View Full Version : Why do we humans need to reduce the bear population?
The widest, and possibly the longest bear hunt is set to open in New Jersey on Monday 12/7. It is very difficult for me, as a hiker and a nature enthusiast to understand the thinking that goes into making decisions like this. Why are some estimated 3500 black bears in the state too many?
I read an article in my local newspaper that stated a simple fact: If humans were more careful about how they dispose of food scraps, and didn't go so far as to feed the bears (deliberately), we would not need to reduce the bear population. Yet no one has attempted to write legislation to "seal the lid" on trash cans, and impose heavy fines, and even jail time (or at least community service) for those who feed bears.
It's a simple problem, with a simple solution - and killing 20% of the bear population is not the solution.
If we humans didn't continue to invade the bears' territory by tearing down forests to build homes, we wouldn't have the problem. The main reason New Jersey has such a problem with bears, is that people have pushed their homes into the bears' territory, giving the bears easy meals, and causing them to habituate with man. Then, when the same bears go back into the forest, and come across hikers on the trails, they immediately associate those hikers with food, and begin tracking them. In September, the Ramapo State forest was closed because "aggressive bears" were tracking hikers.
I rarely hike in New Jersey because of the bear problem; especially during the warmer months. I have already decided that if I want to complete the AT in sections, I will be doing the New Jersey section in the dead of winter - when bears are hibernating, and humans are mostly indoors.
32885
Please do your share to save the bears!
Arden
Sarcasm the elf
12-06-2015, 00:29
Hey Grayblazer, do you know this guy? :D
No, leave it up there so I can send them to the longest post in WB history when they start ragging on the lengths of my posts. :D
This is not new Arden. Humanity as a whole has a human centric approach to the Universe. Much of humanity has been taught and consequently believes and behaves like everything should be theirs, it's all about survival of the fittest, that humans are separate from and above the environment/Nature. And, when push comes to shove the human animal/predator is very adept at forcibly shoving.
What you're supposing, because you have broken away from that self absorbed human centric mindset that lacks empathy and is fraught with ignorant self interest, is considering humanity as bonded/connected to the natural environment/Nature, NOT separate from it. You're perceiving a greater need for human responsibility so to coexist in a larger "web of LIFE" in the Universe. Many humans having that greater awareness have expressed this need IF humanity is to survive.
coach lou
12-06-2015, 08:19
I have walked the NJ section in 3 pieces......no bears.......I guess my camp was too clean. I work in the Greater Harriman Park, 5 bears! No maulings, no tracking, we leave our lunches in our day packs in a pile, near the work sites..........no problems...........I guess we make too much noise.
If NJ is like most states they calculate the bear capacity of the available habitat and adjust populations accordingly. This prevents major (and actually natural) wild swings in populations due to disease. Anytime any living thing exceeds the capacity of its environment nature will make the adjustment. We instead do it in a more humane way, and yes dying by a hunter's bullet is more humane than starving.
The real problem is not people feeding or leaving garbage out for bears, it's really people invading their habitat by developing the land for housing. So unless you're willing to tell people give up their homes and allow nature to take its course than we need to manage wildlife populations.
Some amount of hunting establishes a food chain hierarchy and perpetuates a natural fear that black bears should have for human beings and therefore is likely to limit human/bear interactions. But I'm not sure how much hunting is needed for that effect, if any. I've done a fair bit of hiking in Shenandoah National Park which has a very high bear density. I have seen several bears, usually as they run away. And I've never had issues in camp with a bear. I don't think there have been any bear caused human fatalities in the park either. So I'm skeptical that hunting is needed to reinforce the bears natural fear of humans. That doesn't mean I oppose all hunting because I do not. Personally I have a problem with hunting for sport and less of a problem with hunting if the meat is actually consumed. Just my personal opinion.
Slo-go'en
12-06-2015, 10:41
Since we have eliminated all the other predators which might have kept the bear population in check, we have to do it instead. Besides, who doesn't want a nice bear rug in the den anyway?
Since we have eliminated all the other predators which might have kept the bear population in check, we have to do it instead. Besides, who doesn't want a nice bear rug in the den anyway?
I thought the black bear has long been at or near the top of the food chain along the AT corridor? Other than humans what natural predators existed above bears in the food chain historically?
TexasBob
12-06-2015, 11:06
I thought the black bear has long been at or near the top of the food chain along the AT corridor? Other than humans what natural predators existed above bears in the food chain historically?
Depends on what you mean by top of the food chain. Top predators in Virginia historically would have been the mountain lion and wolves. If you mean did anything prey on bears, the answer would be probably only other bears.
I thought the black bear has long been at or near the top of the food chain along the AT corridor? Other than humans what natural predators existed above bears in the food chain historically?
The Eastern Timber Wolf, long since missing from the Appalachians (due to man, naturally...or unnaturally, really), had been known to kill black bears when in their preferred pack mode. Mountain lions (the true apex predator) will easily kill younger or weaker bears, when need be. Once these creatures were pushed away, or mostly pushed away in the case of the cat, the bears could rule the kingdom. At least until man does his usual intervening (what he thinks of as 'controlling'.)
Last Black Bear caused death in the US was in NJ last Summer. The bear preyed on an Indian student who was out hiking with a group. Hungry bears lose their fear of man. Hunting bears reduce the population so there is enough food for the remaining bears and surviving bears learn to fear man again, so Indian students can continue to walk through the woods unmolested...by bears, anyway.
The Eastern Timber Wolf, long since missing from the Appalachians (due to man, naturally...or unnaturally, really), had been known to kill black bears when in their preferred pack mode. Mountain lions (the true apex predator) will easily kill younger or weaker bears, when need be. Once these creatures were pushed away, or mostly pushed away in the case of the cat, the bears could rule the kingdom. At least until man does his usual intervening (what he thinks of as 'controlling'.)
Interesting... I figured that mountain lions could kill a smaller bear but didn't think that a wolf had that capability.
Hey guys; I want to make sure you all know that my "longest post ever" was completely unintentional. I pasted an image of a black bear into my post. The image was visible in the editor, so I thought it was OK. But instead of pressing the Preview button, I mistakenly pressed the Post button, and the post was submitted. What appeared instead was the binary file of the image, which as you may know, is just translated into ASCII characters by the forum software. I suppose that this is how terrorists embed messages into images. They manually edit the image file to create the messages, which leaves the image in-tact with no visible changes, but when the binary is opened by someone knowing where to look, the message is clear.
I hit the "report" button for the post, and left Admin a message to delete it. That is all I can do for now. However, I have made a donation to this forum, so as soon as the Admin processes the receipt of my PayPal payment, I should be able to edit my own posts.
About the bear "problem" in NJ and elsewhere. I feel that man is in the wrong in pushing his habitat into the wilderness. If we need more space in our cities, we can build up instead of out. However, it is probably less expensive, and more desirable to build new communities in unpopulated areas. Some prefer to live on the outskirts of the city, while still taking advantage of what the city has to offer. They jump into their cars, and clog the highways each workday, but feel that the commute is worth the hassle so they can live far from the city.
I suppose those who advocate a hunt to control the black bear population have a point, but as was also said, if we hadn't already eliminated many of the bear's food sources, there would be no need for a hunt. Except for the "bear rug" in the den, what other use is there for a killed bear? I've had venison once, and didn't like it. I would think bear would be even less tasty.
It was tragic that the Indian student died as a result of the bear attack, but he and the group made at least two serious mistakes that day: First, they split up, and second, he ran from the bear. At least that's what I read on the incident.
The only "encounters" I have had with black bears were non-threatening for either me or the bear. I was at a good distance, and gave the bear plenty of room to saunter away. I was quite impressed by a large black bear I saw at the Silvermine picnic area in Harriman park a few years ago. He was several hundred feet from me, was just sauntering through the picnic area looking for scraps I guess, checked me out for a second, then continued on his way. I waited until he was out of sight before I continued across his path.
Another time I was bike riding in the Lehigh Gorge in the Poconos when I came across a mother bear and two cubs. The mother and cubs were on opposite sides of the bike path, and I knew better than to cross their path, so I waited until they had all left.
My point is that all it takes is common sense, and a little bit of education for a human to do the right thing when encountering a bear, or other large animal.
Oh, and one more thing: I have been using a bear canister on my backpacking treks rather than hanging my food. Despite the canister's nearly 3 lbs weight, I prefer it, and I believe that more parks are requiring them, because the bears are learning to take down even a well hung bear bag.
Arden
TexasBob
12-06-2015, 15:51
........If we need more space in our cities, we can build up instead of out. However, it is probably less expensive, and more desirable to build new communities in unpopulated areas. Some prefer to live on the outskirts of the city, while still taking advantage of what the city has to offer. They jump into their cars, and clog the highways each workday, but feel that the commute is worth the hassle so they can live far from the city..........Arden
One reason for the problem is the population of the US has doubled in my life time (from 162 million to 320 million). I think we lose sight of the fact that every year we grow by about 2 million people and they all have to live somewhere. I worry about our population and the problems it causes but I have no practical answers. It strikes me that the bears have the same problem we do - their population is growing larger but the resources aren't.
Managing populations of various wild animals happens all the time. Whether it's bears, elk, grouse, turkeys or greenback trout. Thankfully these decisions are made by people who understand the environments and habitats.
Pretty sure not everyone wants to live in a high rise building staring at a brick wall and riding a train to work
Managing populations of various wild animals happens all the time. Whether it's bears, elk, grouse, turkeys or greenback trout. Thankfully these decisions are made by people who understand the environments and habitats.
Pretty sure not everyone wants to live in a high rise building staring at a brick wall and riding a train to work
Very well stated.
About the bear "problem" in NJ and elsewhere. I feel that man is in the wrong in pushing his habitat into the wilderness. If we need more space in our cities, we can build up instead of out. However, it is probably less expensive, and more desirable to build new communities in unpopulated areas. Some prefer to live on the outskirts of the city, while still taking advantage of what the city has to offer. They jump into their cars, and clog the highways each workday, but feel that the commute is worth the hassle so they can live far from the city.
I suppose those who advocate a hunt to control the black bear population have a point, but as was also said, if we hadn't already eliminated many of the bear's food sources, there would be no need for a hunt. Except for the "bear rug" in the den, what other use is there for a killed bear? I've had venison once, and didn't like it. I would think bear would be even less tasty.
It was tragic that the Indian student died as a result of the bear attack, but he and the group made at least two serious mistakes that day: First, they split up, and second, he ran from the bear. At least that's what I read on the incident.
The only "encounters" I have had with black bears were non-threatening for either me or the bear. I was at a good distance, and gave the bear plenty of room to saunter away. I was quite impressed by a large black bear I saw at the Silvermine picnic area in Harriman park a few years ago. He was several hundred feet from me, was just sauntering through the picnic area looking for scraps I guess, checked me out for a second, then continued on his way. I waited until he was out of sight before I continued across his path.
Another time I was bike riding in the Lehigh Gorge in the Poconos when I came across a mother bear and two cubs. The mother and cubs were on opposite sides of the bike path, and I knew better than to cross their path, so I waited until they had all left.
My point is that all it takes is common sense, and a little bit of education for a human to do the right thing when encountering a bear, or other large animal.
Oh, and one more thing: I have been using a bear canister on my backpacking treks rather than hanging my food. Despite the canister's nearly 3 lbs weight, I prefer it, and I believe that more parks are requiring them, because the bears are learning to take down even a well hung bear bag.
Arden
AHH, you grasp that YOUR BEHAVIOR as a human factors into bear/human encounters. NOT EVERYONE knows what you do AND MANY HUMANS DESPITE THAT WISDOM BEING SHARED STILL expect bears to automatically change their behaviors to suit human behaviors. That's human centric thinking. This causes HUGE UNTOLD amounts of of destruction to the world when humans stubbornly maintain this ignorant self serving mindset.
I've looked into the account of Mr. Patel's attack. You are absolutely correct in describing his two errors in the encounter. His party made another mistake in that they were already told by a couple coming the other way there was an bear acting aggressively following them just a short ways up the trail. YET, Mt Patel's party chose to ignore that warning, that information, and continued up the trail HEADING TOWARDS that bear anyway.
What you will find Arden is the vast majority of accounts of negative bear/human encounters, IF you research them thoroughly enough, are rooted in problematic human behavior. Yet, humanities' deeply rooted hubris often ignores the responsibility of human behavior in these news accounts. This hubris, human selfishness, and human ignorance contributes to further problems such as humans more willing to exterminate or kill bears rather than find ways to coexist with not only bears but all of the rest of LIFE.
