PDA

View Full Version : News: NJ Hunters Bag 202 Bears, 4 Arrested



Tin Man
12-07-2005, 19:18
When I first saw this, I wondered why they arrested 4 bears. Perhaps they were caught defecating within 200 feet of the trail or a stream? Full details below:

http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_341110519.html

Maybe the bear kill will make NJ safer for hikers?

K-Man
12-07-2005, 19:40
This makes me so upset. When I go hiking in Jersey (pretty much all of my hiking) I want to see bears, but have only seen two in the last two years. How can they tell me there is a "bear problem" if I go out looking for them and only see them very rarely. People just need more education about how to live along with bears. I hope they release the names of the people arrested for "hunter harassment" so that I can start a donation fund to pay for their fines.

A-Train
12-07-2005, 19:44
I wholeheartedly agree that more education is needed, as well as more funding for the ridgerunner program, education material at shelters, and more presence from rangers on trail. Bears shouldn´t have to perish because of human stupidity.

But, there are still TONS of bears out there. If you aren´t seeing them, maybe you´re making too much noise or not looking in the right places. I saw about 50 this summer from May to September, and saw as many as six in one day. Popular places are the trail between Gren Anderson and High Pt on the AT, specifically near Mashipacong shelter and Rutherford. Also the section from Pinwheel Vista to Wawayanda shelter seems to have a good supply as well, specifically from Iron Bridge Rd to Wawayanda shelter. Trust me, they are out there!

K-Man
12-07-2005, 19:54
Yeah, I have heard horror stories of bears in Jersey backing hikers into corners of shelters for their food. It happened to my friend Tribes. This is definitely due to the bears just not being afraid of humans because they are associating them with food.

Tin Man
12-07-2005, 20:22
Yeah, I have heard horror stories of bears in Jersey backing hikers into corners of shelters for their food. It happened to my friend Tribes. This is definitely due to the bears just not being afraid of humans because they are associating them with food.

The food association problem has been attributed to poor behavior of a few...ah, idiots. Seems to me the hunt is targeting the wrong species. I guess idiots would be a sub-species. :-?

stupe
12-07-2005, 20:50
I haven't heard of any hikers being backed into shelters by bears, but they sure have been invading yards and homes to get food. I think that's the main complaint. A kid did get attacked by a bear at High Point this spring, but that's the only attack on a hiker I've heard of in NJ.
Here's a link to a recent NY Times story, from two days ago. The arrests seem to have occurred since then, but they mention some names and an anti hunt organization that might be involved. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/nyregion/06bear.html
Here's a link to a story that gives you the history of the last few years bear hunts, including the cancelled 04' hunt and all it's political hijinks..
http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/news/snapshots/article/0,19912,1033435,00.html
NY has lot's of bears, especially down state, but we don't have the sprawl that NJ has, and we have always had a bear season.

saimyoji
12-07-2005, 20:51
This summer I saw three bears around DWG on two consecutive weekends. None was close enough to be a problem, daytime, off trail.

Sly
12-07-2005, 23:48
Anyone know how they conduct the hunt in NJ? Were the hunters allowed to to bait and use dogs? 202 in 2 days seems like an awful lot.

K-Man
12-07-2005, 23:58
Seems to me the hunt is targeting the wrong species. I guess idiots would be a sub-species. :-?
Where can I sign up for the "sub-species" hunt?

Tin Man
12-08-2005, 00:10
No to baiting the bears...

http://www.njherald.com/284841470827507.php

...which is too bad since there are plenty of idiots who would make a good bait.

Tin Man
12-08-2005, 00:16
Official NJ DEP news release:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2005/05_0130.htm

NJ Bear "Harvest" counts, etc.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bearseas05.htm

rickb
12-08-2005, 00:27
Interesting stuff, Tin Man.

When looking around, I did find something that confirmed my suspicion that no hunter would permit prohibitions against a pile of Krispy Kreams:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2005/dighnt55-69.pdf

Seems in NJ, you can only shoot Bear on the way to or from dinner. Because as one's tree stand must be 300 feet from the donut pile.

Of course, you could stand near the donut pile with your shotgun. But who would want to do that?

