What's New in the New West
You are here: Home » Community Blogs » Oregon’s assumptions on cougar hunting misplaced

Oregon’s assumptions on cougar hunting misplaced

INTRODUCTION

Oregon, like many western states, allows cougar hunting. Part of the justification for hunting is the assumption that killing cougars will reduce livestock losses and increase public safety. There is, however, growing scientific evidence that suggests that sport hunting is more likely to increase cougar predation on livestock and may even increase the likelihood of cougar attacks on humans.

BACKGROUND ON COUGAR ISSUE

The Oregon legislature’s wants to expand cougar hunting in the state. Under present law, Oregon allows cougars to be killed 365 days of the year. If you kill a cougar, you can get a second license to go kill another. Under these generous hunting seasons and bag limits, cougar kills increased fourfold between 1995 and 2010. For instance, in 2009 almost 500 cougars were killed in Oregon. (By comparison in California where there is no cougar hunting, only 102 cougar were killed, primarily under permit for livestock depredation).

Now the Oregon legislature is trying to pass legislation allowing hound hunting of cougars—which has been banned twice by public referendum. The Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) supports this change, and has been trying for years to increase cougar kills, arguing that the population has doubled since the original ban on hound hunting. Some cougar biologists question ODFW’s methods for calculating these population estimates. See Dr. Wielgus comments here www.predatordefense.org/docs/cougars_biologist_weighs_in_November_2010.pdf

Regardless of the actual number of cougars in Oregon, ODFW suggests that a growing cougar population is a threat to public safety (or is the real reason for cougar control to reduce cougar take of elk and deer while using public safety as a Trojan Horse to justify even greater cougar killings?).

Here’s what ODFW is not telling Oregon citizens.

HUNTING INCREASES CONFLICTS BETWEEN COUGARS AND HUMANS

First, a bevy of research shows that hunting skews cougar populations (as well as other predators) towards younger animals which are more likely to attack people and livestock. Thus hunting exacerbates the likelihood of human conflicts.

The reason is that in unhunted populations, dominant male cougar kill young males. Young males are less skillful hunters and are more “brazen” and bold. Thus the more young males in a population, the more likelihood you will have depredations on livestock and the rare attack on humans. One does not get to be an old male cougar by being an ineffective hunter and/or either brazen or bold. Thus cougar hunting is more likely to create social chaos by killing the dominant males that control cougar social structure, permitting a greater number of young males to survive.

California is a good control since it is the only state with any significant cougar population where hunting is banned. No sport hunting of cougars has effectively occurred since 1972. The human population of California is 38 million or approximately 10 times the population of Oregon (3.8 million) and California’s human population is more widely dispersed into cougar habitat than Oregon (due to Oregon’s strict land use laws). California also has 17% of the West’s suitable cougar habitat– more than twice as much cougar habitat as Oregon. http://www.mountainlion.org/sport_hunting.asp

Thus one would expect– all things being equal– that California’s much higher human population and greater cougar habitat would lead to much higher number of human conflicts, and livestock depredations than Oregon. But in reality the opposite is true. California has the lowest per capita cougar attacks on human in the West, and a low level of livestock depredations as well.

Comparisons between California and Washington also show the same trends. For 2009, the last year for Washington data, there were 1528 cougar “incidents” in the state Incidents are defined as a livestock depredation, sighting in someone’s yard, etc. Washington has an aggressive hunting season. Washington has an estimated 2000-2,500 cougars.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/cougar_reports/index.php

By comparison in California where there is no cougar hunting, there are an estimated 4000-6000 cougars (as much as three times as many as in Washington) and with six times the human population of Washington, and far more of the state covered with sprawl, yet there were less than 400 incidents a year in recent years–less than a third of the number reported in Washington where cougars are hunted. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/lion/trends.html

Oregon, which has year round cougar hunting, presently kills 3-4 times as many cougars a year as California, yet it has many, many more complaints and livestock depredations. Are Oregon cougars just craftier than their California cousins–and better able to attack livestock than in the Golden State? Or is something else going on here?

Even if cougar hunting were effective at reducing cougar populations that does not mean it will result in fewer conflicts. Dr. Robert Wielgus found that as the cougar population in his Washington study area was declining due to hunting, while complaints and documented conflicts were increasing.