Managing populations of various wild animals happens all the time. Whether it's bears, elk, grouse, turkeys or greenback trout. Thankfully these decisions are made by people who understand the environments and habitats.
Pretty sure not everyone wants to live in a high rise building staring at a brick wall and riding a train to work
I'm waiting for the human population to be better managed!:-?
Some of the comments in this thread are prime examples of self absorbed human centric thinking.
Since we have eliminated all the other predators which might have kept the bear population in check, we have to do it instead. Besides, who doesn't want a nice bear rug in the den anyway?
This does not compute. Whether bear populations are kept in check by wild predators or NOT there is clear evidence that selfish human centric behavior will still result in competition for resources and humans further decimating the bear populations.
kayak karl
12-06-2015, 18:24
NJ is the most densely populated state. It gets worst every year. If you have a house with a quarter acre lot you are part of the problem. I was on a site last week, each of the 10 houses on 2 acre lots, all with concrete swimming holes ;)
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
there are no pacts between men and bears. this is why appeasement does not work.
PAFranklin
12-06-2015, 19:27
We pay well educated biologists to staff state game departments but then think we know better when we don't like their plan. I own property in the heart of PA bear county. Years ago there was a bear or two that came by. Now there are five that regularly come on the property and often cause mischief by damaging property. One neighbor has 13 different bears he identified this year on his land. This is an unnatural number of bears in an area. Well beyond the carrying capacity of the land. At some point they need to be thinned out and the only way to do that is hunting. (Which also reinforces their fear of man.)
I'm waiting for the human population to be better managed!:-?
Some of the comments in this thread are prime examples of self absorbed human centric thinking.
Well put. I for one won't be adding to the human population, despite gleaning much enjoyment from the cause of the growth.
But I've always figured there were enough humanoids about. More of us is not only bad for the wild-lands and the creatures, those poor voiceless souls, but for us too, as we're slowly learning. I'll be happy to exit this place when it gets really crowded, especially given who it's getting crowded with, and I'm happy there's still some room to roam and to breathe and to interact with what little wildlife remains.
Wise Old Owl
12-06-2015, 23:05
I have walked the NJ section in 3 pieces......no bears.......I guess my camp was too clean. I work in the Greater Harriman Park, 5 bears! No maulings, no tracking, we leave our lunches in our day packs in a pile, near the work sites..........no problems...........I guess we make too much noise.
Coach I agree - but Jennifer Pharr Davis pointed out when she had to get up much earlier and hike later then she saw far more bears, on the second attempt. The first attempt she saw almost nothing.
The Eastern Timber Wolf, long since missing from the Appalachians (due to man, naturally...or unnaturally, really), had been known to kill black bears when in their preferred pack mode. Mountain lions (the true apex predator) will easily kill younger or weaker bears, when need be. Once these creatures were pushed away, or mostly pushed away in the case of the cat, the bears could rule the kingdom. At least until man does his usual intervening (what he thinks of as 'controlling'.)
You are on the right track... as kids we were lied to about Eastern Cougars that zoo's were there to repopulate almost lost species (1970's) and put them back. The Florida Cougar, well they did that... the Eastern is wiped out. There was no attempt and I work with zoo's directly to do anything. So now we have a new order. Organized hunts. Big money for the state.
joker52186
12-06-2015, 23:19
If there are to manny in one given area the foos they eat lessens so theu git sick and diseased and even more die and therw numbers dont come back
love peace and chicken grease
SkeeterPee
12-06-2015, 23:52
I just searched some articles about Black Bear populations in PA compared to early 1900's. There appear to be a lot more bears now than there were during the first 50-60 years in the 1900. Then a low by the 70's and rebuilding to numbers about 4-5x post 2000 compared to early 1900's. There are also a similar growth in bears being killed by cars and in numbers hunted. This mirrors the deer populations, though I think they are almost 10x now compared to 1900.
So despite some area having few bears due to urbanization, there are still more bears and deer. Not sure how NJ is as someone mention it has they highest population density.
PackHorse
12-07-2015, 08:32
I condition horses in the Ocala National Forest most winters. Each year I can see that the population is increasing and becoming less afraid of people. And the bears are becoming larger. The Florida bears used to be like cubs of our bear in GSMNP, now they rival in size.
On another side... the rainbow people population is down... coincidence?
Linda
Pedaling Fool
12-07-2015, 09:13
Interesting... I figured that mountain lions could kill a smaller bear but didn't think that a wolf had that capability.Wolves generally travel in packs, the lone wolf is rare. Look at what they prey upon, one wolf can not take down an elk, but a pack of wolves....
This is a very interesting video (only about 4-minutes) on how re-introduction of wolves changed the rivers in Yellow Stone NP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dk0DGCa7ow
Traveler
12-07-2015, 09:36
Interesting topic.
Though the re-introduction of predation in the national parks proved to be successful in terms of making a more healthy and sustainable herd/population of other animals, it likely not going to work well where human populations are robust like areas of NJ and PA. Most any predatory animal released into these areas like wolves and/or cougars would meet their fate relatively quickly when they start appearing near livestock or places where children are. What are the other options for addressing the increasing bear population?
The solutions commonly employed don't seem to be up to the task. Hunting is the first that comes to mine. though not to everyones liking and given the experience of the Northeastern US with the deer population, probably won't impact the overall population in long term. Trap and relocation won't work well, as has been demonstrated in several State that have used this process that just moves the problem to someone else back yard. Not building in the urban interface or more wild areas might work in short term but is politically and economically infeasible and eventually the growing population of bears will affect more densely populated areas (as we are seeing now) where there are not a lot of new building going on.
So what methods are available to manage bear populations outside of hunting or elimination of the species via implanted disease, pelt bounty, or natural causes delivered by over population itself?
Starchild
12-07-2015, 11:10
We are predators, we eat other animals, that's what we do. Most of our animal foods come from farms, many of which is unfortunately factory farm which gives the animal a questionable quality of life to say the least, as well as requiring agricultural resources. Hunting allows us to have the animal to live a normal live and only harvesting that life at the end of it, even possibly giving other bears a better chance of life by limiting competition by the ones harvested.
By decreasing the bear population a bit it will decrease the need for factory farmed animals a bit (so less miserable animal lives), and also stop the pressure for bears for moving towards human food sources as they will have more natural foods available for them, so less incentive to explore foods they are not used to.
And again, we will continue to eat animals either way. One amplifies problems/misery one decreases problems/misery.
Add to that equation anyone who wants to impose a fine on someone for not having a locking garbage pail - more increase misery, both bear and person who is fined.
Karma and all.
But how many bears that are hunted are consumed for meat? Guessing relatively few?
i should really stay out of this.
arguments about it being necessary, ultimately good for the health of population, why the issues exists, etc etc etc aside, heres the thing about hunting that always bothers me- people who are hunters seem to derive joy and even pride from killing living things. thats just... odd to me, at best, and kind of deeply disturbing at worst. few if any hunters are going into the woods to kill bears thinking "well i hate doing this but it has to be done" rather, they are going out there all excited about how much fun this is going to be. to that i always find it difficult to restrain myself from asking "so just what exactly is wrong with you?"
saltysack
12-07-2015, 12:28
I'm waiting for the human population to be better managed!:-?
Some of the comments in this thread are prime examples of self absorbed human centric thinking.
+1
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pedaling Fool
12-07-2015, 12:30
i should really stay out of this.
arguments about it being necessary, ultimately good for the health of population, why the issues exists, etc etc etc aside, heres the thing about hunting that always bothers me- people who are hunters seem to derive joy and even pride from killing living things. thats just... odd to me, at best, and kind of deeply disturbing at worst. few if any hunters are going into the woods to kill bears thinking "well i hate doing this but it has to be done" rather, they are going out there all excited about how much fun this is going to be. to that i always find it difficult to restrain myself from asking "so just what exactly is wrong with you?"That goes to our primal instinct and it's not unique to humans. That's why so many birds die from cats... primal instinct.
So many captive animals show this instinct, despite them needing to behave this way.
i should really stay out of this.
arguments about it being necessary, ultimately good for the health of population, why the issues exists, etc etc etc aside, heres the thing about hunting that always bothers me- people who are hunters seem to derive joy and even pride from killing living things. thats just... odd to me, at best, and kind of deeply disturbing at worst. few if any hunters are going into the woods to kill bears thinking "well i hate doing this but it has to be done" rather, they are going out there all excited about how much fun this is going to be. to that i always find it difficult to restrain myself from asking "so just what exactly is wrong with you?"
I have the same reaction but I tend to think that maybe I'm just not getting some aspect of it, having never been involved in hunting at all. I can totally see hunting for food but can't conceive of doing it for sport.
squeezebox
12-07-2015, 12:38
I have a problem with people who move out into the far suburbs and complain about the deer eating their bushes and such. Then they want the local govt. to get rid of the deer and replace the bushes. Same with the folks that move to the edge of bear country, don't lock their trash cans, leave kids unattended in the back yard, worse yet the ones that feed the bears. If someone moves to a place like that be responsible. Protect yourself from the bears, and protect the bears from you.
Please!
But how many bears that are hunted are consumed for meat? Guessing relatively few?
The Chinese value their gall bladders. I tried bear meat. Once. I'd have to be starving to eat it again. Venison, on the other hand, is delicious. So is moose.
Pedaling Fool
12-07-2015, 13:01
That goes to our primal instinct and it's not unique to humans. That's why so many birds die from cats... primal instinct.
So many captive animals show this instinct, despite them needing to behave this way.
Correction:
...despite them NOT needing to behave this way.
Starchild
12-07-2015, 13:09
But how many bears that are hunted are consumed for meat? Guessing relatively few?
I would hope not, though I don't know.
That goes to our primal instinct and it's not unique to humans. That's why so many birds die from cats... primal instinct.
So many captive animals show this instinct, despite them needing to behave this way.
is civilized society not largely about reining in our primal instincts? theres plenty of other primal instincts we've decided we aren't going to indulge in and tolerate, and in most cases rightly so.
Starchild
12-07-2015, 13:37
i should really stay out of this.
arguments about it being necessary, ultimately good for the health of population, why the issues exists, etc etc etc aside, heres the thing about hunting that always bothers me- people who are hunters seem to derive joy and even pride from killing living things. thats just... odd to me, at best, and kind of deeply disturbing at worst. few if any hunters are going into the woods to kill bears thinking "well i hate doing this but it has to be done" rather, they are going out there all excited about how much fun this is going to be. to that i always find it difficult to restrain myself from asking "so just what exactly is wrong with you?"
Ok and all, I understand that. It seems wrong for those who take pleasure at hunting and killing a animal. But we as humans are not perfect but all members of the same family, the human family. In that does it really matter in a karmic sense if we care about the bear that is killed though we send a careless one to kill it? Some people are simply not ready yet, though some of us are and can understand and respect the bear beyond the intentions of those who seek to kill it.
That goes to our primal instinct and it's not unique to humans.
Outside of a suicidal few, our individual instinct is to survive. Like any other creature's. But does it remain instinctual to kill via modern means: a trigger or a trap or a fishing net or a dam or the push of a button?
Our instinct, our hard-wiring, may be led by our need to survive, but we cannot be certain that hunting/killing in the modern sense is truly an instinct, as the hunters and the related industries try to convince us. Rather in the modern sense it is a learned skill. Sure, a gun is merely a tool (and other animals fabricate and use tools), but so too is an atomic bomb, which, when used properly, can kill much more effectively. But is it instinctual to use what we have at our disposal, disposing of everything valuable in our wake? Humans were bestowed with the ability to reason (some of us, anyway) and isn't it reasonable we at least ponder our actions before we go on continuing our madness? (In this thread's case, the bears aren't "overpopulating" so much as they're under-habitated, if you will.)
Our survival, instinctively or otherwise, is no longer dependent upon shooting or trapping or netting (et al), and surely we understand that. (Understanding being a big part of human evolution and instinct.) Killing for "sport" is hardly survival-related and hasn't been ever since the plow and the agricultural revolution.
Why not self-preservation through education and understanding?
It's interesting that the vast majority of hunters I've crossed paths with while hiking all seem to enjoy killing, but have little instinct for true self-preservation, given their hefty unhealthy weight and overall ignorance. Fool us not, they hunt not because it's a part of their genetic makeup, but rather because they enjoy it. Else, they'd worry more about their closing arteries and high blood pressure.
Maybe the human instinct is to wipe everything out, starting with the species going now, and ending with ourselves. It seems far more plausible than killing with scopes and triggers and all.
