge or retaliation. This is why the symbolic image of the bear works so well—it sets the stage for the ominous sacrifice of so many other characters which, depending on your perspective, may or may not be perceived as 'innocents', making their deaths either justifiable and deserved, or not. One of last week’s
episodes of “the Simpson’s” begins with a broadcasted
bear alert. Aiming to avoid the bear, Homer leaves his house by
crawling out of his second-story window and scaling a telephone
wire to drop into his car. Of course, he falls off the wire before
reaching the car—right in front the bear, who sits placidly
looking at the petrified Homer Simpson. A front page story in Sunday’s Orange County Register kicks off several features highlighting cougars this week including their controversial presence in the Southern California landscape, the state’s history of bounty hunting and subsequent halting of cougar sport hunting by popular ballot initiative, as well as the threats cougars face in light of development, poaching, road mortality, killing by depredation permit, and the myriad other challenges facing the species in this densely populated and rapidly-developing region of Southern California. Southern California is a metaphor, sadly, for what the rest of the Americas may be destined to look like over the course of the next fifty to one-hundred years, which is why this series of articles—whether you live in Colorado, California, or Vermont—is so relevant. It is also a reminder of why The Cougar Fund is committed to our work across the entire range of Puma concolor, both historic and present. That “The Sopranos” and “the Simpson’s” so openly and incisively bring wildlife tolerance issues to a wide audience is proof that we have indeed reached a tipping point in our society. In this matter as in so many others, every individual’s decision and outlook can make all the difference in the world. In regards to dealing with wildlife, be they cougars or coyotes or bears, our choices can ultimately be whittled down as falling into one of two camps: To strive for educated, responsible, unsentimental co-existence with carnivores, or to react with a knee-jerk pulling of the trigger when something that has the potential to threaten us, yet doesn’t, happens into our otherwise “civilized” world. But as in “The Sopranos”, if we can realize that the most threatening interactions of our days may not be with animals, but with those highly unpredictable members of our own species—our fellow man—then perhaps we may be better prepared for this great experience called life. The bear never reappears again in last night's episode of "The Sopranos"--for the time being it is safe. But the scene has been set; whether or not the bear's fate is sealed will remain to be seen.© Cara Blessley Lowe 2004***** < Return to Newsroom | back to the top^ The
Cougar Fund's Statement on First of all, we express
our deepest sympathies for the victims, families and friends of
the untimely and tragic cougar attack which occurred on January
8, 2004 in the Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park in Orange County, California.
Truly, there are only losers in this sad scenario, from the victims
and their families to the individual cougar involved, to the species
as a whole. Eleven cougar attacks (versus deaths) have occurred in California. Nine of those eleven attacks have occurred in Southern California, which boasts not only prime cougar habitat, but the greatest concentration of humans in the state, with a rate of development to match the growing demands people place on the local environment including roads and housing developments. Along with these factors comes the natural desire to recreate in the few nearby remaining wilderness areas. Media coverage of the incident state that the women were riding their bikes at 4 p.m., which is just before sunset in January. The odds for such future potentially-dangerous encounters with cougars may be lowered by avoiding recreating during dawn and dusk hours, the crepuscular time when most cougars are known to be most active. Traveling in pairs or larger groups, as the two women cyclists were doing, most likely made all the difference in the victim surviving the attack. Further precautionary methods include making noise to alert rattlesnakes, cougars and other naturally-occurring species found in Southern California of human presence as well as fighting back, again, as the victim’s friend so bravely did. Media sources also note that the cat was either a one-and-a-half-year old or two-year old male. Young cougars of this age are typically just seeking independence from their mothers, trying to eke out a living under very difficult conditions: Fire-stricken habitat from the summer’s wildfires likely resulted in a depleted natural prey base (deer); the young cougar was possibly attempting to survive on the fringe’s of another male or female's territory; navigating the veritable maze of roads and housing developments which make it difficult, if not impossible, for a young cougar to penetrate in order to disperse farther into wilderness areas, away from humans. Life, be it in the city or in the wilderness, is never without risks. That such a reminder would be accompanied by this tragic outcome is not lost on those who value outdoor recreation, wilderness, and the presence of an intact and healthy ecosystem complete with large carnivores such as cougars. While we make our choices and arrive at our conclusions as individuals, so too do we as individuals contribute to a society that will collectively decide whether or not to leverage tolerance and understanding with the heartbreaking facts at hand. The Cougar Fund - 01/09/04 |
|
Mission & Goals |
|
FAQs |
|
Our History |
|
Programs & Achievements |
 |
Newsroom |
|
the Board |
|
Staff |
| Partners |
|
Events |
|
Contact |
| ©
COPYRIGHT 2006 COUGAR FUND, PHOTOGRAPHY BY TOM MANGELSEN. USE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION STRICTLY PROHIBITED. |
DESIGN BY MATCHBOX STUDIO & MEDULLA |