Moxie00
12-08-2005, 00:30
:dance Support the right to arm bears-----let's level the playing field.:dance

The Desperado
12-08-2005, 01:39
I was all for the bear hunt,as long as it was controlled [as it was] and as long as the biologists had a target number to reduce the overall ammt. When that number is reached ...thats it...the hunt is over. I too live in N J and directly in "the bear areas". It's not uncommon to have neighbors tell you they have had chickens/dogs/horses/goats etc mauled by bears. Their are lots of news paper stories about these things. I myself had a bear that tried to enter my cabin [ while I was in it]. I didnt call the "authorities" [ they would have destroyed it...I shot it myself....with rubber buckshot.] *wont break the skin, but the loud report & strong Sting & resulting welt imprints on them and they are pretty well "conditioned" at that point. At least this one was. It took off like a rocket. Pretty scary stuff.
I dont believe that they should have an "all out" hunt, but i am not against a managed hunt and certainly I am not an anti-gun or anti hunter type......I certainly wouldnt agree to shooting humans over animals..............good god, whats wrong with that kind of thinking. Like it or not.hunting is a proper way to regulate this species.....

Newb
12-08-2005, 08:52
What's the big deal? It's a sustainable harvest, and if makes the bears a little more shy of people then I say go for it. However, I'll skip the gun season. I believe in a more even playing field...that's why I only go hunting during knife season. But I'm tough like that.

Youngblood
12-08-2005, 08:58
Desperado,

Thanks for the prospective from one who is in the area and honestly understands different sides of the issue.

rickb
12-08-2005, 09:48
One of my first encounters with bear hunters was on the AT, a day or two north of Perisburg. The hunter came out of the woods and asked if I had seen a bear. He was looking for one that he put an arrow into the day before.

Other encounters with bear hunters on the AT were equally cordial. Many were running hounds. As I understand it, once the hounds tree a terrified bruin, it is easier to bring them down with a single well placed shot.

Shooting bears over a pile of donuts is may or may not be important so as to protect the goats, horses and dogs of NJ, I just don't know.

As a hiker, I would prefer to see fewer taken during harvest.

BTW, I didn have one in the back seat of my car in NJ, but that was 100% my fault, not the bears.

Go bears!

stupe
12-08-2005, 10:10
I hope they release the names of the people arrested for "hunter harassment" so that I can start a donation fund to pay for their fines.

Here you go, KMan....
VERNON,NEW JERSEY: ACTIVISTS ARRESTED DURING BEAR HUNT Four animal-rights activists were arrested yesterday and charged with harassing hunters and other offenses, officials said, after they confronted hunters in the woods of Wawayanda State Park on the third day of New Jersey's black bear hunt. Martin McHugh, director of the Department of Environmental Protection Division of Fish and Wildlife, said that Angi Metler, director of the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, along with Janet Piszar, Albert Kazemian and Theresa Fritzges, were arrested by the forestry police and charged with harassment, disorderly-person offenses and resisting arrest.. By 2:30 p.m. yesterday, 216 bears had been killed, Mr. McHugh said. Lynda Smith, a spokeswoman for the Bear Education and Resource Group, said the activists "fell victim to a sting operation orchestrated by two hunters they had encountered in the woods yesterday, as well as park rangers and Division of Fish and Wildlife staff," a charge that officials denied. John Holl (NYT) (AP)

RWBlue
12-08-2005, 11:37
I hope they release the names of the people arrested for "hunter harassment" so that I can start a donation fund to pay for their fines.

I don't believe there is enough open land for the numbers of bears that are in NJ. It would be nice if they would deport a few to some other states like OH, IN, IL. I believe that scientists need to manage the number of animal taken. I also believe that there are some animals that have grown too accustom to people and are a hazard to humans and will have to be put down (or put in the ZOO?) It appears like that is what they are doing.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
That being said, I support your right to disagree with the managers and me in court, on the news, on the Internet, even hold up picket signs in a non-confrontational way (see Ganhdi) informing people of your opinion.
<o:p></o:p>
K-Man, so if I understand you right. You think it is right for someone to violate the law and harass another person who it in the legal right and is not doing anything unethical? You are in favor of civil disobedience? Hmm ;-?
<o:p></o:p>
How would you feel if the locals in West Virginia decided that they didn’t want people through hiking the AT because it (I don’t know) disrupted hunting in the area? It wouldn’t take much to stop all through hikers on a trail. Steal a few bags. Burn a few tents (with or without people in them). It wouldn’t be very hard to make part of the trail impassable. Hey, it is just a little terrorism.
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>How would you feel if the hunters opened fire on the people harassing them? To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, when the government does not support and protect the people the people must stand up for themselves. If the system is a revolving door....</o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I will say that civil disobedience has its place when the government has eliminated the legal means to make effective change (like being black, in the south, in the 60s), but we are not there. You have to be careful when you support civil disobedience. Others will see the action and decide that civil disobedience is acceptable. How many people speed? (this is one test I use while interviewing to tell if people lie.) How many people remove the tag on their mattress? (do the tags still say that it is illegal to remove them?) How many new cars have bumpers that don’t conform to federal law (all of them)?