How do you draw a moral line at hunting and unwrapping a package of meat purchased from the market? Look at hunting as saving a cow from a factory farm.
Hike your own hike, as it were.
How do you draw a moral line at hunting and unwrapping a package of meat purchased from the market? Look at hunting as saving a cow from a factory farm.
Hike your own hike, as it were.
Indeed there is no distinction when hunting for food.
How do you draw a moral line at hunting and unwrapping a package of meat purchased from the market? Look at hunting as saving a cow from a factory farm.
Hike your own hike, as it were.
i assume, perhaps incorrectly, that slaughterhouse employees don't get some kind of thrill from slaughtering cows. conversely, even hunters who eat their kill i highly doubt a need for food is even close to being their primary motivation, especially when bears are concerned. intent is not something that can be overlooked.
Ok and all, I understand that. It seems wrong for those who take pleasure at hunting and killing a animal. But we as humans are not perfect but all members of the same family, the human family. In that does it really matter in a karmic sense if we care about the bear that is killed though we send a careless one to kill it? Some people are simply not ready yet, though some of us are and can understand and respect the bear beyond the intentions of those who seek to kill it.
i get what you're saying, i think. but when whether or not to conduct a hunt is a hot button issue the fact that some of the proponents of the hunt, despite perhaps not saying so publicly, are really just in for getting their rocks off is not something that can be discoutned.
i get what you're saying, i think. but when whether or not to conduct a hunt is a hot button issue the fact that some of the proponents of the hunt, despite perhaps not saying so publicly, are really just in for getting their rocks off is not something that can be discoutned.
I always felt a bit sadness after filling my tag. The pleasure was a result of hunting with friends, being out in the woods, testing myself against a wild creature whose senses we so much more developed than mine. "Getting my rock off" was never a part of it. The thrill of a successful hunting season was tinged with killing, not enhanced by it. I still get a thrill from seeing deer before they see me. I no longer hunt though, but i understand the draw of it very well. I just dont judge those who do, when i have no experience of what I speak
Indeed there is no distinction when hunting for food.
Which is why some of us not only refrain from hunting, but from eating meat altogether. A conscientious choice in my case because of my health, the health of the animals' and, to a much, much lesser extent, the health of our environment (though we're nothing to it). These considerations can be argued endlessly of course, but for me it was an easy (albeit educated) decision.
Do I miss a BBQ'd slab of meat from time to time? Damn right I do.
Would I kill and eat an animal if my life depended on it? Damn right I would.
Would I kill a man if my life depended on it? Certainly.
Do I believe hunting is sport? Not for the animal being hunted, no.
Starchild
12-07-2015, 14:59
i get what you're saying, i think. but when whether or not to conduct a hunt is a hot button issue the fact that some of the proponents of the hunt, despite perhaps not saying so publicly, are really just in for getting their rocks off is not something that can be discoutned.
My point is the questions are those who are getting their rocks off above the human equation? Or they all part of us and our flaws? Is this not a reasonable way to allow those who must to do so?
Pedaling Fool
12-07-2015, 15:08
is civilized society not largely about reining in our primal instincts? theres plenty of other primal instincts we've decided we aren't going to indulge in and tolerate, and in most cases rightly so.Problem is that there is still a need to hunt. Not just bears, but someone needs to hunt all the other animals that would otherwise explode in population, such as deer. And still the deer population is way too large in many areas, which I think speaks to how few hunt. So really, everyone is getting all spun up as if we are killing off everything, but animal numbers have been rising for years and not just the deer and bear.
Outside of a suicidal few, our individual instinct is to survive. Like any other creature's. But does it remain instinctual to kill via modern means: a trigger or a trap or a fishing net or a dam or the push of a button?
Our instinct, our hard-wiring, may be led by our need to survive, but we cannot be certain that hunting/killing in the modern sense is truly an instinct, as the hunters and the related industries try to convince us. Rather in the modern sense it is a learned skill. Sure, a gun is merely a tool (and other animals fabricate and use tools), but so too is an atomic bomb, which, when used properly, can kill much more effectively. But is it instinctual to use what we have at our disposal, disposing of everything valuable in our wake? Humans were bestowed with the ability to reason (some of us, anyway) and isn't it reasonable we at least ponder our actions before we go on continuing our madness? (In this thread's case, the bears aren't "overpopulating" so much as they're under-habitated, if you will.)
You're wrapping up too much into what I said. First off, you cannot compare hunting to a nation's methods of defense.
Yes, you still get a bit an adrenaline rush even when you use a rifle.Just talk to any hunter, with an open mind. (The trapping/fishing stuff is different, you're confusing them). Although, I would agree that not as much as hunting with spears, but I see that as our evolution away from hunting, granted it will take some time, such is evolution. It's also important to note that not all hunters hunt out of primal instincts, but I probably would consider many of the big game hunters do out of a need for this type of adrenaline rush.Some do it because they don't trust store-bought foods. There are a lot of reasons, but the idea that hunters just like to kill for killings sake is an attempt to compare them to serial murders (which is a whole 'nother thing). I'm more comfortable with comparing the motivations of some as the same as those motivations that keep the cats killing squirrels and birds in my yard.
Hunting has always been a learned skill. And the same is true in much of the animal world (not all) where lions teach the young to hunt, wolves teach the young to hunt...and on and on...
Our survival, instinctively or otherwise, is no longer dependent upon shooting or trapping or netting (et al), and surely we understand that. (Understanding being a big part of human evolution and instinct.) Killing for "sport" is hardly survival-related and hasn't been ever since the plow and the agricultural revolution.
Why not self-preservation through education and understanding?
Our survival instinct isn't dependent on us having sex when we have no plans to have kids, but we do...even when the thought of having kids scares the hell out of us. I never said hunting was survival related,but there is an aspect that appeals to our primal instinct.
It's interesting that the vast majority of hunters I've crossed paths with while hiking all seem to enjoy killing, but have little instinct for true self-preservation, given their hefty unhealthy weight and overall ignorance. Fool us not, they hunt not because it's a part of their genetic makeup, but rather because they enjoy it. Else, they'd worry more about their closing arteries and high blood pressure.
Maybe the human instinct is to wipe everything out, starting with the species going now, and ending with ourselves. It seems far more plausible than killing with scopes and triggers and all.You're making too much out of this...getting all emotional. Are you comparing them to serial murderers? If not, explain the joy you speak of. And again, I never mentioned self preservation.
BTW, Skills like this, which is generations old, are not innate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tqW8YZDE9o
.
bill1980
12-07-2015, 15:10
Without getting into the philosophical aspects of hunting, the vast majority of us have to live with the practical aspects. No matter how the population of this country grows, whether by birth or immigration, most of us have no ability to impact that, nor can we impact where people want to reside. The bear population in NJ has exceeded the level at which more human/bear encounters are happening, and some other states like VA and PA are heading in that direction. Residents are going to be worried about those encounters and expect a resolution, of which there are few. Re-settle excess bears? Not gonna happen, way too expensive, even if possible. Cure the human tendency to allow bears access to human food? Can't see any change there. The obesity epidemic on processed foods hasn't persuaded many people to switch diets either, so we can see how well persuasion will work on benevolent attitudes toward bears. Hunting them is the best available solution, whether most of us like it or not.
I will agree bears are generally afraid of humans, but one child getting harmed in a residential area will raise a witch hunt against bears anyway. Even more disturbing to the majority of humans who live in this area is an item I read somewhere about re-introducing the mountain lion, an apex predator, to the east coast. Can't see many citizens wanting to see that happen, because as elusive as they can be, one attack will cause an uproar.
BY enacting global HUMAN population controls and transitioning to lower HUMAN fertility rates some problems could be averted with the environment over the long term. Controversial for sure but IF humanity is so apparently advanced as humanity aggressively touts itself it should have the capability of better managing itself through a greater awareness of respecting all LIFE in the Universe. No?
Have your fun but PULL OUT!
Have your fun but PULL OUT!
or wrap it up, take a pill, get a shot, tie it off or snip it. There are so many choices, there is no reason for humans to overpopulate the planet otherbthan simply being selfish, which we are.
bill1980
12-07-2015, 15:45
BY enacting global HUMAN population controls and transitioning to lower HUMAN fertility rates some problems could be averted with the environment over the long term. Controversial for sure but IF humanity is so apparently advanced as humanity aggressively touts itself it should have the capability of better managing itself through a greater awareness of respecting all LIFE in the Universe. No?
Have your fun but PULL OUT!
Dogwood: great idea and something we might all like to see. Unfortunately, kind of like "world peace", which we have been working on (or not) for thousands of years.
Population growth is stalling below replacement rate in rich countries. What's driving population is the developing world where social, religious and cultural factors favor larger families. Short of totalitarian controls like China's (now loosening) one child policy, it is difficult to make much of an influence.
I see the twisting of Darwin's Natural Selection is still deeply ingrained in scientific approaches being used by Social Darwinists to justify the violent exploitation of one group of people(life, organisms) over another. :-?
PackHorse
12-07-2015, 16:30
The Cherokee hunt and eat bear, I have it every year when I visit Maggie Valley for a Dutch oven cookoff. Pretty good when cooked correctly.
I don't like the inhumane treatment of animals raised for meat. So we raise our own meat chickens. They are free range and have a very good life. They just have "one bad day" ( which is also done humanely).
So I guess I would prefer hunting to slaughter house meat.
Just a side note... money taken in from hunting licenses go towards monitoring and protecting game.
One of the volunteer things I do is pack equipment and fish for the TWRA. The fish go to a hatchery for breeding and restocking the streams. There is a lot of time spent studying and recording the health of fish ( and animals ). Working with them has been very educational.
I always felt a bit sadness after filling my tag. The pleasure was a result of hunting with friends, being out in the woods, testing myself against a wild creature whose senses we so much more developed than mine. "Getting my rock off" was never a part of it. The thrill of a successful hunting season was tinged with killing, not enhanced by it. I still get a thrill from seeing deer before they see me. I no longer hunt though, but i understand the draw of it very well. I just dont judge those who do, when i have no experience of what I speak
one can be out in the woods and spend time with friends without killing be involved, cant one?
the "testing yourself" notion is valid, but i really doubt that is primary in many hunter's minds either.
in any case, my point remains- anyone who is a hunter who stands up and talks about how a hunt is necessary i cant help but suspect that many of them may just be saying that because they want to be allowed to hunt, whether it be to get their rocks off or for some other sort of somewhat more noble pleasure.
My point is the questions are those who are getting their rocks off above the human equation? Or they all part of us and our flaws? Is this not a reasonable way to allow those who must to do so?
there are many people amongst us with a very strong drive to do all sorts of questionable things. we generally dont allow them to do so, no.
Problem is that there is still a need to hunt. Not just bears, but someone needs to hunt all the other animals that would otherwise explode in population, such as deer. And still the deer population is way too large in many areas, which I think speaks to how few hunt. So really, everyone is getting all spun up as if we are killing off everything, but animal numbers have been rising for years and not just the deer and bear.
.
to the extent that this notion is true, itd be much easier to swallow if it wasnt carried out in a joyful manner by the people who generally carry it out. as i started out by saying, i'm not weighing in on whether it is necessary or not, but looking at the whole picture one cant help but question the motives of some of the people who claim it is.
to the extent that this notion is true, itd be much easier to swallow if it wasnt carried out in a joyful manner by the people who generally carry it out. as i started out by saying, i'm not weighing in on whether it is necessary or not, but looking at the whole picture one cant help but question the motives of some of the people who claim it is.
now you are projecting your views of hunting onto someone else. Hike your own hike.
Starchild
12-07-2015, 17:49
there are many people amongst us with a very strong drive to do all sorts of questionable things. we generally dont allow them to do so, no.
How is that not allowing them to do so 'working for you'?
now you are projecting your views of hunting onto someone else. Hike your own hike.
HYOH doesnt remotely cover this. my opinion as to whether or not animals should be hunted or not is just as valid as anyone's who think they should.
Problem is that there is still a need to hunt. Not just bears, but someone needs to hunt all the other animals that would otherwise explode in population, such as deer. And still the deer population is way too large in many areas, which I think speaks to how few hunt...
Isn't indiscriminate overhunting by humans of top tier wild predatory species and destruction of their habitat strongly factored into some animal population explosions such as Whitetail Deer?:confused:
...So really, everyone is getting all spun up as if we are killing off everything, but animal numbers have been rising for years and not just the deer and bear....
