My wife and I agree with Democratic state Represenative Brian Clem on most issues. But not on allowing individual counties to overturn Oregon's statewide ban on using dogs to hunt cougars.
This legislative session Clem sponsored House Bill 2624. The bill would have permitted county-by-county votes on a question that a majority of Oregonian voters said "NO" to twice: whether dogs should be allowed in cougar hunting.
Thankfully, HB 2624 never made it out of committee in the state Senate.
How to manage mountain lions became one of the more hotly debated issues of the session. Clem led the charge to allow counties to opt out -- by a local vote -- of the law that bans the use of hounds to hunt the lions. He won big in the House, only to see the bill die in the Senate, stymied by Sen. Jackie Dingfelder, a Portland Democrat who chairs the main environmental committee.
There are two main reasons why HB 2624 was a really bad idea. I talked about both of them in written testimony that I submitted to the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (attached in full as a continuation to this post).
First, allowing counties to opt out of voter-approved statewide initiatives would set a horrible precedent. I told the committee:
No longer would statewide initiatives truly apply in the entire state. The legislature will have given a green light to those who fail to defeat an initiative to say, “Hey, you let individual counties opt out of the cougar initiative; now we want the ability to have counties opt out of [whatever].”
Consider Measure 49, a reform of Measure 37, which passed in 2007 with over 60% of Oregonians voting in favor. Yet majorities in many counties were in favor of a weakened land use system. Imagine the legal chaos if a county could opt out of Measure 49. Or any statewide law that a majority of voters in that county deemed unacceptable to them.
Yes, the legislature would have to authorize the ability to opt out of a law. But if you do this in HB 2624, the gate will be opened for other attempts to undo the statewide will of Oregonians -- leading to a balkanization of our state. We already are unduly divided by unnecessary political rancor. Do we really want to add to that?
Second, cougars, a.k.a. mountain lions, are not a real problem in Oregon. They are an extremely minor threat to people (hugely less than domestic dogs are), and don't do much damage to livestock. So why kill them?
Well, my wife sat through several HB 2624 hearings. Apparently deer hunters are irked that cougars are killing deer -- which, of course, is what cougars do. And why cougars, wolves, and other top predators are part of a healthy ecosystem.
Hunters kill the largest and healthiest game animals. Top predators tend to kill the smallest and weakest. Thus cougars do a better job at game management than hunters do. No reason to hunt them with dogs, as I said in my testimony.
No one has ever been killed by a cougar in Oregon. Many people have been killed by hunters. So if we're really concerned about protecting human life, there should be a thinning of the ranks of hunters, not of cougars.
Irrational hysteria is the only reason this bill has been introduced. My wife and I live around cougars. I've walked by fresh cougar deer kills. I frequently take walks at night in woods frequented by cougars. I'm not afraid of cougars.
Hopefully legislators will become similarly educated about these valuable top predators before they vote on HB 2624. Just as wolf management shouldn't be based on "big bad wolf" fairy tales, neither should cougar management.
Below is the rest of what I said in my testimony. I sure hope I never have to submit something similar again. Let this issue die, Representative Clem.
Testimony submitted in opposition to House Bill 2624
Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
Dear Committee members:
I strongly urge you to vote “No” on HB 2624, which would overturn the twice-expressed will of Oregon voters to ban the use of dogs in hunting cougars. My reasons for opposing the bill itself are expressed below. This is an excerpt from a blog post I wrote on the subject (full post and links can be found here: http://bit.ly/14IkQYs).
Another, and perhaps equally important, reason to oppose HB 2624 is the precedent it would set. No longer would statewide initiatives truly apply in the entire state. The legislature will have given a green light to those who fail to defeat an initiative to say, “Hey, you let individual counties opt out of the cougar initiative; now we want the ability to have counties opt out of [whatever].”
Consider Measure 49, a reform of Measure 37, which passed in 2007 with over 60% of Oregonians voting in favor. Yet majorities in many counties were in favor of a weakened land use system. Imagine the legal chaos if a county could opt out of Measure 49. Or any statewide law that a majority of voters in that county deemed unacceptable to them.
Yes, the legislature would have to authorize the ability to opt out of a law. But if you do this in HB 2624, the gate will be opened for other attempts to undo the statewide will of Oregonians -- leading to a balkanization of our state. We already are unduly divided by unnecessary political rancor. Do we really want to add to that?
Here’s what I said in my April blog post when this bill was being considered by a House committee.
----------------------------------
Here we go again. Another session of the Oregon legislature; another misguided attempt to undo the voter's banning (twice!) of using dogs to hunt cougars.