Toolshed
12-08-2005, 15:08
This makes me so upset. When I go hiking in Jersey (pretty much all of my hiking) I want to see bears, but have only seen two in the last two years. How can they tell me there is a "bear problem" if I go out looking for them and only see them very rarely. People just need more education about how to live along with bears....

Having worked in Jersey for 5 yers and having lots of friends here, especially in NW Jersey, as well as spending many hours backpacking and kayaking here, can I point out that while you are "So upset" about this, think about regular folks who live in developments and pay taxes who are tired of having their garages doors clawed and ripped open so the bears can get to the garbage cans or grill. How about a bear on your porch or bears approaching you outside at dusk looking for handouts. (not to mention the ones that come to the shelters at night either (Brinks road & mashipicong being good examples)

If we really need to "educate" people as you mention, how should we do it? No more grilling on your patio? burn all your garbage? don't let the kids play out at dusk? bear bag the food with aromas in your kitchen and hang them from a tree??

The bear problem is like deer or the geese problems of the last decade ago. Sure the first dozen or so are cute and give you a real woodsy-like feeling, but when the start crashing through your picture windows or kill all the young trees around your house, or load your lawns up so high with goose**** that you track it everywhere and it becomes a health hazard as well as a water contaminant. it's time for a reality check - They become a nuisance pest and really need to be controlled.

I'm sorry you didn't get to see the bears in NJ, but quit festering about it and come on back there are still plenty out there. Even better go out west to Grizzly country and get your fill of them.

Tha Wookie
12-08-2005, 16:13
Having worked in Jersey for 5 yers and having lots of friends here, especially in NW Jersey, as well as spending many hours backpacking and kayaking here, can I point out that while you are "So upset" about this, think about regular folks who live in developments and pay taxes who are tired of having their garages doors clawed and ripped open so the bears can get to the garbage cans or grill. How about a bear on your porch or bears approaching you outside at dusk looking for handouts. (not to mention the ones that come to the shelters at night either (Brinks road & mashipicong being good examples)

If we really need to "educate" people as you mention, how should we do it? No more grilling on your patio? burn all your garbage? don't let the kids play out at dusk? bear bag the food with aromas in your kitchen and hang them from a tree??

The bear problem is like deer or the geese problems of the last decade ago. Sure the first dozen or so are cute and give you a real woodsy-like feeling, but when the start crashing through your picture windows or kill all the young trees around your house, or load your lawns up so high with goose**** that you track it everywhere and it becomes a health hazard as well as a water contaminant. it's time for a reality check - They become a nuisance pest and really need to be controlled.

I'm sorry you didn't get to see the bears in NJ, but quit festering about it and come on back there are still plenty out there. Even better go out west to Grizzly country and get your fill of them.

So what do people expect when they move to bear country? Coney Island?

I feel no sorrow for anyone who moves near a huge forest and then can't stand the heat. I don't care how much taxes they pay. They don't own wildlife.

Youngblood
12-08-2005, 17:01
We've had bears show up in suburbs of Atlanta from time to time and Atlanta isn't near bear country. Aren't male black bears territorial where young male black bears have to go find their own territory? If so, maybe sometimes the problem with a growing bear population is that they need a bigger area and they come into established housing areas.

