Cougars in the crosshairs.

Byline: The Register-Guard

A cougar killed a dog on the outskirts of Bend the other day. The (Bend) Bulletin seized upon the killing as proof of the need for Senate Bill 389, which would allow counties to opt out of the voter-approved statewide limits on bear and cougar hunting. The newspaper could more sensibly have advocated open season on dogs, since Oregonians are far more likely to be killed by dogs than by cougars. But even those who have succumbed to an overblown fear of cougars should recognize SB 389 as a profoundly undemocratic piece of legislation.

Oregonians voted in 1994 to ban the use of bait in hunting bears, and the use of dogs in hunting cougars. A 1996 measure to repeal the limits was rejected by a wide margin. Every legislative session since then has brought fresh assaults on the initiative, particularly the provisions relating to cougars. SB 389 is among the most offensive yet, and deserves defeat when it reaches the House floor early next week.

The 1994 law does not ban cougar hunting, just the most effective method - which involves loosing packs of dogs to chase the big cats until they're treed or cornered and then shot. Other methods requiring more patience, skill or luck are still allowed. Cougar season lasts year-round in Oregon, except for June and July, and the hunters' quota has been increased. What's more, dogs may still be used to hunt any cougar that causes problems for humans or livestock. That cougar in Bend can be pursued by dogs and killed without any change in the law.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife reports a steep increase in the cougar population in the past decade, though an accurate census of the reclusive animals does not exist. The tally of reported sightings has also climbed, at least partly because the 1994 law brought into being a constituency with an interest in demonstrating that cougars are in every schoolyard. Yet even if the number of cougars in Oregon has grown, and even if some have moved into new habitat, no one in Oregon has been killed by a cougar in modern times.

Opponents of the 1994 law warn that these arguments will ring hollow after a cougar kills a child. Wildlife can be dangerous, and a cougar could kill a person some day - though statistically, large hoofed animals present a greater hazard. Complete safety from cougars can be obtained only through a program of extermination like the one that resulted in the near-extinction of cougars in Oregon a half-century ago. And again, the 1994 law does not protect any cougar that presents a threat.

Proposals to roll back the 1994 law were headed for their usual destination this year, which is nowhere. The leading proposal, to allow hunting cougars with dogs in 10 counties, including Coos and Douglas, was failing because it called for studies costing $5.5 million over the next four years. The Senate, however, passed an unrelated measure - SB 389, which dealt with the practice of using the Internet to kill game animals with remote-controlled weapons.

The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee amended SB 389 to allow voters in any Oregon county to opt out of the 1994 law. Each county would decide whether to permit using bait to hunt bears and dogs to hunt cougars. By amending an existing bill, supporters of the local option proposal avoided all required hearings, public notice and testimony. The amended bill passed the committee on a 6-1 vote, with Rep. Terry Beyer, D-Springfield, among the supporters.

Legislators might as well go home if they believe counties should be allowed to opt out of statewide laws - there are many other candidates for local-option treatment, ranging from school finance to land use law. Citizens might as well stay away from Salem if they're not going to get a chance to speak. And voters might as well skip ballot initiatives if the laws they approve are overturned or made into Swiss cheese by the Legislature.

SB 389 has been transformed into an undemocratic response to a non-existent problem. The House should defeat it, but if it will not, the Senate should refuse to concur in this act of vandalism against its Internet hunting bill.