And once again, legislation in search of a problem to justify it. House Bill 2624, introduced by Rep. Brian Clem of Salem, would let counties out of the statewide ban if voters in a county approved this.
Yet nobody has ever been killed by a cougar in Oregon. Cougar complaints are declining. [This is an excerpt from an Oregonian news story.]
Opponents called the bills unnecessary because complaints of cougar encounters are down while cougar kills are up, according to state statistics. They said the bills would undo the will of voters, and they questioned the state's ability to count cougars accurately.
Scott Beckstead, Oregon director of the Humane Society of the United States came armed with data from the state that show a steep decline in the number of cougar complaints, from a high of 1,072 in 1999, to 287 in 2012. Over the same period, the data show, the number of cougars killed by hunters has risen from 157 to 242.
Voters didn't bar cougar and bear hunting, Beckstead noted. And they allowed the continued use of dogs to hunt problem or dangerous animals, he said.
"These bills go far beyond that," Beckstead said. "They allow the use of dogs and bait for sport. The voters of Oregon have said they don't want that."
Cougars benefit Oregon's environment. They are part of the balance of nature. They cause very few problems for humans. People are hugely more dangerous to people. (See here, here, here, and here.)
As I said in a previous post:
Pop quiz: how many people have been killed by a cougar in Oregon? Is it (a) 126, (b) 18, or (c) none.
From all the hysteria over "managing" the cougar population (which really means needlessly killing them), you'd think the answer would be greater than zero. But it isn't.
No one has ever been killed by a cougar in Oregon. Many people have been killed by hunters. So if we're really concerned about protecting human life, there should be a thinning of the ranks of hunters, not of cougars.
Irrational hysteria is the only reason this bill has been introduced. My wife and I live around cougars. I've walked by fresh cougar deer kills. I frequently take walks at night in woods frequented by cougars. I'm not afraid of cougars.
Hopefully legislators will become similarly educated about these valuable top predators before they vote on HB 2624. Just as wolf management shouldn't be based on "big bad wolf" fairy tales, neither should cougar management.
Brian Hines
I think you don't know your a** from hole in the ground ,thats about as much fact as what your column you wrote has,I can guarantee you live in a city and have no rural life experience! Heres my question for you,how can ODFW accurately count cougars ? One more just for kicks, if you truly luv wildlife, why would you want species that devastates all the others?
Posted by: Tony Hout | July 02, 2013 at 07:39 PM
Tony, you're wrong. I grew up in a very rural area of central California, in the foothills of the Sierras near Sequoia National Park. No cougars there. But a lot of rattlesnakes, which I learned to respect, but not fear.
Currently I live in rural south Salem. Cougar kills (of deer) are sometimes found near our house. Cougars also are sighted occasionally. I go for walks at night with our dogs, even when a cougar kill has been spotted.
Again, I'm not afraid of cougars. No one ever has been killed by a cougar in Oregon, and few in the United States. Dogs and people are much more dangerous than cougars.
Posted by: Brian Hines | July 02, 2013 at 08:01 PM
cougars are overly populated in oregon where i live ther have been 7 trapped in the last year. there has to been people killed in oregon by a cougar. they do hurt livestock and take away the ranchers income.
Posted by: chandler | April 02, 2014 at 01:14 PM
How does it affect you if i use a pack of dogs to humanely persue and harvest a cougar? Has does that have any impact on your life? Do you hunt? If you dont why should you have a say in the matter? You are un-educated on the matter, all you know is the details and propaganda that the animal actiavist throw around. I challenge you to go to a state that allows hound hunting and go on a guided hunt, and then you can have a say in the matter. Its people like you that have created this upside down liberal america, are fore fathers are rolling in there graves.
Posted by: thomas walton 7604587495 | September 13, 2014 at 11:24 PM
I hope you understand that almost all votes are decided by the Liberals in Portland and Eugene so you yuppies in your cities have no clue what is going on in the woods. I don't care that you go and pursue your hobbies but for some reason you Liberals think you have the right to push your opions and anti-liberty ideas on all of us. We the hunters bring more money into the state and are the biggest pro conservation group in the country. But all animals to stay healthy and to not have an imbalance of predators or prey they need to be hunted to healthy sustainable levels.
But unfortunately due to complete incompetence on your part and all liberals the deer and elk populations are dropping every year and FYI hunter success is only around 13% so hunters are not the cause. I can only hope that when not if a cougar takes a human life it will be you.