K-Man
12-08-2005, 17:39
Damn...You guys are tough on a new guy....I feel like I just insulted your mothers or something. Anyway, I guess I didn't see this issue from a homeowner/parental unit perspective. I am just out of college and still think I can save the world. That being said I still feel that hunting is not the ultimate answer for an overpopulation problem. Check out this link:

http://www.gsenet.org/library/23wld/rprtdeer.php

which is about what hunting did to the deer population in the Watchung Reservation. (a 2000 acre park in Union County, NJ) The quick and dirty summary is that hunting was not allowed for many years so deer in the area developed a sense of safety and did not go crazy trying to reproduce. Once they allowed hunting the deer lost their sense of safety and thus the deer population increased.

icemanat95
12-08-2005, 18:37
Then there is the Quabbin Reservoir example in western Massachusetts. For many years there was no hunting allowed in the Quabbin lands (which were created by flooding 5 towns in the Swift River Valley). The deer population grew steadily within the Quabbin and eventually grazed off all the new growth, then started trimming low hanging branches of trees up to about 6 feet or so in height, then started girdling the bark off of the trees themselves. Studies were done on the biological health of the forestlands and it was determined that the biological diversity in both age and species of the forest was reaching a critical point. The problem was also spilling outside the Quabbin lands into neighboring yards and forestlands. Without the undergrowth, there were also erosion problems developing, and because the game was so good (from stunted, malnourished deer) the copyote population was also exploding and the coyotes were packing up to take down the deer, neighborhood dogs, cats, etc. In one summer, the town of Shutesbury lost over 50 cats to coyote kill.

When they opened up the Quabbin hunt, all of these problems began to regulate. The hunt was very heavy at first to quickly reduce the deer population well below the carrying capacity of the land, then it has been regulated to a sustained rate to maintain the numbers at a reasonable and sustainable population. Licenses in the Quabbin are awarded primarily to hunters with a record of past success, and in very limited numbers based on how many were taken in the previous years and estimates of current populations.

The undergrowth in the forests has rebounded (though there is still a twenty to thirty year gap in age diversity) and thanks to increased coyote hunting and decreased availability of prey, the coyote population has been reduced as well. Crop and yard damage is also down.

______________________________________

stupe
12-08-2005, 18:49
I don't mind the hunt. It's a tool that more than pays for itself, it's part of our cultural heritage, and the 03' hunt may be responsible for almost halving NJ bear complaints. I just don't think that it's an exclusive solution to bear/human conflict.
The reason the NJ State Supreme Court insists on a bear management program that includes human education, research, monitoring, and euthanasia is that the hunts are not going to last, at least not in their present form. Jersey is growing fast; every year there is less hunting land. Eventually, there is going to be less impact by hunters and other means have to be used, or there will be real problems.
The bears have adapted to their new environment just like the deer have, and hunting alone doesn't control the deer herd in NJ, either. After all, each year New Jersey hunters kill about 60,000 deer. If you know Jersey deer, you know that's a drop in the bucket.
Just now saw on TV that the remainder of the NJ hunt has been cancelled.

rickb
12-08-2005, 19:57
Quabin is a good example.

To regulate the population (needed) they opened up hunting season on just bucks.

I wonder if it was a hunter who came up with that plan.

Jack Tarlin
12-08-2005, 20:07
Actually, Rick, having hunters involved is a GOOD idea....most hunters are actually quite interested in conservation, protection of wild lands, threats from sprawl, etc. And the typical hunter probably spends more time in the backcountry than most of the anti-hunting zealots, who tend to be transplanted city folks with little knowledge or experience of the backwoods.

When a community or locale is forced to initiate a hunt, it's usually with good reason, and after extended study. In short, these hunts are initiated when it becomes obvious that there's too many animals in too little a space. Usually, this involves deer, this time it's bears, of which there is no shortage in New Jersey.

It is also forgotten that in most places, it is fees and annual permit costs from hunters and fisherman that give millions of dollars to Fish and Wildlife departments all over the country, and this money is used for all sorts of programs and objectives. In short, it is often the sportsman that contributes more to maintaining a healthy balance of wildlife in many areas than the anti-hunting activists.

rickb
12-08-2005, 20:14
The reason they limit the hunt to just bucks is so that more animals can be taken, given the goal of maintaining a specific herd size. Is that good or bad?

Depends on your perspective.

To efficiently reduce the population of deer at Quabin, any hunter would tell you to shoot the does. I would not have limmited the hunt to bucks.

That would put less meat on the table, however. The total number of dear that one would target for harvest would neccessarily be less, to meet your population goals.

MOWGLI
12-08-2005, 20:47
Limiting a hunt to bucks increases herd size. Pretty simple.