SPORT HUNTING INEFFECTIVE AT TARGETING PROBLEM COUGAR

Part of the explanation for this is that sport hunting is ineffective at killing the very cougars most likely to be in conflict–i.e. those living on the fringes of human settlements. Most hunters hunt the larger blocks of public land. They do not hunt people’s backyards. Hound hunters aren’t going to chase cougars through rural neighborhoods or through subdivisions. So even if hunting did reduce cougar populations, it doesn’t necessarily mean it reduces the threat of cougar attacks or conflicts because the cougars living in closest proximity to humans are the ones least likely to be killed by hunting.

Plus good cougar habitat is always filled. If a dominant male cougar controls the territory, he will kill or at least intimidate other young male cougars and keep them away from his territory. If that dominant male territory overlaps with rural neighborhoods, he will reduce conflicts with humans. On the other hand, if that male is killed by hunters, it opens up the territory to young males. And if the young males continue to be killed by hunters, preventing that area from ever being occupied and controlled by older male, then hunting will continuously create conflict by assuring that young males are abundant in that area. The very opposite of what cougar hunting proponents suggest is their goal.

COUGAR ATTACKS ON PEOPLE EXTREMELY RARE

Finally, the public safety threat is greatly exaggerated. It’s much to do about nothing. The likelihood of a cougar attack is extremely small. There have only been 23 fatal cougar attacks in all of North America between 1890 and 2010 That is because cougars as a rule just don’t attack people. –that is even with the social disruption that hunting and predator control creates. That is because cougars as a rule just don’t attack people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North America .

HUNTERS BIGGER THREAT TO HUMAN SAFETY

Hunters are a bigger threat to human safety than cougars. Indeed, there are hundreds of people shot every year by hunters and there are more hunting fatalities in a single year than cougars have killed in a hundred years. It could be argued that the ODFW by increasing hunting for cougars has put Oregon citizens at greater risk of death from hunters than from cougars, For instance, in 2007 there were 19 fatalities in North America (NA) from hunting and zero from cougars. In 2006 there were 27 deaths in NA from hunters and zero from cougars. In 2005, there were 41 deaths from hunters, and zero from cougars.

http://6fbd21e64bc817fd097aa54148bd3dab37bc10ee.gripelements.com/documents/Incidents/HIC2007summary.pdf 19 fatalities 200 non-fatal

http://6fbd21e64bc817fd097aa54148bd3dab37bc10ee.gripelements.com/documents/Incidents/HIC2006summary.pdf 27 fatalities 219 non-fatal

http://6fbd21e64bc817fd097aa54148bd3dab37bc10ee.gripelements.com/documents/Incidents/HIC2005summary.pdf 41 fatal 364 non-fatal
If legislators in Oregon were genuinely concerned about public safety they would consider two things. One is that hunting increases the likelihood of cougar attacks on humans and increases livestock depredations since it skews cougar populations towards younger age classes which are more likely to attack people. But again keeping in mind that even with skewed cougar populations, the likelihood of anyone being attacked, much less killed by cougars is exceedingly small.
Statistically, hunters are in fact, a greater threat to public safety than cougars. Personally I am not worried about my personal safety due to hunting, because even the fatalities from hunting are exceedingly small and insignificant. But by comparison, cougar attacks and fatalities are even rarer.

Bio: George Wuerthner is a wildlife biologist, and predator ecologist. He is a former hunting guide and hunts elk and deer.

About George Wuerthner

Comments

  1. George Wuerthner says:

    Barry

    Two points. Oregon is justifying its hound hunting to make the “front country” safe–not the backcountry. The problem with hunting is that it’s indiscriminate and most of it occurs far from the fringes of towns–thus the very cougar that “might” be a public safety threat are not going to be removed by hunting–unless there were special permits given for hunting in very specific locations–but this is not what the Oregon legislature is considering.

    Secondly, hound hunters do not “keep the backcountry from overpopulating with cougars” as you suggest. The ecological story is that cougars keep the backcountry from overpopulating. Mature male cougars typically kill younger males. These social interactions maintain a cougar density relative to the prey base.

    In fact, killing mature animals (as is typical of those using hounds to hunt cougars) tends to INCREASE the number of cougar since where once there may have been one mature male, you will often find the same territory occupied by 2-4 younger males.

    The only part of your comment that I agree with is that hounds are the best way to find and kill a particular animal–i.e. the surgical removal of a cougar that is deemed to be a problem.

    But that is completely different than the indiscriminate killing that results from most hunting.

