To Hunt (Bears in NJ) or Not To Hunt, that is the Question

[berkshirebirder]

The information that follows is from the Care2 website:

http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-w...ars-in-danger/


The citizens of New Jersey have spoken, but those in office choose not to listen.

A report showing the public's opinion on the scheduled December black bear hunt in NJ has just been released. Despite the overwhelming number of comments against a statewide black bear hunt, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Robert Martin is in favor of allowing the hunt to go on as scheduled.

In a January 2010 letter to his staff, the newly appointed DEP Commissioner said “Our regulations and decisions need to be based on sound science, facts and a robust cost/benefit analysis. We will also continue to vigorously enforce our environmental laws to protect the health and safety of all our residents.”

But the fact remains that neither Martin, nor Governor Christie, have met with any members of the BEAR Coalition to hear the reasons for opposing the hunt. They have, however, met with representatives of New Jersey Outdoor Alliance (NJOA), a pro-hunting lobby.

NJOA, who claim their scientific evidence supports a hunt, also like to brag about their work in helping Christie win the gubernatorial election last November.

So yes, this is another example of politics as usual. Out of the 9,287 public comments received, 6,484 were against the proposed black bear hunt, leaving 2,803 in favor. Not only was this the largest number of responses ever received on an issue, it clearly shows New Jersey residents do not want the hunt to take place.

So why is the hunt still scheduled? The powers in charge want it.

The public voice needs to be heard even louder. Contact DEP Commissioner Martin and Governor Christie and demand they meet with representatives of the Coalition to Protect New Jersey Bears.

Here are some points to mention:

• The vast majority of writers in the public comment period are against this bear hunt.
• Out of 9,287, a whopping 6,484 were against the hunt.
• The estimated cost for the proposed black bear hunt is $600,000 for NJ taxpayers. Each bear killed will cost about $2000.
• The DEP Commissioner and the Governor have listened to only one side of this issue. They have NOT met with Coalition representatives, but they have met with representatives of the NJOA, a pro-hunting lobby.
• Ask Commissioner Martin to listen to the "sound science, facts and a robust cost/benefit analysis" he stated his administration would.
• Ask Governor Christie to listen to all sides in the matter, not just the groups that supported his election.
• NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife has not enforced NJ law NJSA 23:2A-14 -- which disallows the feeding of black bears and enforces garbage control. By not enforcing the law, logically it increases complaints from residents about the bears, which DFW uses to justify a hunt.
• Taxpayer monies being spent on lawsuits against the hunt is adversely affecting the state's budget. More lawsuits being considered will only increase the deficit.

[JAK]

It would have been interesting to see how a hunting ban would change bear demographics and size and behavior over the next 10 years or so. I would like to know more about the black bear. I think there is still alot to learn. My gut feeling is that the bears need to be managed somehow in order to keep the male population down, or else the males will migrate and intrude more agressively. I could be wrong. If the do need to be managed I think the best way is the traditional method, which is to haul them out of their lair in winter and kill them with a spear while they are still waking up.

[couscous]

More info for those interested.

[canoehead]

Every body loves the bears until their in Your back yard.
Right now they focus on bird feeders and trash. Are the cats, dogs maybe our little ones next?
I know I see it first hand. Their not pets.. I own an outdoor education & professional development business and have had 6 bear encounters, some with school groups others while hiking the AT and in my local area. If not managed properly you'll have over populations and more negative encounters with man and more than likely a less healthy bear population.
We've had coyote attacks just last week in Florence, MA. (local cats) and near the Cape.
Beavers causing drainage, road and structural problems in many towns that can't afford to make needed repairs. Bear & moose sightings are common along with accidents out here in the hilltowns of Western, MA.
Management of wild animals is necessary.
Maybe not so much in Eastern MA. or NJ. YET!

[jersey joe]

Here are some points to mention:

• The vast majority of writers in the public comment period are against this bear hunt.
• Out of 9,287, a whopping 6,484 were against the hunt.
• The estimated cost for the proposed black bear hunt is $600,000 for NJ taxpayers. Each bear killed will cost about $2000.
• The DEP Commissioner and the Governor have listened to only one side of this issue. They have NOT met with Coalition representatives, but they have met with representatives of the NJOA, a pro-hunting lobby.
• Ask Commissioner Martin to listen to the "sound science, facts and a robust cost/benefit analysis" he stated his administration would.
• Ask Governor Christie to listen to all sides in the matter, not just the groups that supported his election.
• NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife has not enforced NJ law NJSA 23:2A-14 -- which disallows the feeding of black bears and enforces garbage control. By not enforcing the law, logically it increases complaints from residents about the bears, which DFW uses to justify a hunt.
• Taxpayer monies being spent on lawsuits against the hunt is adversely affecting the state's budget. More lawsuits being considered will only increase the deficit.

I have mixed feelings on a bear hunt in NJ. I have not seen anything to convince me definitively one way or the other. Your points above do not convince me that a bear hunt would be a negative thing. People that are against something are more apt to comment than people that are for something.

[Deadeye]

Go on with the hunt... there's too many bears for too little new Jersey

[karo]

I have to comment on this issue as a hiker and a hunter. I agree that the wildlife have to be managed to keep the populations in check. A state run wildlife management association is the most affective way to monitor wildlife and control the population and insure proper safety between humans and animals. In almost all cases the reason the animals were re-introduced to the areas are due the hard work of hunters and the hunting agencies. Hunting should be used to humanely control that population and I do not agree with some of the bear hunting methods that I see on some hunting shows. Hunting over a food stash is not very sporting in my honest opinion. Some other method can be found to attract bears to the hunter without feeding the anti-hunting groups any more ammo against the ethical hunter.