Skidsteer
12-08-2005, 21:11
Actually, Rick, having hunters involved is a GOOD idea....most hunters are actually quite interested in conservation, protection of wild lands, threats from sprawl, etc. And the typical hunter probably spends more time in the backcountry than most of the anti-hunting zealots, who tend to be transplanted city folks with little knowledge or experience of the backwoods.

When a community or locale is forced to initiate a hunt, it's usually with good reason, and after extended study. In short, these hunts are initiated when it becomes obvious that there's too many animals in too little a space. Usually, this involves deer, this time it's bears, of which there is no shortage in New Jersey.

It is also forgotten that in most places, it is fees and annual permit costs from hunters and fisherman that give millions of dollars to Fish and Wildlife departments all over the country, and this money is used for all sorts of programs and objectives. In short, it is often the sportsman that contributes more to maintaining a healthy balance of wildlife in many areas than the anti-hunting activists.

Ditto that. Hard to swallow for those that possess a sensitive nature, but if you love wild places hunters are paying for it for the most part. If they would just build less roads to do their thing...

Jack Tarlin
12-08-2005, 21:18
I'm not sure it is that simple, but I'm no biologist.

Seems to me that an adult female will get pregnant and will give birth, at most, once in a calendar year (their gestation period is about 200 days).

However, an adult buck could presumably have more than one partner in a season (they are not monogamous), and perhaps many partners, thus being responsible for more than one offspring each year.

When a hunter takes a doe, it means there will be one fewer new deer in the forest the following year, or perhaps two, if there's a multiple birth. When a healthy buck is taken, it could mean preventing quite a few future births.

So limiting a hunt to bucks doesn't necessarily mean an increase in herd size.....fewer bucks in the fall means fewer fawns in the spring.

tlbj6142
12-08-2005, 21:32
No to baiting the bears...When I was in ME last year there was a ballot issue to ban bear baiting. The proponents of baiting argued it was a historic tradition and part of the ME's glorious heritage. I just laughed.

I suspect bears are a rather easy catch without baiting if you know their habbits. Why bait them?

I think the issue was rejected by voters.

Jack Tarlin
12-08-2005, 21:38
Actually, I was right....I'm definitely no biologist.

I just spent awhile reading articles on deer population control, and the near-unanimous sentiment is that it is indeed DOES whose numbers need to be regularly thinned, and that bucks-only hunts are not considered as effective a method to limit deer numbers in a particular period. (Apparently, bucks are even more monogamous than I thought, and will essentially mate with any doe they can find, and tho it'd seem to make more sense to cut down the numbers of these randy males, most biologists agree that decreasing the female population is the way to cut down the numbers of a local population).

In any case, I stand corrected, and am happy to do the correcting myself.

The Desperado
12-08-2005, 21:45
Thanks youngBlood..........I do try to be balanced.....D

Skidsteer
12-08-2005, 22:00
Actually, I was right....I'm definitely no biologist.

I just spent awhile reading articles on deer population control, and the near-unanimous sentiment is that it is indeed DOES whose numbers need to be regularly thinned, and that bucks-only hunts are not considered as effective a method to limit deer numbers in a particular period. (Apparently, bucks are even more monogamous than I thought, and will essentially mate with any doe they can find, and tho it'd seem to make more sense to cut down the numbers of these randy males, most biologists agree that decreasing the female population is the way to cut down the numbers of a local population).

In any case, I stand corrected, and am happy to do the correcting myself.

I think you meant polygamous, but I got the point. At any rate, it's nice to see someone who checks it out with an open mind. Bucks ARE a randy bunch; One buck can "cover" an extaordinarily large geographical area. One might be tempted to covet their lot in life unless one had seen a bedraggled, weary, wreck, of a creature after the rut. Rode hard and put up wet, if you know what I mean.;)

Hikerhead
12-08-2005, 22:27
In simpleton terms.

1 buck x 20 does could equal 41 deer the next year.
20 bucks x 1 doe could equal 22 deer the next year.

To thin the heard, you take more does.