REALLY? What animals are you talking about? AND, are you observing the collapse in the world's Top 20 fisheries? For the scientific evidence is clear, biodiversity is on the decline, both flora and fauna, with human behavior and attitudes OFTEN factoring into the declines. This is not Environmentalist Terrorist/ECO-Nut theory. IT"S EVIDENT. IT IS HAPPENING!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/1409030-animals-wildlife-wwf-decline-science-world/
http://www.fws.gov/international/wildlife-without-borders/amphibians-in-decline.html
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120920-are-we-running-out-of-fish
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13796479
http://www.somersetwildlife.org/Species_Decline.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/wildlife-population-decline_n_5905834.html You can directly research the WWF Study if you like.
http://africageographic.com/blog/10-african-animals-in-rapid-decline/
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29418983
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/30/business/wild-life-decline-wwf/index.html
http://www.worldwatch.org/mammal-species-decline-face-over-hunting-habitat-loss-climate-change
How is that not allowing them to do so 'working for you'?
look i didnt want to go off the rails and say something totally nuts, but take pedophiles for example, are you proposing we allow them to follow their "natural" urges? i doubt that very much. so what youre saying is that the natural urge to kill living things is fine as long as they are just animals. i dont agree.
squeezebox
12-07-2015, 21:32
Often where you live is an important part of how you live. It saddens when I hear of prime farmland sold and turned into subdivisions. If you look at rural roads they skirt the edges of the good farmland, the houses are on the side of the nearby hill. Using the land for it's best purpose. As Kayak Karl said about the 10 two acre lots each with their own concrete pond. How about 1 acre lots with a nice 10 acre park in the center, complete with a bigger pool. And just maybe you'll get to know your neighbors and develop a community. When I lived in the boonies for 10 years I had a neighbor who was an idiot. I still had to deal with him because he was my neighbor. If you live on a flood plane better expect a flood now and then. If someone moves next to bear country they should do so in a responsible fashion, with appropriate expectations. The idiot who feeds the bears, does not lock up his trash etc. and then the baby next door is taken by a bear. It simply is not the bears fault. It is a much larger picture than hunting season or not.
Live well my friends
squeezebox
12-07-2015, 21:34
And one more point we are supposed to be the caretakers of the Earth, not the exploiters.
Thanks for listening.
Traveler
12-08-2015, 07:41
Comparing pedophiles with hunters? Really? If theres a concern about "going off the rails and saying something totally nuts", perhaps you should look behind you for that line.
Comparing pedophiles with hunters? Really? If theres a concern about "going off the rails and saying something totally nuts", perhaps you should look behind you for that line.
i didnt want to say it because i knew someone would say i was comparing the two. i am not. i am establishing the notion that society sets up barriers to someone following their natural urges when they are inappropriate with the most obvious and impossible to argue against example there is. that is all. is hunting something we should also prohibit? i dont think there is a clear cut answer to that in either direction, but to argue that we cant/dont/shouldnt even consider banning something because we dont ban people's urges just isnt true
Offshore
12-08-2015, 08:16
NJ is the most densely populated state. It gets worst every year. If you have a house with a quarter acre lot you are part of the problem.
I think failure to take easy steps to prevent feeding bears - from not using bear resistant garbage cans to hanging bird feeders to having sloppy camp sites is a much bigger problem than a house on a quarter acre lot, an especially odd comment for a guy living in a town with an average housing density of 0.46 acres per housing unit - hardly township and range territory. The irony is that the people who move into the two acre lot developments that are carved out of the forest insist of living their lives as if they were living in those quarter acre suburbs instead of what amounts to front county in NJ - complete with their "the world should change for me" attitude.
Offshore
12-08-2015, 08:22
look i didnt want to go off the rails and say something totally nuts, but take pedophiles for example, are you proposing we allow them to follow their "natural" urges? i doubt that very much. so what youre saying is that the natural urge to kill living things is fine as long as they are just animals. i dont agree.
I think your train just derailed...
Pedaling Fool
12-08-2015, 09:16
to the extent that this notion is true, itd be much easier to swallow if it wasnt carried out in a joyful manner by the people who generally carry it out. as i started out by saying, i'm not weighing in on whether it is necessary or not, but looking at the whole picture one cant help but question the motives of some of the people who claim it is.
You say you're not looking at the issue of whether it's necessary or not, yet you say you're looking at the "whole picture". That's not looking at the whole picture. And the fact that you're comparing hunters to pedophiles (but at the same time saying you're not) that just proves a prejudice on your part.
Isn't indiscriminate overhunting by humans of top tier wild predatory species and destruction of their habitat strongly factored into some animal population explosions such as Whitetail Deer?:confused:
REALLY? What animals are you talking about? AND, are you observing the collapse in the world's Top 20 fisheries? For the scientific evidence is clear, biodiversity is on the decline, both flora and fauna, with human behavior and attitudes OFTEN factoring into the declines. This is not Environmentalist Terrorist/ECO-Nut theory. IT"S EVIDENT. IT IS HAPPENING!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/1409030-animals-wildlife-wwf-decline-science-world/
http://www.fws.gov/international/wildlife-without-borders/amphibians-in-decline.html
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120920-are-we-running-out-of-fish
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13796479
http://www.somersetwildlife.org/Species_Decline.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/wildlife-population-decline_n_5905834.html You can directly research the WWF Study if you like.
http://africageographic.com/blog/10-african-animals-in-rapid-decline/
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29418983
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/30/business/wild-life-decline-wwf/index.html
http://www.worldwatch.org/mammal-species-decline-face-over-hunting-habitat-loss-climate-change
Yes, it's man's fault for the deer population explosion, but this is a thread about hunters in today's context; you're wrapping up issues, this thread is simply about today's hunters. The cougar and wolves are gone for various reasons, but one of the biggest factors was to protect livestock. The same thing happened in Europe. And you see things like this happen all over the world. I agree it's sad and I don't like it, I'm not a hunter, I'm the person that goes out after a rain and picks up worms off the pavement, so they don't die, seriously...
And then you got the issue of habitat destruction, again man's fault, but not the hunters. I've said before here and say again, I see habitat destruction as one of our top (and most challenging) environmental issues. But that has nothing to do with hunters.
Furthermore, many of your links above address issues of animals that are not even the target of hunters and many of them are far, far away from NJ. And many are victims of habitat destruction. That's not the issue of this thread, but I agree it's a major problem. When I said many animals are rebounding I was speaking of many of our predators, which were in trouble during my lifetime here in America, such as the alligator, Bald Eagle, wolves, black bears, cougars... and for them to be rebounding means that it's not all that bad lower down on the food chain. That's not to say everything is peachy, we still have issues.
Although, I will say that some of the links do talk about hunting various African species and that is a bad form of hunting, because there is a real threat of extinction with various species. However, the motivation there is completely different. It's all about money from various cultures that see certain parts of these animals as being somehow magical cures...That needs to change.
You say you're not looking at the issue of whether it's necessary or not, yet you say you're looking at the "whole picture". That's not looking at the whole picture. And the fact that you're comparing hunters to pedophiles (but at the same time saying you're not) that just proves a prejudice on your part.
do you disagree with the idea that there are some things we collectively decide to not allow as a society, and that this is an appropriate course of action? this is my only point in bringing up pedophiles, and i did it because one person on this thread was saying we shouldnt stop people from following their natural inclinations. i should have just ignored him.
for purposes of this thread i have no idea if it is necessary or not. however, i am not going to take the word of the people who want to do the hunting. its a conflict of interest and they are **possibly** just saying whatever needs to be said to be allowed to engage the activity they want to engage in. maybe they even believe it. its still an obvious conflict of interest. and that is ALL i am saying.
Pedaling Fool
12-08-2015, 10:27
do you disagree with the idea that there are some things we collectively decide to not allow as a society, and that this is an appropriate course of action? this is my only point in bringing up pedophiles, and i did it because one person on this thread was saying we shouldnt stop people from following their natural inclinations. i should have just ignored him.
for purposes of this thread i have no idea if it is necessary or not. however, i am not going to take the word of the people who want to do the hunting. its a conflict of interest and they are **possibly** just saying whatever needs to be said to be allowed to engage the activity they want to engage in. maybe they even believe it. its still an obvious conflict of interest. and that is ALL i am saying.Of course I don't disagree with the idea of laws and certain behaviors must be controlled or banned all together...I absolutely support the idea that we are a nation of laws.
And even in hunting there are necessary laws that prevent a hunter from hunting certain species, and that's a good thing. There is no need to use pedophiles as an example here; it really does make you seem prejudicial.
What you seem to be calling for is a total ban on all hunting and I say there is still a need and I'm not a hunter. What should we do with all the deer running around? And bears will loose their fear of humans without hunting.
I agree that there are other things we can do in places such as NJ to control bears, but hunting can't be ruled out as one tool in the box.
Of course I don't disagree with the idea of laws and certain behaviors must be controlled or banned all together...I absolutely support the idea that we are a nation of laws.
And even in hunting there are necessary laws that prevent a hunter from hunting certain species, and that's a good thing. There is no need to use pedophiles as an example here; it really does make you seem prejudicial.
What you seem to be calling for is a total ban on all hunting and I say there is still a need and I'm not a hunter. What should we do with all the deer running around? And bears will loose their fear of humans without hunting.
I agree that there are other things we can do in places such as NJ to control bears, but hunting can't be ruled out as one tool in the box.
you need to put the pedophile comment in context with who i was referring to and what he was saying.
i'm not calling for a ban on hunting. i'm saying that the idea that maybe such a thing might be considered is not an outlandish idea. and that hunters are not the people who's opinion i am going to put any stock in.
Of course I don't disagree with the idea of laws and certain behaviors must be controlled or banned all together...I absolutely support the idea that we are a nation of laws.
And even in hunting there are necessary laws that prevent a hunter from hunting certain species, and that's a good thing. There is no need to use pedophiles as an example here; it really does make you seem prejudicial.
What you seem to be calling for is a total ban on all hunting and I say there is still a need and I'm not a hunter. What should we do with all the deer running around? And bears will loose their fear of humans without hunting.
I agree that there are other things we can do in places such as NJ to control bears, but hunting can't be ruled out as one tool in the box.
Very sensible.
I have a relative that lives in the suburbs. There are lots of deer around. People enjoy seeing the deer, but the community rightly realizes that if the herd isn't controlled they will "eat themselves out of house and home" and large numbers would be killed by cars or starve. So the community hires professionals who bait them and shoot them at night in front of a spotlight. That's the best option a community composed overwhelmingly of non-hunters came up with.
My dad is an avid hunter. Largely because of this, my family has preserved a large woodland and protected many fence-rows and ravines and built ponds. Now there are turkeys and coyotes and fishers where there were none, deer and sandhill cranes and geese and bears where they were once rare. And every year we get a year's supply of meat from completely wild, free-range deer.
In most of the world loss of habitat is the greatest threat to wildlife. In the U.S. hunters are one of the major forces in protecting habitat.
perdidochas
12-08-2015, 15:04
i should really stay out of this.
arguments about it being necessary, ultimately good for the health of population, why the issues exists, etc etc etc aside, heres the thing about hunting that always bothers me- people who are hunters seem to derive joy and even pride from killing living things. thats just... odd to me, at best, and kind of deeply disturbing at worst. few if any hunters are going into the woods to kill bears thinking "well i hate doing this but it has to be done" rather, they are going out there all excited about how much fun this is going to be. to that i always find it difficult to restrain myself from asking "so just what exactly is wrong with you?"
They are being human. Humans are predators. We instinctively love being predators. Ever watch a cat after it kills? It's happy, too.
sliverstorm
12-08-2015, 15:42
In most of the world loss of habitat is the greatest threat to wildlife. In the U.S. hunters are one of the major forces in protecting habitat.
And, even if an individual hunter doesn't really care about conservation, his permit fees are earmarked for conservation programs.
Also, the eradication of wolves in America comes to mind, ordinary hunters weren't enough and a large-scale poisoning campaign was required to eliminate them.
They are being human. Humans are predators. We instinctively love being predators. Ever watch a cat after it kills? It's happy, too.
and around the circle we go... do people not read threads and see that someone else already said this, thus provoking at least 5 back and forth messages about this theory?
They are being human. Humans are predators. We instinctively love being predators. Ever watch a cat after it kills? It's happy, too.
further, i guess myself and man others aren't human then?
BirdBrain
12-08-2015, 17:01
I say again, perhaps other states need to look at Maine. We have all the "evil" methods of killing bears, we have plenty of bears, and we have no "problem" bears. We have less people too. I hope none of the above changes for a very long time.
is civilized society not largely about reining in our primal instincts? theres plenty of other primal instincts we've decided we aren't going to indulge in and tolerate, and in most cases rightly so.
