I am incensed at the hypocritical management in Oregon, with policies allowing release of invasive species such as feral cats that prey upon birds and plague neighborhoods yet declaring war on native predators such as cougars and coyotes. This is a policy of “wildlife inconvenience,” not wildlife management.

These archaic positions set scientific wildlife management back 100 years with the policy that the only good predator is a dead one. It’s a way to avoid tough decisions and, yes, requires spending some money to actively manage species that have been vilified by politically well-connected agribusiness and an ill-informed electorate.

Where are the advocates for resource stewardship? The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife falls back on the hackneyed and misguided standard that predators cannot be successfully relocated because they’ll be killed by competitors. But isn’t that natural selection? In fact, predator control is an easy and cheap policy to enforce, avoiding the tougher job of fact-finding studies or strategies to sustainably manage predators as an integral part of healthy ecosystems.

There has never been a cougar attack on a person in Oregon’s history. Even California, a state that has logged several attacks in the wildland interface, does not have a “scorched earth” policy on cougars that come in contact with humans.

Studies show many cougars residing in Los Angeles. Their biggest threat is being hit crossing roads, yet they survive in such marginal urban habitats preying on feral animals and rodents. Even there, you have a bigger chance of being killed in a carjacking than by a cougar. The public safety excuse for killing cougars is a decoy for poor wildlife-management efforts.

We have an overpopulation of wild horses; cougars prey on wild horses. Why are we not considering their relocation to wild horse ranges? Their primary prey is deer, along with many small mammals (even porcupines and coyotes), so if suburbanites continue to feed deer (which is tolerated, though supposedly illegal), it’s an attractive nuisance for cougars. Why is ODFW not looking into why there have been at least six cougars (all killed) in Sisters and Bend in the last three years?

Living and working among bears (black and brown), dealing with nuisance bears in the urban-wildland interface, we found it was people’s ignorance that makes them nuisances by leaving out trash, pet foods, unprotected livestock and birdfeeders and generally living in denial that they share a home with wildlife.

Tagging and collaring nuisance bears, we followed their movements. Many pass through neighborhoods and return to the wild when native foods are plentiful. True, repeat offenders have to be killed, but at least they are given a second chance. Laws were put in place to fine residents who negligently attract bears and habituate them to human foods.

It does take some effort on the part of biologists to educate the public. But it is not left to biologists to do all of the work. It takes motivated citizens to participate in public policy processes and information programs. It takes self-policing neighborhoods for attractive nuisances and requiring there be enforcement of the laws.

ODFW does not carry out current policies in my name. Is there anyone else out there who feels the same? Other biologists keep quiet for fear of reprisal, but many of us do not depend on political expediency for our employment; many of us actually believe science should underlie resource management decisions.

As we move into habitats shared by wildland predators, encounters are sure to happen. But they do not have to end with an automatic death sentence for the animal. Citizens have a responsibility to be good stewards of natural resources and to have the political will to change obsolete policies.

Don’t just tweet; act! This is your natural resource legacy being squandered!

— Carol Jo Sanner lives in Bend