Tin Man
12-08-2005, 23:47
I think we have covered the need for hunting fairly well, although some seem to think otherwise. I am not a hunter myself, but without a natural predator, hunters are the only way to manage the population. Yes, if you live in bear country you should expect to be visited, just like those who live in earthquake, hurricane, tornado or blizard territory - it goes with the land. Nuisance visits alone should not be an excuse for hunting. It is the protection of the species and the species that they interact with that should drive hunting policy. Without proper management through hunting, animals starve, become road hazards, affect domestic and farm animals, etc. Those who think hunting is not the solution should consider that better land management and protection of open space is the only way to provide more livable space to preserve more animals.

saimyoji
12-09-2005, 11:46
In simpleton terms.

1 buck x 20 does could equal 41 deer the next year.
20 bucks x 1 doe could equal 22 deer the next year.

To thin the heard, you take more does.
I AM a biologist, and I can tell you, that 1 doe ain't gonna have 22 little deer in one year!! :datz:datz

(unless you've found a new species that can mate, gestate, and deliver twice a month)

I do agree that taking does will thin the herd.

tlbj6142
12-09-2005, 13:59
I think you misunderstood his comments.

20 bucks x 1 does does equal 22 deer next year. 20 bucks, 1 doe, 1 fawn.

1 buck x 20 does does equal 41 deer next year. 1 buck, 20 does, 20 fawns.

Lone Wolf
12-09-2005, 14:01
What's deer got to do with bears? Deer taste better. Bears make cool rugs.

saimyoji
12-09-2005, 14:35
Yes, I did misunderstand. :datz:datz

Israel
12-09-2005, 15:54
Jack's comments about hunters footing the bill for most everything regarding wildlands management, is largely true. Or more accurately stated, they pay WAY WAY WAY more than hikers ever do. If you are in Atlanta...go see Red Top Mtn State Park...didn't allow hunting for years and the woods were decimated b/c of it.

NJ has, at least the last time i travelled through there, a real bear problem and hunting is the only way to manage that.

Tell me, how is it better to eat processed foods that come from factory after factory and travel miles and miles on roads, etc., than to hunt and eat the food provided by nature in your own back door? Most hunters i know deeply care about conservation and balanced ecosystems. Granted, there are some slob hunters (just like there are slob hikers), but by and large, today's hunters very much care about conservation and dedicate much, much more $$ to conservation than hikers ever do.

I am a hiker and a hunter and honestly enjoy nature in both capacities. In fact, i am picking up a new custom made traditional longbow this weekend that i plan on hunting with next year....i am looking forward to developing that skill- should i get me a loin cloth to hunt in???!! :D

rickb
12-09-2005, 16:37
No. Since you will probably be up in a tree, the view would not be very attractive. Well, it might be to some, but that's beside the point.

RWBlue
12-09-2005, 17:18
K-man stop reading the propaganda and start reading studies produced by real biologists. When my father was born seeing a deer was an event and would be talked about for weeks at a time. Since then the DNR has managed the population with funding from hunters and input from respected biologists from universities. Now my parents have deer sleeping in their back yard daily. The DNR knows what they are doing for the most part. We need to trust them to do the right thing.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Bear baiting is a difficult subject amongst hunters. Sitting on a bear path and expecting that a bear will come along doesn’t seem to be a reliable or effective method. Bear are smart and I would expect them to sense you. Some people like to run the deer with dogs. Some people like to hunt over bait. It would be easier to get rid of problem bears with bait piles. By running them you don’t know which bear you are getting. The other issue with dogs is that you have to HAVE dogs year around and only use them for hunting a couple weeks out of the year. I don’t have a moral objection to using any of the three methods.
<o:p></o:p>
For the most part hunting bucks only produces more deer. Hunting does only reduces the deer heard.
Ohio Biologist think that a balanced heard is better overall. I don’t understand it all, but they do.
WV has a lot more open area and is managing the heard to tourism. More deer, more big bucks.
MI has issues with TB in its deer population. They are trying to reduce the heard.
<o:p></o:p>
BTW, my brother is a biologist.
<o:p></o:p>
Back to the Bear.
Over population of any animal in an area causes issues. It would be nice if NJ would deport a few to other parts of the country that don’t have bears, but that is a political mess. So there are two options, 1 Get more land for these bears. Anyone want to pony up the money for the land? 2 Thin the heard.
<o:p></o:p>
As far as the comment about deer are good to eat and bear make a good rug. I have been told by some that bear are good to eat also.