They are being human. Humans are predators. We instinctively love being predators. Ever watch a cat after it kills? It's happy, too.
That goes to our primal instinct and it's not unique to humans. That's why so many birds die from cats... primal instinct.
So many captive animals show this instinct, despite them needing to behave this way.
This is the story we've been told and LARGELY ONLY TOLD. Actually, science is now discovering and RE-DISCOVERING what Darwin observed...very few behaviors are entirely genetic. While there may be a contributing genetic component to behavior that correlation DOES NOT equal causation when it comes to behavior whether it be in human or other animal behavior. What's being observed, AND RE-EXAMINED IN A WIDER CONTEXT, is that behavior in humans and in wild animals can also be described as not only SELFISH but also PRO-SOCIAL, OR COOPERATION even among different species. It's clearly observed in human and other species behavior, EVEN AMONG DIFFERENT PLANT SPECIES. WE KNOW humans have the capacity for altruism, empathy, and cooperation NOT ONLY among each other but with other species!
This notion that humans act ONLY as predators or that natural selection is ONLY about competition is narrow minded and most often used to justify self serving purposes.
Even though humans act predatory at times those times have to be taken into context with what was shared earlier:
is civilized society not largely about reining in our primal instincts? theres plenty of other primal instincts we've decided we aren't going to indulge in and tolerate, and in most cases rightly so.
Regardless of our primal instincts, if we choose to consume animals there really is no moral difference between hunting for the meat or buying it at the grocery store or restaurant. In fact killing what one eats is if anything more intellectually honest as we can see the direct cause and effect of our choices. I was raised vegetarian but now eat meat occasionally and I admit that I really enjoy the occasional burger, steak, or fried chicken. I'm not sure I'd have the stomach to kill in order to have those things. It is an inherent contradiction that few recognize.
Regardless of our primal instincts, if we choose to consume animals there really is no moral difference between hunting for the meat or buying it at the grocery store or restaurant. In fact killing what one eats is if anything more intellectually honest as we can see the direct cause and effect of our choices. I was raised vegetarian but now eat meat occasionally and I admit that I really enjoy the occasional burger, steak, or fried chicken. I'm not sure I'd have the stomach to kill in order to have those things. It is an inherent contradiction that few recognize.
i dont disagree with what you're saying at face value, but you maybe are also sort of implying that that is a big reason why people hunt and i'm sorry but it isn't.
i dont disagree with what you're saying at face value, but you maybe are also sort of implying that that is a big reason why people hunt and i'm sorry but it isn't.
If a guy goes out hunting deer and enjoys it for the thrill of killing a live animal and then goes home and packs up the usable meat and puts it in his freezer for the winter, how is his enjoyment of the act relevant? He's taken a life to facilitate his desired consumption of meat. There are people who take pleasure in looking at the elaborate meat displays at Whole Foods and making a purchase. I'm not sure it is very different. In other words, I don't care if someone enjoys hunting or not. If they are hunting for food, it is the equivalent of shopping at the grocery store and perhaps more morally honest since you're personally taking the life that's feeding you. Hunting purely for sport is a different story for me. I don't understand it and don't like the concept but it is a free country and I've never been around the hunting culture enough to really understand why someone would be motivated to go into the woods to kill living creatures for nothing other than sport.
i dont disagree with what you're saying at face value, but you maybe are also sort of implying that that is a big reason why people hunt and i'm sorry but it isn't.
I am curious, do you hunt?
vamelungeon
12-08-2015, 20:05
i dont disagree with what you're saying at face value, but you maybe are also sort of implying that that is a big reason why people hunt and i'm sorry but it isn't.
I'm sorry but it is. I don't think you know ANYTHING about hunters or hunting. Some of the things you've said about hunters in this thread are mere imagination projected onto them. I've always thought that making negative generalizations and stereotyping any group based on ignorance was a bad thing. I hike, and I hunt. I enjoy hunting, and I enjoy eating the meat I get from it. It's legal, and to me it's moral, more moral than buying meat in a store or restaurant.
BirdBrain
12-08-2015, 20:16
I hunted for decades. I enjoyed the hunt. I enjoyed the meat from the hunt. Deer, moose, rabbit, partridge, etc is much better than beef in my opinion. I eat beef because I no longer prioritize the time to hunt. Fishing is a similar thing. I love the sport of fishing. I used to eat the fish when I was going after Brookies. Now that I fish for bass, I toss them all back and let them get bigger. It is likely that some will find that practice disgusting too. Oh well....
I'm sorry but it is. I don't think you know ANYTHING about hunters or hunting. Some of the things you've said about hunters in this thread are mere imagination projected onto them. I've always thought that making negative generalizations and stereotyping any group based on ignorance was a bad thing. I hike, and I hunt. I enjoy hunting, and I enjoy eating the meat I get from it. It's legal, and to me it's moral, more moral than buying meat in a store or restaurant.
I think part of the reason people think like Tdoczi is that they see reports like those of the younger Trumps on big game hunts ( https://www.thedodo.com/trump-speaks-on-sons-hunting-1275724124.html ) and are then forced to hear more traditional hunters defend them.
On the other hand I think if most of us saw the suffering animals endure on factory farms, we would all be eating venison.
On the other hand I think if most of us saw the suffering animals endure on factory farms, we would all be eating venison.
Or refrain from ingesting meat altogether.
If a guy goes out hunting deer and enjoys it for the thrill of killing a live animal and then goes home and packs up the usable meat and puts it in his freezer for the winter, how is his enjoyment of the act relevant? He's taken a life to facilitate his desired consumption of meat. There are people who take pleasure in looking at the elaborate meat displays at Whole Foods and making a purchase. I'm not sure it is very different. In other words, I don't care if someone enjoys hunting or not. If they are hunting for food, it is the equivalent of shopping at the grocery store and perhaps more morally honest since you're personally taking the life that's feeding you. Hunting purely for sport is a different story for me. I don't understand it and don't like the concept but it is a free country and I've never been around the hunting culture enough to really understand why someone would be motivated to go into the woods to kill living creatures for nothing other than sport.
again, if your assessment of their motivation is correct i dont disagree. IF
theres a perhaps subtle difference between killing something because you enjoy the act of killing it, and then eating it as an afterthought, and killing it because you want to eat it and the enjoyment being a coincidental biproduct. specifically when talking about bears i have a hard time imagining getting to eat it is a big motivation.
I am curious, do you hunt?
nope. never have, never will. you couldnt pay me.
I'm sorry but it is. I don't think you know ANYTHING about hunters or hunting. Some of the things you've said about hunters in this thread are mere imagination projected onto them. I've always thought that making negative generalizations and stereotyping any group based on ignorance was a bad thing. I hike, and I hunt. I enjoy hunting, and I enjoy eating the meat I get from it. It's legal, and to me it's moral, more moral than buying meat in a store or restaurant.
what is the main, #1 top of the list thing you enjoy about hunting?
I think part of the reason people think like Tdoczi is that they see reports like those of the younger Trumps on big game hunts ( https://www.thedodo.com/trump-speaks-on-sons-hunting-1275724124.html ) and are then forced to hear more traditional hunters defend them.
On the other hand I think if most of us saw the suffering animals endure on factory farms, we would all be eating venison.
perhaps, but to me its really that i question the true motives of a great many hunters. in particular when it comes to bear i just have a hard time beleiveing "i think itd be fun to kill a bear" isnt far higher on the list than it should be.
perhaps, but to me its really that i question the true motives of a great many hunters. in particular when it comes to bear i just have a hard time beleiveing "i think itd be fun to kill a bear" isnt far higher on the list than it should be.
I think there is truth to that.
TexasBob
12-08-2015, 20:51
Regardless of our primal instincts, if we choose to consume animals there really is no moral difference between hunting for the meat or buying it at the grocery store or restaurant. In fact killing what one eats is if anything more intellectually honest as we can see the direct cause and effect of our choices. I was raised vegetarian but now eat meat occasionally and I admit that I really enjoy the occasional burger, steak, or fried chicken. I'm not sure I'd have the stomach to kill in order to have those things. It is an inherent contradiction that few recognize.
You are exactly right. I have been in slaughter houses and seen what happens. When ever I buy a steak, pork or chicken I think about it. I am paying someone else to kill and prepare my meat for me so I don't have to do the dirty work, pure and simple.
joker52186
12-08-2015, 20:58
Because were managing the population so there's not too much growth per year and they're tasty
love peace and chicken grease
BirdBrain
12-08-2015, 21:12
Because were managing the population so there's not too much growth per year and they're tasty
love peace and chicken grease
No way man! It ain't possible. Are you sure you like the taste of bear? Admit it. You are just a meany that hates bears and kittens and the environment.
vamelungeon
12-08-2015, 21:17
what is the main, #1 top of the list thing you enjoy about hunting?
The number one thing I enjoy about hunting is hunting.
The number one thing I enjoy about hunting is hunting.
My guess is that you don't just sit up in a tree and wait for your deer.
vamelungeon
12-08-2015, 21:36
My guess is that you don't just sit up in a tree and wait for your deer.
Sometimes I do. I love being outdoors, I love the silence, I love seeing all the wildlife, seeing things like the squirrels playing and sometimes being prey for hawks, and yes I love the heart pounding moment when I'm harvesting the game. I love hunting with my son, I love hunting with my father and brother when they were alive. I love going to a hunting camp, hunting all day and then the camaraderie in the evening. I've hunted all my life. I grew up the son of a coal miner and farmer, and the game we killed made up a large part of our diet at times. Hunting rabbits and squirrels and quail, gigging frogs for frog legs, you name it we hunted it and ate it.
Lone Wolf
12-08-2015, 21:38
jersey should do like maine bear whackers. put out big piles of donuts and syrup and blast 'em while they're eatin'. very effective
Sometimes I do. I love being outdoors, I love the silence, I love seeing all the wildlife, seeing things like the squirrels playing and sometimes being prey for hawks, and yes I love the heart pounding moment when I'm harvesting the game. I love hunting with my son, I love hunting with my father and brother when they were alive. I love going to a hunting camp, hunting all day and then the camaraderie in the evening. I've hunted all my life. I grew up the son of a coal miner and farmer, and the game we killed made up a large part of our diet at times. Hunting rabbits and squirrels and quail, gigging frogs for frog legs, you name it we hunted it and ate it.
Wow. That is rather beautiful writing. Thanks.
oldwetherman
12-08-2015, 21:53
I just read an article on Google news about bear hunting in NJ. The following quote is copied and pasted from that article. "But the Bear Education and Resource (BEAR) program says black bears are misunderstood. When confronted by humans, black bears first instinct is to run away or climb a tree. In fact, BEAR cites bear expert Dr. Lynn Rogers who says that a person is 247 times more likely to be killed by lightning or 120 times more likely to be killed by a bee.."
squeezebox
12-08-2015, 21:56
Just my opinion!! but the most boring day I ever spent was the morning I spent sitting in a tree deer hunting.
Or refrain from ingesting meat altogether.
Still curious, are you a vegan?
Sometimes I do. I love being outdoors, I love the silence, I love seeing all the wildlife, seeing things like the squirrels playing and sometimes being prey for hawks, and yes I love the heart pounding moment when I'm harvesting the game.
can you really not do and enjoy all of that while omitting that last part? do you not go into the outdoors unless its to kill something?
rocketsocks
12-08-2015, 23:09
jersey should do like maine bear whackers. put out big piles of donuts and syrup and blast 'em while they're eatin'. very effectiveif they didn't have hunters to hunt you can bet that's what they'd do...the state, that's how they cull deer, well, not the syrup thing.
I just read an article on Google news about bear hunting in NJ. The following quote is copied and pasted from that article. "But the Bear Education and Resource (BEAR) program says black bears are misunderstood. When confronted by humans, black bears first instinct is to run away or climb a tree. In fact, BEAR cites bear expert Dr. Lynn Rogers who says that a person is 247 times more likely to be killed by lightning or 120 times more likely to be killed by a bee.."
And yet there is still more fear from bears because that data is ignored. So much for humans being so intelligent. They may have the capacity for intelligence but much of the populace is governed more by fear and ignorance, as they usually go together, than knowledge and wisdom.
rocketsocks
12-09-2015, 01:17
And yet there is still more fear from bears because that data is ignored. So much for humans being so intelligent. They may have the capacity for intelligence but much of the populace is governed more by fear and ignorance, as they usually go together, than knowledge and wisdom.
Now, I'm not saying your wrong, I agree, but it is worth noting that that condition is innate and kept us alive for millennia, well a couple a few thousand years anyway.
I maintain that knowledge, wisdom, prudence, and love have kept more fully alive, and is infinitely comparatively BETTER, than ignorance and fear. In the presence of knowledge, wisdom, and prudence there is less, or perhaps no need, for fear.
Wisdom is of utmost importance(the principal thing), therefore get wisdom, and with all your effort work to acquire understanding. Proverbs 4:7
rocketsocks
12-09-2015, 01:37
I maintain that knowledge, wisdom, prudence, and love have kept more fully alive, and is infinitely comparatively BETTER, than ignorance and fear. In the presence of knowledge, wisdom, and prudence there is less, or perhaps no need, for fear.
Wisdom is of utmost importance(the principal thing), therefore get wisdom, and with all your effort work to acquire understanding. Proverbs 4:7
I'm not sure I get it, I was more a history guy, not so good at sentence structure and syntax...but I'll take your word for it.
BirdBrain
12-09-2015, 01:43
if they didn't have hunters to hunt you can bet that's what they'd do...the state, that's how they cull deer, well, not the syrup thing.
I think you might have miss the intent. Someone is living rent free in someone's head.
rocketsocks
12-09-2015, 01:45
I think you might have miss the intent. Someone is living rent free in someone's head.I LIKE THAT, can i use it?
BirdBrain
12-09-2015, 01:47
I LIKE THAT, can i use it?
Sure. However, you are not quoting me. I did not invent the saying. The first person I heard say it was Rush... and I don't mean the 3 man band from Canada.
rocketsocks
12-09-2015, 01:58
Sure. However, you are not quoting me. I did not invent the saying. The first person I heard say it was Rush... and I don't mean the 3 man band from Canada.:) works for me.
vamelungeon
12-09-2015, 06:50
can you really not do and enjoy all of that while omitting that last part? do you not go into the outdoors unless its to kill something?
I just said up the page I'm a hiker. But I'm not giving up hunting.
Pedaling Fool
12-09-2015, 07:46
This is the story we've been told and LARGELY ONLY TOLD. Actually, science is now discovering and RE-DISCOVERING what Darwin observed...very few behaviors are entirely genetic. While there may be a contributing genetic component to behavior that correlation DOES NOT equal causation when it comes to behavior whether it be in human or other animal behavior. What's being observed, AND RE-EXAMINED IN A WIDER CONTEXT, is that behavior in humans and in wild animals can also be described as not only SELFISH but also PRO-SOCIAL, OR COOPERATION even among different species. It's clearly observed in human and other species behavior, EVEN AMONG DIFFERENT PLANT SPECIES. WE KNOW humans have the capacity for altruism, empathy, and cooperation NOT ONLY among each other but with other species!
This notion that humans act ONLY as predators or that natural selection is ONLY about competition is narrow minded and most often used to justify self serving purposes.
Even though humans act predatory at times those times have to be taken into context with what was shared earlier:
Again, you're wrapping up so much crap into a single issue. No one said humans act ONLY as predators. Obviously some don't feel this urge to hunt, I don't, but that doesn't mean that I think all hunters are simply mindless killers or are simply "getting their rocks off" from KILLING. And your stuff about natural selection is irrelevant, we've talked about this before, so I won't go into it here, rather I'll just stay on topic.
Why don't you stop your lecturing and tell us. Why do people in America hunt bears? I know there is not one answer, but my answer I believe sums up the bulk, i.e. the love of the hunt. So sum it up for me, since you think I'm wrong. Why? Answer that question.
P.S. I acknowledge that I my answer is kind of simplistic and probably not all that exact, since I'm not and have never been a part of the hunting community; however, I'm confident that my answer is much closer than those that would just write hunters off as mindless killers.
Why do cats and dogs always chase small animals and kill them, only to leave them for dead? Answer that.
I just said up the page I'm a hiker. But I'm not giving up hunting.
so all the things about hunting that you love you can enjoy without hunting.... except the killing part. so the only thing thats actually specific to hunting that you have said you enjoy is the killing of animals.
now that said, you talk of your family's history and how hunting was actually a large food source. if that is still the case, then great, but that doesnt convince me that thats representative of most or even many hunters.
Why don't you stop your lecturing and tell us. Why do people in America hunt bears? I know there is not one answer, but my answer I believe sums up the bulk, i.e. the love of the hunt. So sum it up for me, since you think I'm wrong. Why? Answer that question.
answer this question- why is "love of the hunt" different than "love of killing"? should i amend it to "love of stalking and killing?" you're defining hunting using the word hunting. try definining it by explaining what it is instead.
Why do cats and dogs always chase small animals and kill them, only to leave them for dead? Answer that.
because they are animals. we as humans living in a society strive to be better than that and not just constantly do what "comes natural" to us even if it is abhorrent. all sorts of animals do all kinds of nasty things we would never permit in civilized human society. i would cite several of them but then someone will accuse me of comparing hunters to them.
vamelungeon
12-09-2015, 08:15
Humans are animals also.
vamelungeon
12-09-2015, 08:22
so all the things about hunting that you love you can enjoy without hunting.... except the killing part. so the only thing thats actually specific to hunting that you have said you enjoy is the killing of animals.
now that said, you talk of your family's history and how hunting was actually a large food source. if that is still the case, then great, but that doesnt convince me that thats representative of most or even many hunters.
Killing for food isn't a problem for me. We raised hogs, chickens, rabbits, etc. growing up, and killed and ate them. Killing to protect myself and others isn't a moral dilemma for me either. Some people can't do it. It doesn't mean the ones that can have mental issues.
Humans are animals also.
agreed. but can you really not think of things animals do that humans would have an inclination to do as well if not for the fact that we have decided that such behavior has no part in civilized society? cause i can think of a ton. you may not see it that way because you personally lack those inclinations, but plenty of others have them, and we have no problem telling them "sorry, but you arent allowed to do that."
Pedaling Fool
12-09-2015, 08:37
answer this question- why is "love of the hunt" different than "love of killing"? should i amend it to "love of stalking and killing?" you're defining hunting using the word hunting. try definining it by explaining what it is instead...Like I said, I'm not a hunter and I've never been a hunter, thus I know my answer is not as precise as possible and I don't want to attempt to answer too deeply without proper reflection. However, I've listened to hunters before and the point is that I don't accept that they are mindless in their hunting and yes their killing. Like it or not, killing is a part of life, it is necessary. You seem to be confusing that with some morality construct created by humans. Nature doesn't teach us morality.
I know with a quick look that hunting can seem like it's all about killing, but if that were the case than why go thru the trouble of the hunt? Why don't you try reading thru here and with an open mind try and understand what attracts hunters to the hunt. http://homestudy.ihea.com/abouthunting/01why.htm
You want to talk about people that enjoy killing, than you need to talk about serial killers, who interestingly enough start out with killing animals (not hunting), but soon advance to humans. Now that mindset is very confusing to me.
...because they are animals. we as humans living in a society strive to be better than that and not just constantly do what "comes natural" to us even if it is abhorrent. all sorts of animals do all kinds of nasty things we would never permit in civilized human society. i would cite several of them but then someone will accuse me of comparing hunters to them.Like it or not we are animals. Even if you think we're some type of spiritual entity, than we're spirits that inhabit an animal's body and we must bow to certain animalistic tendencies. We fit very nicely into the Kingdom of Life and that's why we still use animals for medical experiments.
Killing for food isn't a problem for me. We raised hogs, chickens, rabbits, etc. growing up, and killed and ate them. Killing to protect myself and others isn't a moral dilemma for me either. Some people can't do it. It doesn't mean the ones that can have mental issues.
none of those forms of killing are anything i have any issue with and if i ever have to kill someone in defense of myself or other i hope i am able to.
Like I said, I'm not a hunter and I've never been a hunter, thus I know my answer is not as precise as possible and I don't want to attempt to answer too deeply without proper reflection. However, I've listened to hunters before and the point is that I don't accept that they are mindless in their hunting and yes their killing. Like it or not, killing is a part of life, it is necessary. You seem to be confusing that with some morality construct created by humans. Nature doesn't teach us morality.
I know with a quick look that hunting can seem like it's all about killing, but if that were the case than why go thru the trouble of the hunt? Why don't you try reading thru here and with an open mind try and understand what attracts hunters to the hunt. http://homestudy.ihea.com/abouthunting/01why.htm
You want to talk about people that enjoy killing, than you need to talk about serial killers, who interestingly enough start out with killing animals (not hunting), but soon advance to humans. Now that mindset is very confusing to me.
Like it or not we are animals. Even if you think we're some type of spiritual entity, than we're spirits that inhabit an animal's body and we must bow to certain animalistic tendencies. We fit very nicely into the Kingdom of Life and that's why we still use animals for medical experiments.
the *mindless* part of "mindless killing" is your word, not mine. remove the word mindless and my argument doesnt change.
your attempt to cite serial killers just proves my point- there you have a behavior- the desire to kill other humans in a manner similar to that of hunting, just as other wild animals will kill each other for various reasons very often, that we have decided is not permissable. why not allow us to settle this by a death match? i mean we're animals and thats what many animals would do right? is it also not in fact what humans did for a very long time before we decided to disallow it? do you want to bring back dueling with pistols at sunrise because thats how animals settle things and we're just animals? please.
Pedaling Fool
12-09-2015, 08:58
the *mindless* part of "mindless killing" is your word, not mine. remove the word mindless and my argument doesnt change.
your attempt to cite serial killers just proves my point- there you have a behavior- the desire to kill other humans in a manner similar to that of hunting, just as other wild animals will kill each other for various reasons very often, that we have decided is not permissable. why not allow us to settle this by a death match? i mean we're animals and thats what many animals would do right? is it also not in fact what humans did for a very long time before we decided to disallow it? do you want to bring back dueling with pistols at sunrise because thats how animals settle things and we're just animals? please.What you seem to be saying is that hunters hunt because they ENJOY killing; that is their primary motive. Is that correct?
I disagree.
You also seem to think it's morally wrong. We can go round and round on that issue, because it's a human construct. I can easily say so many things about what people should be doing and connect it to morality. I think all people should be riding a bike because it's morally wrong to be burning so much fossil fuels...It gets sticky.
Or maybe all people that eat any meat are morally wrong, regardless how they obtain it. Some people believe that, do you? Do you eat meat? If so, you are morally wrong in the eyes of many.
What you seem to be saying is that hunters hunt because they ENJOY killing; that is their primary motive. Is that correct?
I disagree.
You also seem to think it's morally wrong. We can go round and round on that issue, because it's a human construct. I can easily say so many things about what people should be doing and connect it to morality. I think all people should be riding a bike because it's morally wrong to be burning so much fossil fuels...It gets sticky.
Or maybe all people that eat any meat are morally wrong, regardless how they obtain it. Some people believe that, do you? Do you eat meat? If so, you are morally wrong in the eyes of many.
what i am saying is yes, at the end of the day, hunting more often than not is about deriving some sort of joy from killing. joy does not equal mindless. yous eem to equate the word joy with a drunken, reckless party, thats not what i am saying at all. joy can be calm and serene, it is still joy.
as to morality, all i am saying is "thats what animals do" is a nonsense justification.
Pedaling Fool
12-09-2015, 09:09
what i am saying is yes, at the end of the day, hunting more often than not is about deriving some sort of joy from killing. joy does not equal mindless. yous eem to equate the word joy with a drunken, reckless party, thats not what i am saying at all. joy can be calm and serene, it is still joy.
as to morality, all i am saying is "thats what animals do" is a nonsense justification.Fine, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Ok, so you see most hunters hunt, because they find enjoyment in killing; I'll drop the mindless part.
I didn't justify hunters doing it because that's what animals do. I said, in part you gotta at least look to that as a factor; in other words it's not as easy as you seem to make it. Did you read the link about why people hunt? http://homestudy.ihea.com/abouthunting/01why.htm
As to the issue of morality, you throw that around loosely. I asked you some questions in post #128. Are you going to answer them or are you just going to keep throwing around morality as if you can deem certain people immoral, or at least their actions as immoral.
rocketsocks
12-09-2015, 09:17
I don't go to the races to see a crash, I don't watch MMA fights to see a fella get beat bloody, I take no joy in the killing, and feel only thanks for the animal giving its life, that I might live.
Still curious, are you a vegan?
You must not have been too curious, as you hadn't previously asked, but yes, I am.
