Letters to the Editor
From our weekly issue dated June 03, 2009
(Editor’s Note: Views and commentary, including statements made as fact, are strictly those of the letter-writers.)
Typed, double-spaced letters are considered for publication. Hand-written letters that are double-spaced and legible also can be considered. “Thank you” submissions are not accepted as letters.
Cougar concerns addressed
From Annette McGee Rasch
Cave Junction
I’m writing regarding concerns about cougars.
While having a cougar around can seem frightening, Oregon has never had a human fatality as a result of a cougar attack. Generally, when one spots a cougar, it’s only a juvenile seeking its own territory.
Young cougars are usually shy. If livestock and pets are properly safeguarded, especially at night, the cougar will soon move on. Barking dogs are a marvelous deterrent, but make sure they can get to safety.
Hazing also works: blowing off fireworks or shooting a gun into the air. Keeping lights on and playing a radio at night can also help.
Cougar problems arise when it’s too easy for them to get at domestic animals.
There’s been a continuing debate in our region about cougar hunting, so I am weighing in on that topic as well. Scientific studies indicate that killing top predators creates more problems: anywhere or anytime, through hunting or culling. Hunters typically take the biggest individuals that cause the least conflict.
Big predators who exist at the top of food chains stabilize other wildlife populations and directly reflect the health of entire ecosystems. Also, science proves how apex predators self regulate; thus when populations are appropriate for the carrying capacity of a given area, excess young typically don’t survive. There are no viable indications that S.W. Oregon has too many cougars.
The Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife has no clue what current cougar numbers are, due to the lack of scientific studies. So by changing the rules last summer to allow “deputized” hunters to chase and kill 2,000 cougars with dog packs, lawmakers once again ignored the majority of voters and caved in to hunters who enjoy shooting cougars.
All one has to do is to “claim” a cougar is a problem, and the death warrant is signed. God only knows how many innocent animals die when people sensationalize sightings. The energy around most cougar complaints reminds me of fish stories, where the fish just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
A friend has spoken to numerous staff members of the appropriate agencies who confirm that complaints about hunters cutting through fences, littering and recklessly endangering public safety far exceeds complaints about cougars. But the hunting lobby is strong in Oregon, and while unlawful hunters are dangerous and can cause a lot of trouble, we hear far less about that.
There’s basically no enforcement for hunters, due to budget constraints. There are no accuracy tests that hunters have to take to prove their proficiency with firearms.
Countless animals suffer terribly when wounded, and the hunter doesn’t have the will or the skill to track it down. And the Hunters Guide reads, “We recommend not to drink or take drugs” What? Just recommended not to drink? Apparently it’s not illegal to drink and hunt. Naturally, the bad apples make it hard on respectful hunters.
A recent letter in another newspaper mentioned the savagery of cougars when they take prey. Yet it’s the methods utilized to slaughter cougars and bears that I find cruel and reprehensible. That many people think animals exist for us to do with as we please is horrifying. The way humans in general treat domestic “food” animals is grotesque.
I wonder, who are the savages? For competitive science-based information about cougars and other predators, go to bigwildlife.org. Big Wildlife’s Website also has a chilling video about cougar hunting, but don’t watch if you’re sensitive.
Counters county action
From Josh Kardon
chief of staff, Sen. Ron Wyden’s office
Recent coverage of the Josephine County Commission’s vote on Sen. Wyden’s Forest Restoration and Old Growth proposal requires clarification of some key points.
First, the proposal has not been introduced in Congress, so the board curiously voted on a draft.
What is being circulated by our office is a discussion draft intended to solicit comments and feedback prior to official introduction. We continue to welcome input that improves the legislation’s intent of breaking the long-standing deadlock over federal forest policy.
Second, the senator’s draft clearly and explicitly orders the federal government to enhance energy generation from woody biomass on federal forests.
It also gives the federal government the authority to designate areas where biomass removal is necessary and to enter into long-term contracts to supply biomass for energy production. In addition to the biomass provisions in his proposal, Sen. Wyden has introduced legislation changing the current myopic policies that prohibit the use of biomass taken from federal land for renewable fuel.
He included that same provision in his draft proposal, as well, so it is odd that the Josephine County commissioners cited an alleged failure to mention biomass as a basis for opposing the draft legislation.
Finally, the claim that Sen. Wyden didn’t include any of Oregon’s 18 timber-dependent communities in the discussion of the bill is stunningly inaccurate. Sen. Wyden and his staff sought, and continues to seek, input from all sides of this issue.
We have spent many hours in discussion with leaders from the O&C counties, and based on a recommendation from the Association of O&C Counties, an early version of the bill was amended to change the definition of old growth on O&C lands from 120 to 160 years, the standard used by President Bush in the Western Oregon Plan Revisions, or WOPR.
Advertisement:
