I have hiked the remote regions of Oregon for decades and have never seen a cougar in the wild. It does appear that subdivisions are encroaching on cougar habitat. Not sure what the solution is. In close subdivions, cougars are a legitimate danger to small pets and probably small children. Cats that kill or threaten domestic pets or kids probably need to be killed, not because they deserve to die but because in this "save the children" environment nobody wants to see little Bobby dragged off into the trees by a Cougar.

Not sure what this post has to do with the Democratic Party?

I was thinking early thirties would be not so much a cougar as a MILF...

There have been dire warnings for the past twenty or so years that cougar numbers were exploding and that 'soon' someone would be killed by them. Eventually that will happen. Someday; it's just the law of averages.

But I have spent many hours in the woods as well and have yet to see a cougar. Coyotes yes, but never a cougar.

But we can't let little Suzie whose parents love living in their beautiful house in the woods get dragged off by a nasty old cougar. We love nature but nature doesn't care about us one way or the other.

Oregon's Cougar problem has more to do with Oregon's inability to to play an effective zone defense!

Carla, I've been in the woods and seen cougars. I've seen a cougar strolling down the shared driveway of the two houses next door to ours in a rural subdivision built in the mid 1970's. the cougar problem is real and it is getting worse.

Thanks for bringing light to the subject. Unfortunately, ODF&W is only working with the paltrey tools allowed them by our legislators who prefer to believe that everything in Oregon is a city like the Eugene-Portland I-5 corridor. Ranchers and farmers are already losing livestock and as others have stated, it is only a matter of time before a child is attacked.

Generally you won't spot a cougar but they're out there. Cougar's are solitary animals, stealthy and very territorial. Like coyotes they are opportunists and will occupy any habitat they find suitable. Had run in's with both species but have yet to kill one. However, allowing them to thrive in developed communities is a recipe for disaster. It's one thing if you're an experienced woodsman camping on their turf. It's quite another when ignorant suburbanites consider them cute Disney creatures. Just my two cents.

Have to admit I did a double-take when I saw the title of this post right next to Carla's picture... Thought for a second there might be some sort of Tiger Woods-style confession in the offing. Glad you clarified the context early on! ;-)

Alcatross, I have to admit you made me laugh with that one.

I've seen cougars twice, once in the early 70's on the far side of Park Meadow (just east of the Three Sisters) for about 3 seconds and then of all places on the bank of the Lower Deschutes River early in the morning across from our rafting camp about a decade ago.

For those of you who've never seen a cougar while trekking around in the woods have you ever wondered how many have seen you?

I'm not against using dogs to hunt cougar. The dogs love it and it emulates conditions back when there were wolf packs that helped keep the population in control. Cougars and civilization don't mix well.

A program in southwest Washington to curb the dangerous cougar population has been cancelled. The hunters could not find any of the wily critters.

Thanks to Kurt we now know where to look. And when we see these critters are we going to summon the trusty crew of Portland Policemen with their fully automatic 5.56 laser sighted ar-15?

Nope. We'll probably tranquilize kitty and relocate them to a more friendly spot.

Oh the humanity.

OK, so Kurt - you've seen them in a driveway? What's the problem?

Back when I worked for the State I sat next to a Mazama who was always quite concerned about cougar attacks. He got to know my cat, who is rather communicative and empathic, and after discussing his concerns with her a number of times, she was able to communicate to us a number of solutions. Five years later, he tells me that not only have they not been attacked, they haven't been afraid anymore. Stands to reason she should have a clue; her great-grandmother was an Asian Leopard Cat. In her words, YMMV, but for what it's worth...