I slay a lot of plants. I made the decision after seeing Food, INC years ago (despite growing up in the midst of Franken Farms galore and witnessing how "our food" was raised and cultivated), and because it made sense. To some here I'm going against primal instinct.
Fine, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Ok, so you see most hunters hunt, because they find enjoyment in killing; I'll drop the mindless part.
I didn't justify hunters doing it because that's what animals do. I said, in part you gotta at least look to that as a factor; in other words it's not as easy as you seem to make it. Did you read the link about why people hunt? http://homestudy.ihea.com/abouthunting/01why.htm
As to the issue of morality, you throw that around loosely. I asked you some questions in post #128. Are you going to answer them or are you just going to keep throwing around morality as if you can deem certain people immoral, or at least their actions as immoral.
yes i eat meat. yes i am aware some people find this immoral. those arent the only things i do that people find immoral. there are also immoral things that society deemed unacceptable decades ago (such as settling disputes via a duel) that had they not so decided, and as a consequence i was raised to agree with their decision, i might find myself engaging in today and wondering why anyone finds it immoral.
we need to dial this back to my original, relevant to this thread supposition- the opinion of hunters as to whether or not a hunt is necessary is, to my mind, irrelevant. it is irrelevant because they have ulterior motives, namely that they want to kill the animals in question for their own enjoyment, fulfillment, pleasure, pride, whatever you wish to call it, and any statements they make about how it is beneficial or necessary is possibly self serving. in this context, the question of what i or anyone else find moral isnt really relevant.
if any hunter wants to say "yes i enjoy killing animals and i dont find it immoral" then i will applaud their honesty while finding them possibly immoral and continue to ignore their opinion as to whether or not a bear hunt is necessary.
I don't go to the races to see a crash, I don't watch MMA fights to see a fella get beat bloody, I take no joy in the killing, and feel only thanks for the animal giving its life, that I might live.
then why do it? i got news for you, it isnt because you need to in order to live.
now, if you or anyone else is truly acquiring all of their meat in this manner because you find it less objectionable than the other method of doing so, then great, i have no issue with that what so ever, but c'mon now, that isnt what youre doing. the self deception is ridiculous.
BirdBrain
12-09-2015, 11:39
Here we go again. Someone finds something objectionable and is unwilling to consider any opposing viewpoint. You might as well try to explain hiking the AT to a person who never steps off of manmade things. Some of us grew up eating our pets (pigs, chickens, ducks, beef critters, etc). Some of us had a big garden all their life. Some of us see GMO as a bigger issue than hunting. Some of us see hunting for food to be less objectionable than the mass production process of raising meat for slaughter. Some people rail against the former while eating the latter. Some people like to hear themselves talk and don't realize they are making a fool out of themselves. The chicken of the mass production farm is forced into a life of misery. I partridge faces a moment of misery. Both taste good. One is healthier than the other. The hunter is not an evil jerk for hunting down and killing a partridge. The chicken on the mass production farm wasn't coddled all its life. The partridge roamed free. If I was as ridiculous as the anti-hunter, I could go all batty and blame the world's ills on those that support the cruel treatment of chickens by buying chickens that come from mass production farms. That might actually have some merit. I will leave that to the vegan. Mean while, does anyone have some steak sauce to go with my steak and eggs?
Traveler
12-09-2015, 11:55
This discussion of hunters, pedophilia, and the morality of food is interesting and all, but the bear population continues to grow in the Northeast, as evidenced in NJ where there is a bear hunting season. So, what realistic options exist?
squeezebox
12-09-2015, 12:04
I'm wondering if as humans we seem to have a need to feel powerful, particularly men. So by killing an animal does that fill that primal need to feel that as an individual that my life matters in the bigger scope of the world? I'm not just another sheep?
BirdBrain
12-09-2015, 12:11
This discussion of hunters, pedophilia, and the morality of food is interesting and all, but the bear population continues to grow in the Northeast, as evidenced in NJ where there is a bear hunting season. So, what realistic options exist?
The population density of bears is not the issue. Looking at what works should be proof enough of what needs to be done. Maine has a thriving and safe bear population. People will argue semantics and speculation. The fact remains that bears are only a slight issue in protected areas in Maine (think BSP). I have watched it all my life. Every time someone tinkers with a hunting policy in Maine the ignorant proclaim all kinds of wild scenarios. When we opened up moose hunting, the ignorant proclaimed that the population would decrease dramatically. The hunter knew better. The population went up. The weak and the stupid were culled. The wise and the hearty survived. The same thing is in place for bear hunting. There is a reason you don't see bears in Maine even though we have one of the higher population densities in the country. Moose are now in decline because of a winter tick. I don't have a solution for that. If you want a healthy thriving and safe bear population, do what Maine is doing. If you want fearless bears in your backyard, listen to the guy that thinks hunters are evil murderers.
This discussion of hunters, pedophilia, and the morality of food is interesting and all, but the bear population continues to grow in the Northeast, as evidenced in NJ where there is a bear hunting season. So, what realistic options exist?
Obviously the only viable solution is to eradicate a portion of them, if indeed it's deemed necessary (and therein lay the debate). But in doing so, the larger problem continues to swell, as it will continue to do so until (future) man is faced with the realities we've left behind.
Will there be an outcry in New Jersey for this?
I tend to doubt it, since most of the state's residents appear far, far removed from the its magnificent woodlands, and from nature itself. It's dangerous out there, and bears are a part of that danger, and we should continue to try to eradicate risk!
Obviously the only viable solution is to eradicate a portion of them, if indeed it's deemed necessary (and therein lay the debate). But in doing so, the larger problem continues to swell, as it will continue to do so until (future) man is faced with the realities we've left behind.
Will there be an outcry in New Jersey for this?
I tend to doubt it, since most of the state's residents appear far, far removed from the its magnificent woodlands, and from nature itself. It's dangerous out there, and bears are a part of that danger, and we should continue to try to eradicate risk!
there hasn't been much one of this year or in recent years that I've noticed, but at first? yes. to the point where the first year it was proposed it was cancelled at the last minute.
Here we go again. Someone finds something objectionable and is unwilling to consider any opposing viewpoint. You might as well try to explain hiking the AT to a person who never steps off of manmade things. Some of us grew up eating our pets (pigs, chickens, ducks, beef critters, etc). Some of us had a big garden all their life. Some of us see GMO as a bigger issue than hunting. Some of us see hunting for food to be less objectionable than the mass production process of raising meat for slaughter. Some people rail against the former while eating the latter. Some people like to hear themselves talk and don't realize they are making a fool out of themselves. The chicken of the mass production farm is forced into a life of misery. I partridge faces a moment of misery. Both taste good. One is healthier than the other. The hunter is not an evil jerk for hunting down and killing a partridge. The chicken on the mass production farm wasn't coddled all its life. The partridge roamed free. If I was as ridiculous as the anti-hunter, I could go all batty and blame the world's ills on those that support the cruel treatment of chickens by buying chickens that come from mass production farms. That might actually have some merit. I will leave that to the vegan. Mean while, does anyone have some steak sauce to go with my steak and eggs?
since you missed it the first 12 times i said it- anyone who is hunting truly and solely as a food source is not who i am talking. got it?
now i assume your point is i shouldn't try to read intent. maybe so, but sometimes these things are fairly obvious. maybe this isn't one of them, but i doubt you go through life never reading intent in anyone's actions ever.
My 2 cents...on eating Bear.
Being an avid hunter, since 1974, as well as a lover of the AT, and a hiker. I will tell you this, everyone that I hunt with eats what they harvest. Case in point we had Bear steaks in Deer camp Monday night. And all agree its the best red meat there is, better then your best Beef steak! Way better then Venison. So as far as who eats Bear, I would say most people that harvest a Bear do.
RUNT ''13''
I have watched it all my life. Every time someone tinkers with a hunting policy in Maine the ignorant proclaim all kinds of wild scenarios. When we opened up moose hunting, the ignorant proclaimed that the population would decrease dramatically. The hunter knew better. The population went up. The weak and the stupid were culled. The wise and the hearty survived.
Not so much because the weak and stupid are culled, but rather because the vast majority of moose permits are for Bulls, I think.
That is a good way to manage the population for hunters, but not so good for the smart and strong Bulls, I think.
I don't have a problem with that, but I think your characterization is a bit disingenuous. Sort of like how they sold deer hunting in Massachusetts' Quabin reservoir some years ago as a necessary but perhaps unfortunate way to protect the watershed-- then issued permits for bucks only.
I sometimes wonder how hunting jives with the whole LNT mantra.
Spit Walker
12-09-2015, 13:05
I sometimes wonder how hunting jives with the whole LNT mantra.
HaHa take what you find and leave nothing behind.
BirdBrain
12-09-2015, 13:24
Not so much because the weak and stupid are culled, but rather because the vast majority of moose permits are for Bulls, I think.
That is a good way to manage the population for hunters, but not so good for the smart and strong Bulls, I think.
I don't have a problem with that, but I think your characterization is a bit disingenuous. Sort of like how they sold deer hunting in Massachusetts' Quabin reservoir some years ago as a necessary but perhaps unfortunate way to protect the watershed-- then issued permits for bucks only.
My characterization is not disingenuous. I started hunting in 1971. The ignorant tinkering by people that don't hunt is maddening (and bucks/bulls vs any is one of them). My larger point about bears is the pertinent one. We do all the evil stuff up here with no regard for male or female. It is working. This discussion is about bears. What we are doing works. What the ignorant would like us to do would turn us into any number of states that are having issues with bears. I would rather not argue antlered vs any (it is not males vs female, but the ignorant does not grasp that). I have strong opinions on that subject. Those opinions would just launch into other ignorant debates as well. I am tempted... but I will refrain.
perdidochas
12-09-2015, 13:25
and around the circle we go... do people not read threads and see that someone else already said this, thus provoking at least 5 back and forth messages about this theory?
I respond as I read. I don't read all, then go back and respond. Sorry, but that's how I've done with online forums since before the WWW.
My characterization is not disingenuous. I started hunting in 1971. The ignorant tinkering by people that don't hunt is maddening (and bucks/bulls vs any is one of them). My larger point about bears is the pertinent one. We do all the evil stuff up here with no regard for male or female. It is working. This discussion is about bears. What we are doing works. What the ignorant would like us to do would turn us into any number of states that are having issues with bears. I would rather not argue antlered vs any (it is not males vs female, but the ignorant does not grasp that). I have strong opinions on that subject. Those opinions would just launch into other ignorant debates as well. I am tempted... but I will refrain.
So the reason 3/4 of Maine moose permits are for antlered animals is that they are the weak and stupid?
BirdBrain
12-09-2015, 13:31
So the reason 3/4 of Maine moose permits are for antlered animals is that they are the weak and stupid?
Not going to bite.
Time to put another thread on ignore. People want to talk about everything except bears. The moose subject was only introduced to give an illustration of what happens to a hunted population. It was not introduced to debate every nuance of moose hunting rules.
The ignorant tinkering by people that don't hunt is maddening...
As is the ignorant tinkering of the English language, but never mind that, for we are not grammar cops here.
My larger point about bears is the pertinent one. We do all the evil stuff up here with no regard for male or female. It is working. This discussion is about bears. What we are doing works.
But you cannot compare a remote and remotely populated state like Maine to a densely populated one like New Jersey, not with any semblance of relevancy anyhow. Sure, New Jersey has what we humans call a "bear problem," and Maine does not. But it's not because of the hunting Maine encourages. Rather it is the uninhibited habitat it provides. Run-ins with bears are fairly common when you live in THEIR habitat; Alaska taught me that. Just the same, run-ins increase when we push them into smaller tracts.
The larger issue (though not pertinent to this particular discussion) is When Humans Encroach. And what to do when we refuse to stop encroaching. Little by little, all else, all others, are being crammed into a corner. Your corner is still, for now, vast. I know, because I walked through some of it!
Traveler
12-09-2015, 14:14
Hunting doesn't seem to be working in NJ, which the bear population growth is compounded by some other factors. Bears coming in from surrounding states is one, reproductive rates are the highest in most States, but the most significant issue is the return of forested areas. Farmland that once pushed the black bear into remote areas away from populated areas has yielded to woodlands in many areas that has exacerbated the issue. That is a large contributing factor to other northeastern States as well. It seems counter intuitive when we want to think its people building into bear habitat is causing more contact when in actuality its the fallow farmlands returning to forests thats allowing for more bears.