Lobo
12-09-2005, 17:40
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?Q=166701&A=11

rickb
12-09-2005, 17:52
Edit: Looks like I'm not smart enough to post a cartoon so that it opens up automatically.

Hikerhead
12-09-2005, 19:17
4,123 bears in one season for tiny NJ. That's a lot of bears.

Va averages around 1,000 bears a year. .

Panzer1
12-09-2005, 20:27
In one summer, the town of Shutesbury lost over 50 cats to coyote kill.


That's probably a good thing. Cats kill small animals for no reason. And there are so many cats that the numbers of small animals killed is astounding. Cats are like having a ecological disaster every day. I think I heard that American cats kill each day more birds than was killed by the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Panzer

icemanat95
12-09-2005, 20:41
Limiting a hunt to bucks increases herd size. Pretty simple.


It CAN put pressure on the herd to grow, BUT at the Quabbin, it didn't. The herd size shrank.

Actually the idea of targeting does to keep herd size down is a relatively new idea. It would seem like common sense, but the idea of attacking the breeding population goes against everything most of us believe in. For an awful lot of years it just wasn't done, and most states are still heavily weighted toward buck harvesting with only a few days open to antlerless deer or a very limited number of antelerless deer permits available each year.

Panzer1
12-09-2005, 20:47
t is also forgotten that in most places, it is fees and annual permit costs from hunters and fisherman that give millions of dollars to Fish and Wildlife departments all over the country, and this money is used for all sorts of programs and objectives.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. When hunters come into town they pay even more money for lodging, food, gas , flashlight batteries and all manner of every day things. That can run into hundreds or thousands of dollars. (Oh and I forgot to mention alcohol.)

Panzer

Lobo
12-09-2005, 20:48
Is this post about deer or bear?

Panzer1
12-09-2005, 20:55
4,123 bears in one season for tiny NJ. That's a lot of bears.
Va averages around 1,000 bears a year. .

I think that 4,123 was the black bear harvest for PA not NJ.

Panzer

Panzer1
12-09-2005, 21:07
That being said I still feel that hunting is not the ultimate answer for an overpopulation problem.

So, then what is the "ultimate answer"?
And do we need an "ultimate answer"?

Panzer

Lone Wolf
12-09-2005, 21:08
Hunting is the ONLY answer.

Hikerhead
12-09-2005, 21:20
You're right Panzer. My bad. Thanks.

Panzer1
12-09-2005, 21:25
http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_341110519.html
(quote)
The four activists, who were arrested at Wawayanda State Park, are to appear Monday in Vernon Township Municipal Court. They were charged with hunter harassment, disorderly persons, resisting arrest and obstructing the administration of law.

One also was charged with making terroristic threats. (end quote)
---------------------------------------------
The part about "terroristic threats" sheds some light on what these people are all about.

Panzer

icemanat95
12-09-2005, 22:31
Let me clarify. The Quabbin hunts took down a lot of bucks real fast and really gutted out the breeding age population fast. A lot of does just never got bred as a result or were bred ineffectually by immature males.

Hunting bucks helps to control the deer herd, but its nowhere near as efficient as culling does which reduces herd size quickly with a minimum of game taken. This is definitely an attractive system for areas where hunting traditions have fallen off but herds still need effective management.

Toolshed
12-10-2005, 00:53
So what do people expect when they move to bear country? Coney Island?

I feel no sorrow for anyone who moves near a huge forest and then can't stand the heat. I don't care how much taxes they pay. They don't own wildlife.
Wookie - While you raise a good point, to which I agree, the folks I am speaking of don't live near huge forests. In fact many of them live in suburbs that are 10-12 years old or the outskirts of older towns. Many of them had deer and goose problems up until 5-6 years ago, and now it has switched to bear.

On the deer issue, I use to live near Quabbin and hike there frequently. Between there, Western NY and PA I have not looked at deer as wildlife since the early 90's. I consider them a nusiance pest such as rodents, but more destructive. (Especially since I have hit 3 (killed 2) so far and had one jump clear over my volkswagon as I drove down the road)

Nightwalker
12-10-2005, 15:16
What's deer got to do with bears? Deer taste better. Bears make cool rugs.
Bear's good, too. Just gotta know who cooks it good. The first bear roast that I ate will always stand out as one great Christmas meal. It was GOOD!

P.S. Not a thing like chicken...