1). Cats hate urban music. A Public Enemy tape will disperse any self respecting large cats within a mile and self respect is a big deal with cats. Anything that you can do to make the cat have to look stupid in order to get close to you exponentially raises your chances. 2). Noise can also be threatening. There's nothing worse than a smoke detector. Things like horns that are directional can be threatening enough to cause an attack, if the cat is close, so things like smoke detectors are better. 3). Dump the dayglo! You know what I call a mountain biker speeding by in a dayglo jacket? Cat toy! Ditto those flashing lights that parents put on their toddlers' shoe laces. I can tell you that when you tackle them from behind their parents aren't best pleased. If camo didn't work, cat prey wouldn't use it. They do. No predator will be as likely to attack if your outline is broken up. Except humans that shoot at anything that moves. 4). If you're think you're being stalked, move towards the cat. The point of stalking is not being seen. Nothing puts you off a good stalk like a tourist pointing you out and shouting, "is that cougar stalking us"? 5). Never hide behind a tree. If the cat is strong enough to stand and you hide behind a tree you will be attacked. 6). "Make yourself look large" is great advice, except, to a cougar, you aren't large. The lion tamer doesn't wave his arms in the air, he uses a chair. Point being that cats can't distinguish what you're holding from what you are very well. Break off a few 4 foot sections of branch and wave them around and you look large. 7). We know when you're wasted. We watch for distraction. There's no bigger distraction than fighting with each other. When you argue, you're more likely to end as cat chow. You don't argue (much) in Church. Have some respect and live longer.

Personally, I look at this when it comes up like Timothy Leary did when asked about flashbacks. I've had tons of exposure to the situation, have never seen the "problem", but it would be kind of nice if there was one.

The cougars have a problem, and, as usual, it's with the invasive species that outnumbers every other mammal more complex than a shrew.

Cougars are a self-regulating species and the killing of cougars in efforts to increase or maintain livestock and human safety has not been scientifically justified.

Unlimited and loosely monitored killing of cougars is not the best means to accomplishing the goal of decreasing depredation incidents.

The expansive killing of cougars not only increases the proportion of transient juvenile males in the population – an age and gender that has been shown to be disproportionately involved in depredation incidents – but may actually lead to increased litter sizes since as population numbers decrease, reproductive rates are known to increase.

A 2008 Washington study by Robinson et al on the implications of sink populations in cougar management that found carnivore management plans that do not take into account specific responses to harvest, may be ineffective for local population control. They state “cougar removal in small game management areas will increase immigration and recruitment of younger animals from adjacent areas, resulting in little or nor reduction in cougar densities and shift population structure toward younger animals.”

Alternative management techniques such as appropriate land-use planning, improved animal husbandry and public education about living in cougar country will have a far greater effect in the long term.

Lawmakers should provide tax incentives to pay for fences and frightening devices, such as motion detectors and sirens. Laws should also punish irresponsible landowners who attract cougar problems through actions such as leaving an animal carcass in a pasture.

Did you all read about the Rottweiler that killed the 8-year-old in Astoria on Sunday. The family pet.

Why is it OK to have domesticated animals killing kids, but not a wild animal?

No cougar has killed anyone in Oregon yet. The risk of allowing these native predators to coexist with us and maintain a natural balance, seems minimal compared to everyday risks like auto accidents and even family pets.

By the way, I love my dog and do not advocate stricter animal control.

And (not disagreeing with the point above) it's people with violent tendencies that own certain breeds as ego surrogates more than it being a "vicious breed" that leads to those pet deaths.

Earlier forgot to add a "thanks for the post". Never commented on the basic content as I didn't have anything add to the well rendered original.

Predators are essential to the health of our environment. Without them even the riparian trees stop growing. Check out Lords of Nature, a film by Greenfire Productions.

"livestock damage complaints and public safety concerns in different parts of the state."

It's deplorable what has been have done to protect and preserve one of the most environmentally destructive and resource intensive industries on the planet

Much of what we are hearing is simply more city life judging rural life. It's time for the two sides of Oregon to Split. Portland for example does not have many cougars or cougar issues destroying wildlife so its easy for them to ban hunting with dogs in the other parts of the state. They have the population and have no personal experience with the animals. One cougar kills about 40 deer a year, they are not coyotes that clean up dead things. The ban on hunting with dogs was driven by emotion not sound policy, just like the attempts to ban hunting by people who buy meat in the grocery store as if an animal in captivity is any better than hunting one free in the wild. This State really needs to split in two and this is what really needs to be discussed here. The NW of Oregon needs to be one State with open access to its port as required by federal law. The rest of Oregon are big boys and can take care of themselves.

Unbelievably, that "splitting" bit is being discussed overseas . Yes, they know how idealistic it is, but interesting nonetheless!

From the article: In a sense, Thomas Jefferson started things rolling long ago. He saw no particular reason why any fledgling US should stretch to the Pacific

Which is interesting, because those far right-wingers that worship him would say that was the dumbest idea they had ever heard. It would be nice if they got to know the facts around their talisman, someday.

<hr/>