[mipointofvu]

I heard that of the 6000 people in favor of the hunt 3000 were just a mass mailing done of Humane Society United States membership list. These people didn't sign anything or even know that their names were being submitted. If you take out those 3000 names the results are about even. But managing wildlife shouldn't be based on a poll or public opinion it should be based on science.

There's an interesting perspective on the need for a bear hunt at this link

http://wildnewjersey.tv/2010/07/29/w...ood-thing.aspx

[mipointofvu]

By the way isn't Care2 an animal rights run website?

[berkshirebirder]

Just to clarify: The item about the proposed bear hunt in NJ was from a web site. I didn't give my opinion, but I will. Although not a hunter myself, I approve of hunting and agree that SOME of the best conservationists are hunters and vice versa.

The person on the street is not in a position to decide the value of hunting (or many other things, actually). No person on the street wants to "shoot Bambi" until Bambi eats every plant in their backyard. Nobody on the street wants to control numbers of geese and swans until the local pond is too polluted to swim in. Then they want someone to do something YESTERDAY.

So now we have a lot of wooded corridors, and the suburbs are becoming where the wild things are. Management/control of numbers is absolutely necessary.

[Tuckahoe]

I have to comment on this issue as a hiker and a hunter. I agree that the wildlife have to be managed to keep the populations in check. A state run wildlife management association is the most affective way to monitor wildlife and control the population and insure proper safety between humans and animals. In almost all cases the reason the animals were re-introduced to the areas are due the hard work of hunters and the hunting agencies. Hunting should be used to humanely control that population and I do not agree with some of the bear hunting methods that I see on some hunting shows. Hunting over a food stash is not very sporting in my honest opinion. Some other method can be found to attract bears to the hunter without feeding the anti-hunting groups any more ammo against the ethical hunter.

There was another thread about bears and bear hunting, which prompted me to check out the bear hunting laws of the states that the AT passes through. I found that only New Hampshire and Maine allowed any sort of baiting, and that practice was regulated and required certain permits.

[berkshirebirder]

isn't Care2 an animal rights run website? -mypointofvu

To be honest, I've never checked to see who runs Care2. They send emails on a lot of health and touchy-feely topics. Given the number of threads/posts about bear issues, I thought the item was of interest.

Thanks for posting the link to Wild New Jersey--that's certainly a more informed point of view.

[mipointofvu]

I enjoyed reading the posts. People are very open minded on this site.

[rickb]

Regardless of whether on thinks bear hunting is appropriate in a given area, and regardless whether or not one thinks hunting bear over a pile of stale donuts is sporting, seeing bear on a thru hike is a highlight for many.

Surprisingly, most thru hikers don't see more than a few. Some don't see a single one.

I can't speak as a wildlife manager (much less on that really has his priorities straight) but as USERS and HIKERS of the AT, there is no need to reduce the population.

[Jack Tarlin]

While there may be a very small threat to users and hikers of the A.T., this doesn't address the very real threat to people who actually live in bear country in New Jersey,and these people deal with these threats for much of the year, and not just the 4 or 5 days it takes to hike thru the state.

It is very easy to minimize this threat or take it lightly if one doesn't actually live there, but one's perspective would probably change if it was THEIR backyard getting visited, THEIR garage getting raided, THEIR child being put in danger.

Lastly, there's no shortage of bears in New Jersey these days. I've spoken to dozens of hikers recently in Vermont and New Hampshire, and most of them saw "more than a few" bears while going thru New Jerse this year.

And many saw more than they could count.

[woodsy]

To Hunt (Bears in NJ) or Not To Hunt, that is the Question

I think it would be a good idea to allow NJ residents to hunt bear in their state, instead of ours.

[Graywolf]

A state wide hunt is not very humane. All areas including protected areas will be open. That can serilously hurt not only the bears, but also other fauna populations as well. Naybe a Bear season, but state wide?? What I read it sounds more like "Shoot first, ask questions later". This is just a way to get "trigger happy" hunters to hunt anywhere they want. Im not talking about all hunters, im talking about the "Trigger happy" ones..FYI..

[berkshirebirder]

From the Bloomberg Report link posted above by couscous:


"New Jersey, the most-densely populated U.S. state, will hold its first black bear hunt since 2005 after more than 1,200 incidents were reported this year.


"The number of bears in northwestern New Jersey has grown to more than 3,400 from 500 in 1992, according to a Department of Environmental Protection press release today."

From this, it DOES seem that conducting the bear hunt in the northwestern part of the state would be the way to go; but with a limited season, maybe that would concentrate too many hunters in too small an area? Any hunters want to weigh in on this?

Also, is it true that black bears are much more likely to be in lowlands than above a certain elevation?

[DavidNH]

The more bears the merrier. Long as the hiker is responsible he has nothing to fear from bears. Just don't do anything stupid like taking food into your tent!

I like seeing bears. Don't you?

David

[jersey joe]

Surprisingly, most thru hikers don't see more than a few. Some don't see a single one.

I can't speak as a wildlife manager (much less on that really has his priorities straight) but as USERS and HIKERS of the AT, there is no need to reduce the population.

Rickb, you are generally correct, on my thru hike i saw only ONE bear. However, I went out for a two day hike in NJ a couple weeks ago and saw FIVE bear. The numbers are increasing dramatically in the area in large part because the norm is for a mama bear to have three cubs or even four instead of one or two that was common in the past or in different areas.