  2. Jayne Miller says:

    Oregonians need to ask two questions regarding their cougar:

    1. If killing 6,762 cougars over a 44-year time period once almost wiped out the cougar population in Oregon, why does ODFW believe that killing 7,468 cougars over the past 43+-years of regulated cougar hunt hasn’t produced similar results?
    2. If a regionally-close state (Washington) has the same cougar hunting restrictions, as well as analogous cougar hunting policies (without the additional administrative removal plan), and that state’s policies and actions have resulted in a significant reduction in their cougar population, why does ODFW believe that similar results are not taking place in Oregon?

    George has made an impressive and factual statement with reliable backup information. Oregon Cougar Action Team (www.OreCat.org) endorses George and his data as correct.

    Furthermore, Calif. has a $100 Million annual Black Market poaching issue that OR is not immune from. According to ODFW and OSP, more cougar are poached than legally taken, more deer are poached than legally taken including elk. Poachers steal wildlife into the millions of dollars from Oregonians each year. Add 10 to 15% for the poaching not found and then double it for administrative costs. HB 2337 and any other cougar/wolf Bill are about Sports hunting and not about livestock or public safety -at all! Already the NRA, BigGameHoundsMen and PredatorMastors are treating HB 2337 and others as a Sports Hunting Bill on their websites! See most recent article in the Oregonian dated May 1, 2001, “Police: Accused poachers “liked to kill”". Visit http://www.OreCat.org and go to the button with the House Bill numbers, scroll to the end and you will find all the Legislative email addresses of the Senators and Reps. Email them. Ask them to vote NO!

    We already have a cougar safety program that kills 3000 cougar a year and Bill 2971 that allows hunters to kill cougar using hounds. Poaching cougar exceeds legal kills of cougar. We are killing more cougar after M18 than before! ODFW changed their cougar hunting policy after M18 & extended cougar hunting season to one year, lowered the tag costs, added them into a package deal, and regardless that no one had been hurt or killed by cougar in Oregon in the last 100 years, started a Public Safety mandatory kill of 3000 cougar a year!

    Oregonians need an unbiased outside peer review done on our cougars and the voters need to vote again. Don’t support politicians who support trickery, poor management policy and animal abuse.

  3. Denise Boggs says:

    George, Great article. I had to laugh reading the comments. People like me rarely post a comment and the folks who hate predators always do. They don’t understand and aren’t educated. As a former employee of the MT Dept. FWP Wildlife Division, I had to deal with these nimrods every day. They simply don’t WANT to understand ecology. I have a real problem with trophy hunting. Cougar hunting is trophy hunting and it does nothing to assist in increasing ungulate populations or protecting human safety. If anything, it increase depredation and the few cougars that have attacked people were young inexperienced animals. Hunting indiscrimantely kills and most go for the older larger animals. But you already know all this. Finally isn’t it ironic that humans believe it fine to be a top predator and kill anything it wants but somehow wild animals aren’t allowed to be Predators. How dare they kill ‘our’ big game animals. Maybe we should teach cougars to go to Albertson’s to buy hamburger.

  4. Elizabeth says:

    George,

    I admire your willingness to speak the truth to us all even when you know so many out there don’t want to learn and be shown information that doesn’t meet their world-view. You continue to stick your neck out on issues, where there will be vehement backlash. Facts speak for themselves. Thanks for bringing them to light again and again.

  5. larry kurtz says:

    Real men shoot dart rifles. Y2Y.

  6. George Wuerthner says:

    Dave Skinner;

    I agree that hound hunting is the best way to surgically remove an animal. And if you read what I have said closely I am not opposed to surgical removal of specific animals.

    What I am suggesting is that most hunting is not surgical. Yes hunters may accidentally get an offending animal that is a genuine threat to either livestock or people, but the vast majority of cougars that are killed are not in that category.

    That might not be a concern, except that hunting by ignoring the social ecology of predators actually makes things worse–increasing the number of young cougars–the ones most likely to attack livestock and people.

    Sport hunting and an operation to remove an individual offending animals is the difference between carpet bombing and the Navy Seals that just got Osama.

  7. Mike says:

    george, nicely written article. You are spot on with your article. The places where cougars are hunted, these places have more problems with cougars killing livestock than places like California, which outlawed the sport hunting of cougars. Look at BC as one example, cougars are killing a ton of livestock animals and they are hunted fairly heavily over there. Facts do not lie.

  8. George Wuerthner says:

    Big Sky

    I don’t know if you are serious in your comments, but assuming you don’t get it, I’ll explain it again. I’m not suggesting we get rid of hunting. I was trying to put into perspective the relative dangers of cougar attacks compared to the dangers of hunting in terms of accidents and fatality.