Posted by: Devin Morrison | January 10, 2015 at 07:05 PM
You are such an uneducated piece of work! Cougars are an apex predator, they have no other animal to kill/manage them. And if you think in your small little brain that humans are managing them properly. You need to do plenty more research! Cougars are the MOST ELUSIVE animal in the 50 states. They kill large numbers of ranchers livestock yearly. PLEASE go educate yourself before you put your uneducated, brainless slander on the internet. You are the type of people who are ruining the outdoors! You probably like the wolves too, you jagaloon!
Please just go to the WSU Large Carnivore Lab webpage and do some self educating. And then go to the Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife page and look up how many horses, sheep, cattle, etc. are killed each MONTH by cougars! EDUCATION is key. You completely lack it!!
Good day!
Posted by: Michelle | January 25, 2015 at 06:49 PM
Michelle, actually my wife and I are quite familiar with research on cougars and livestock predation. Cougars pose little risk to humans, and are responsible for a very small share of livestock losses.
You should head to the Predator Defense web page about cougars and learn the truth about top predators. See:
http://www.predatordefense.org/cougars.htm
And yes, you're right: we love wolves also.
Posted by: Brian Hines | January 26, 2015 at 11:10 AM
Last week a cougar plucked my dog out of our fenced backyard and killed him in broad daylight. There have been increased sightings of cougar in my area. Many reports of livestock being killed and missing pets. In fact, just a few months ago a cougar was spotted at the elementary school. I know you say there are no reports of people in Oregon being killed by a cougar but it is only a matter of time.
Hound hunting is the only way that cougar would have been found. For now he/she is able to roam free and keep attacking. Hopefully the attacks do not escalate to children.
It is not irrational hysteria when you are personally effected by a cougar attack. And please spare me the bull of, "it's just a dog." Our dog meant the world to us and losing him has been devastating.
Just because cougars do not give you problems personally does not dismiss the severity of their effect on others. I presume you are coming from a place of compassion towards the cougar, but given the chance, a hungry cougar would likely go for your jugular.
Posted by: Emily | June 11, 2015 at 11:47 PM
Emily, obviously hungry cougars don't try to kill people, or they would have already. But, as I'm sure you've noticed, people kill people frequently. Dogs also kill other dogs frequently -- much more often than cougars do.
So if you're really concerned about people being killed, the solution is to get rid of people. Likewise, if you're really concerned about dogs being killed, the solution is to get rid of dogs. Neither, of course, makes sense.
I'm sorry that your dog was killed. I assume you are sure it was a cougar, and not, say, a coyote. That's tragic.
Where I part company with you is when you say cougars have a "severe" effect on others. Actually, they don't. Livestock kills by cougars and wolves, for example are minuscule compared to losses for other reasons -- disease, weather, coyotes, and such.
We demonize cougars and wolves because we don't understand the truth about them, and the many benefits they bring, environmentally and ecologically.
Posted by: Brian Hines | June 12, 2015 at 12:32 AM
I just lost 2 alpaca and a sheep to a cougar this very week. Confirmed by a USDA Federal trapper. I don't care if they have or haven't killed people here, they are still a threat to my kids who like to go exploring in my woods. And the dang thing didn't even eat much of its kill. What a waste!! We should be allowed to use any means necessary to kill a predator that causes us loss. Period.
Posted by: Stefani Carlson | September 13, 2015 at 09:01 PM
Brian, your dead right, letting counties decide thier own fate would be disastrous and who knows what the consequences would be. I can only imagine. I too consider the consequences in Oregon being one of the States to legalize a Federally controlled substance. Maybe States should not be allowed to overturn Federal laws either! Bunch of Hippocrates as I see it.
Posted by: Philip | May 12, 2016 at 09:25 PM
I can see that you are really passionate about this topic. But your facts are off in la la land. You believe you know what you are talking about is set and stone. But are complete way off base. Have you ever been hunting before? Well from your responses and your article surely proves that you haven't. Well let me tell you about what the real truth about hunting with dogs. We use are dogs to help track and find our game. So just for enlightenment, I will break down Cougar hunting before this bill came out. Our dogs would like I said track and find a cougar, and then chase the cougar up a tree. (The dogs don't touch or harm the cougars) They just sit at the tree and bark at the cougar until we arrive at that location. Then we shoot the cougar. That is the real truth behind cougar hunting. There is no dogs hurting or injuring the cougar. Hopeful this will help you next before you go spouting your mouth about a subject. Actually ask people next time who have had experience with hunting game animals, or in any other subject. Also because of this bill the population of cougar has sky rocketed because you and several other people vote for a law that did not need to be made. So in reality you caused all of this mess to happen. Are you happy know? Thank you and have a great day.
Posted by: Nanami | May 18, 2017 at 02:11 PM