    As I said, I don’t worry much about being shot while I am hunting because the risk is pretty low. For the same reason I don’t worry about being attacked by a cougar–because the risk is even lower.

    There is an exaggerated and unrealistic fear of cougar attacks being promulgated by those interested in shooting them.

  9. wyowind says:

    The mountain lion numbers are on the increase in the state of Wyoming. We have perhaps more lions than any other state. The lion population is hunted here. We use hounds quite a bit, except in wolf territory. Hound hunting for mountain lion is very successful. I hunted with a guide with a good pack for 4 years before taking a lion that I wanted. During that time we treed at least 7 different mountain lions. Unlike hunting lions without hounds, with well trained dogs, one is able to evaluate the lion which is treed. We identified and released two lactating females, something that can’t be done if not using dogs. The other cats that were treed when I hunted were not large cats. The lion I finally shot was a very large and old female. The Game & Fish estimated her age at about 9 years. Her teeth were worn, and a couple of canine teeth had long been broken off. She was in good shape though, and was obviously a successful hunter. Point being I guess, that here in the Cowboy State, mountain lions are hunted extensively; we have a large mountain lion population; mountain lions are not going, nor have they been going, crazy, and attacking humans. Granted, Wyoming has a small human population. We do have a huge tourist population however, and to my knowledge, the mountain lions have not been attacking them either. In fact, lions are very shy and elusive in Wyoming despite their high numbers. They stay away from people as much as they can, for their own protection. Hunting lions with, or without hounds, does not have any tendency to increase attacks on humans, as proven in Wyoming. If the Grizzly Bear is ever delisted, and the state allows controlled hunting of Grizzlies, no doubt the attacks on humans by the bears will also go down in number. (Two fatalities last year alone) There has to be some truth told here, and I don’t see it being done by the author of this article. Perhaps he needs to come on out to Wyoming and go on a lion hunt.

  10. Jedediah says:

    A real man will never be satisfied with only one cougar stuffed and mounted in his den..!

  11. Rick says:

    Barry, no one worships predators. Unlike you, we just feel they have a place in our ecosystems Ecosystems are not complete without TOP PREDATORS LIKE WOLVES. One has to take a look at places like BC and Oregon to see that hunting is not doing what you hunters claim it is supposed to do and that is lower cougar/human problems. It’s funny how you clam bias when you are clearly the bias one.

  12. Jed says:

    It is amusing to read the reactions from individuals when they are called for measuring themselves by their dead trophies.

  13. Mike says:

    4) HUNTERS BIGGER THREAT TO HUMAN SAFETY

    Hunters are a bigger threat to human safety than cougars. Indeed, there are hundreds of people shot every year by hunters and there are more hunting fatalities in a single year than cougars have killed in a hundred years. It could argued that the ODFW by increasing hunting for cougars has put Oregon citizens at greater risk of death from hunters than from cougars, For instance, in 2007 there were 19 fatalities in N. America from hunting and zero from cougars. In 2006 there were 27 deaths in N.America from hunters and zero from cougars. In 2005 there were 41 deaths from hunters, and zero from cougars.

    So true George. Not one person can debunk these facts.

  14. Mike says:

    British Columbia, which has experienced more lion attacks on humans than any other place, estimates its big cat population at 4,000 to 6,000.

    And hunters say that hunting cougars makes them fear humans right and causes far less human/cougar problems right?

  15. Mike says:

    “Hunting keeps the cat at bay”

    BC wouldn’t agree with that comment. I’m not surprised that you believe this. Afterall, you are a hunter who cares very little for the truth and you will justify hunting however you can.

  16. Jed says:

    It is amusing to hear hunting justified as a social tool.
    There is no way to justify it as anything but an excuse for nerds and wimps to pretend they are real men pitting themselves against creatures of nature which have been brought to the brink of extinction by the infection of earth by homo sapiens. And are only hanging on at all as a result of efforts by other homo sapiens.
    It has been generations since hunting was a necessary part of sustenance. Yet few discussions of this nature ever pass without some hunter justifying it as a need for protein…

  17. National Detainee says:

    But hunting by wolves is an approved social tool.

    Well you’re welcome, we hunters built up the prey base for your social ecological experiment known as wild predator management, someday maybe that theory will prove it self, you know, like 70+ years of state managed wild life proved itself thus justifying your partial hands off ongoing experiment.

Scroll To Top