I think a more regionalized approach will be needed before this is all done. Once bears reach a level of population the region cannot support, there will be famine and/or disease that will start to reduce their population. This will present a far greater danger to people as bears turn from fairly benign creatures wandering through woods and suburban landscapes to sick and/or starving creatures looking for food. I doubt if a hunting season alone will be an effective, long term solution for most of the northeast.
Pedaling Fool
12-09-2015, 14:56
yes i eat meat. yes i am aware some people find this immoral. those arent the only things i do that people find immoral. there are also immoral things that society deemed unacceptable decades ago (such as settling disputes via a duel) that had they not so decided, and as a consequence i was raised to agree with their decision, i might find myself engaging in today and wondering why anyone finds it immoral.
we need to dial this back to my original, relevant to this thread supposition- the opinion of hunters as to whether or not a hunt is necessary is, to my mind, irrelevant. it is irrelevant because they have ulterior motives, namely that they want to kill the animals in question for their own enjoyment, fulfillment, pleasure, pride, whatever you wish to call it, and any statements they make about how it is beneficial or necessary is possibly self serving. in this context, the question of what i or anyone else find moral isnt really relevant.
if any hunter wants to say "yes i enjoy killing animals and i dont find it immoral" then i will applaud their honesty while finding them possibly immoral and continue to ignore their opinion as to whether or not a bear hunt is necessary.
I do see it as necessary to hunt certain animals, including black bears, and will address that later, because I got some work to go do; however, I'll leave you with this youtube video of hunters releasing a deer from another dear that had their antlers entangled. If all they do hunting for is simply for the enjoyment/fufillment/pleasure/pride of KILLING, then why did they risk personal injury to release the deer? Your oversimplification and prejudice is annoying, to say the least https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNSgr5xNYY0
History of Black Bears in New Jersey
The American black bear is native to New Jersey. Prior to European settlement black bears lived in forested regions throughout the state. As European settlement progressed, forests were cleared for towns, farming and lumber. Black bears were killed indiscriminately by settlers to protect their crops and livestock. Loss of habitat and indiscriminate killing caused the black bear population to sharply decline throughout the 1800s.
In 1953, the New Jersey Fish and Game Council (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/councils.htm#fishandgame) classified the black bear as a game animal, affording it protection from indiscriminate killing. Limited hunting was legal for black bear until 1971 when the Council, based on an assessment by Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) biologists, closed the hunting season. DFW biologists began conducting research on New Jersey's black bears in 1980. Over the last 35 years, the Garden State's black bear population has been increasing and expanding its range southward and eastward from the forested areas of northwestern New Jersey. The population has grown due to increased black bear habitat as agricultural land reverted to mature forests, protection afforded by game animal status, and bears dispersing into New Jersey from increasing populations in Pennsylvania and New York. Additionally, the state's black bears have some of the largest litters and highest reproductive rates in the nation. Today, black bears can be found throughout the state.
Since 1980, the DFW has steadily increased its efforts to responsibly manage our large and expanding black bear population and to be responsive to the increasing conflicts between bears and people. Since Fiscal Year 2001, DFW has spent more than $9 million on black bear management. This includes $5.5 million of general treasury funds and $3.5 million from the Hunters and Anglers Fund and federal grants. The Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bearpolicy15.htm) allowed for annual hunting seasons, to be evaluated after the 2014 season concludes.
NJ Bear Distribution/Sightings
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/images/bear/bear_sightings_map14sm2.jpg (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/images/bear/bear_sightings_map14.jpg)
Click for maps 1995-2014 (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/images/bear/bear_sightings_map14.jpg)
DFW's bear management strategy is an integrated approach that includes research and monitoring, non-lethal and lethal control of problem bears, public education on how to coexist with bears, enforcement of laws designed to reduce bear related conflicts, and bear population control.
In September, 2014, a fatal predatory black bear attack (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bearfacts_attack9-21-14.htm) occured in West Milford, Passaic County, resulting in the death of a 22-year old male. It is the first documented bear fatality in New Jersey's history. Though extremely rare, such attacks have and do occur throughout black bear habitat in North America.
I do see it as necessary to hunt certain animals, including black bears, and will address that later, because I got some work to go do; however, I'll leave you with this youtube video of hunters releasing a deer from another dear that had their antlers entangled. If all they do hunting for is simply for the enjoyment/fufillment/pleasure/pride of KILLING, then why did they risk personal injury to release the deer? Your oversimplification and prejudice is annoying, to say the least https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNSgr5xNYY0
don't know, you'd have to ask them.
all i know is this- if i were to go hunting with someone and immediately after they killed an animal i could get them to state one clear reason why they did it, what would it be? "because i wanted to eat it"? maybe, and good for them if so. "because i enjoy spending time outdoors with my son (father, cousin, friends, whoever)"? thats a complete non-sequitur. "because i wanted to see if i could outwit the animal"? ok, if you want, but do you have to kill it to outwit it? why not sneak up on it and take a really awesome picture?
my only conclusion, the only sensible conclusion i can even fathom is the answer is- "because i wanted to kill it."
some have expressed this tinge of sadness that comes with this, which just makes it all the more baffling. to profess a negative reaction to having done something you voluntarily sought to do and succeeded at doing, and which you have probably done before and will do again? thats just strange. i mean thats almost the talk of someone with an addiction.
rocketsocks
12-09-2015, 15:15
don't know, you'd have to ask them.
all i know is this- if i were to go hunting with someone and immediately after they killed an animal i could get them to state one clear reason why they did it, what would it be? "because i wanted to eat it"? maybe, and good for them if so. "because i enjoy spending time outdoors with my son (father, cousin, friends, whoever)"? thats a complete non-sequitur. "because i wanted to see if i could outwit the animal"? ok, if you want, but do you have to kill it to outwit it? why not sneak up on it and take a really awesome picture?
my only conclusion, the only sensible conclusion i can even fathom is the answer is- "because i wanted to kill it."
some have expressed this tinge of sadness that comes with this, which just makes it all the more baffling. to profess a negative reaction to having done something you voluntarily sought to do and succeeded at doing, and which you have probably done before and will do again? thats just strange. mean thats almost the talk of someone with an addiction.the state of NJ refers to it as harvesting not killing, just like pumpkin. Run for office, change the laws. It should also be noted it is illegal to harass hunters while they are engaged in hunting, this includes yelling or making loud noises so as to allert animal to be harvested.
bill1980
12-09-2015, 15:29
Thank you, AT Traveler for gertting this off the hunting philosophy and back on the original question, and the same to runt13 for NJ history and data. One would think, after perusing all this, that the best solution to human/ black bear conflict in heavily populated but still forested states is to cull the herd so to speak, reagrdless of whether enjoyment results for some who do the hunting.
TexasBob
12-09-2015, 15:29
History of Black Bears in New Jersey
The American black bear is native to New Jersey. Prior to European settlement black bears lived in forested regions throughout the state. As European settlement progressed, forests were cleared for towns, farming and lumber. Black bears were killed indiscriminately by settlers to protect their crops and livestock. Loss of habitat and indiscriminate killing caused the black bear population to sharply decline throughout the 1800s.
In 1953, the New Jersey Fish and Game Council (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/councils.htm#fishandgame) classified the black bear as a game animal, affording it protection from indiscriminate killing. Limited hunting was legal for black bear until 1971 when the Council, based on an assessment by Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) biologists, closed the hunting season. DFW biologists began conducting research on New Jersey's black bears in 1980. Over the last 35 years, the Garden State's black bear population has been increasing and expanding its range southward and eastward from the forested areas of northwestern New Jersey. The population has grown due to increased black bear habitat as agricultural land reverted to mature forests, protection afforded by game animal status, and bears dispersing into New Jersey from increasing populations in Pennsylvania and New York. Additionally, the state's black bears have some of the largest litters and highest reproductive rates in the nation. Today, black bears can be found throughout the state.
Since 1980, the DFW has steadily increased its efforts to responsibly manage our large and expanding black bear population and to be responsive to the increasing conflicts between bears and people. Since Fiscal Year 2001, DFW has spent more than $9 million on black bear management. This includes $5.5 million of general treasury funds and $3.5 million from the Hunters and Anglers Fund and federal grants. The Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bearpolicy15.htm) allowed for annual hunting seasons, to be evaluated after the 2014 season concludes.
NJ Bear Distribution/Sightings
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/images/bear/bear_sightings_map14sm2.jpg (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/images/bear/bear_sightings_map14.jpg)
Click for maps 1995-2014 (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/images/bear/bear_sightings_map14.jpg)
DFW's bear management strategy is an integrated approach that includes research and monitoring, non-lethal and lethal control of problem bears, public education on how to coexist with bears, enforcement of laws designed to reduce bear related conflicts, and bear population control.
In September, 2014, a fatal predatory black bear attack (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bearfacts_attack9-21-14.htm) occured in West Milford, Passaic County, resulting in the death of a 22-year old male. It is the first documented bear fatality in New Jersey's history. Though extremely rare, such attacks have and do occur throughout black bear habitat in North America.
Thanks for posting this. A good synopsis and the maps are really interesting.
rocketsocks
12-09-2015, 15:30
My 2 cents...on eating Bear.
Being an avid hunter, since 1974, as well as a lover of the AT, and a hiker. I will tell you this, everyone that I hunt with eats what they harvest. Case in point we had Bear steaks in Deer camp Monday night. And all agree its the best red meat there is, better then your best Beef steak! Way better then Venison. So as far as who eats Bear, I would say most people that harvest a Bear do.
RUNT ''13''
No way dude.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/webkit-fake-url://3aced74d-da76-4f31-8d63-bbd0f2294578/imagejpeg
Mostly for Pedaling Fool. LOL. Easy does it Kimosabe. If you look back and read Arden's comments on HIS thread it certainly was clear he was making the apparent point that humans, individually and collectively, could use more critical thinking OF A WHOLE in regard to man's behavior as it has far reaching consequences for all life. So Natural Selection involving the aspect of cooperation, coexistence, and non self absorbed behavior is definitely tied into his comments. However, posters decided on taking his thread in the direction towards a debate about hunting in general.
When I go into the woods during legal hunting seasons, as a hunter..... yes! my intention is to kill whatever legal game I am pursuing. Be it a rabbit, squirrel, pheasant, grouse, deer or bear. I also want to be in the woods, see the wildlife, walk around and check out the scenery, smell the out of doors, and bond with whoever I am with. Then if we are fortunate enough to kill our pursued legal game, we will celebrate by cooking it and eating it. In my household we eat some kind of wild game / fish or fowl 5 out of 7 days. I take enjoyment out of the whole package. I chose to be a hunter, I love to hunt, and I am not ashamed of it.
So there I said it!
Now back to our regular scheduled bickering!
RUNT ''13''
When I go into the woods during legal hunting seasons, as a hunter..... yes! my intention is to kill whatever legal game I am pursuing. Be it a rabbit, squirrel, pheasant, grouse, deer or bear. I also want to be in the woods, see the wildlife, walk around and check out the scenery, smell the out of doors, and bond with whoever I am with. Then if we are fortunate enough to kill our pursued legal game, we will celebrate by cooking it and eating it. In my household we eat some kind of wild game / fish or fowl 5 out of 7 days. I take enjoyment out of the whole package. I chose to be a hunter, I love to hunt, and I am not ashamed of it.
So there I said it!
Now back to our regular scheduled bickering!
RUNT ''13''
as i said earlier, i think you for at least acknowledging that you like killing animals. ill also point out that all the other things you enjoy as part of what you think of as "the hunting experience" are in no way close to being exclusive to hunting. you can enjoy them just as easily without the killing an animal part.
No way dude.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/webkit-fake-url://3aced74d-da76-4f31-8d63-bbd0f2294578/imagejpeg
lol my admittedly unscientific and incomplete analysis is that pretty much no one likes bear meat, but sure, someone somewhere must.
I will not hijack the thread on eating wild game, but if anyone's interested I will start another in the food section.....LOL
RUNT ''13''
History of Black Bears in New Jersey
The American black bear is native to New Jersey. Prior to European settlement black bears lived in forested regions throughout the state. As European settlement progressed, forests were cleared for towns, farming and lumber. Black bears were killed indiscriminately by settlers to protect their crops and livestock. Loss of habitat and indiscriminate killing caused the black bear population to sharply decline throughout the 1800s.
In 1953, the New Jersey Fish and Game Council (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/councils.htm#fishandgame) classified the black bear as a game animal, affording it protection from indiscriminate killing. Limited hunting was legal for black bear until 1971 when the Council, based on an assessment by Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) biologists, closed the hunting season. DFW biologists began conducting research on New Jersey's black bears in 1980. Over the last 35 years, the Garden State's black bear population has been increasing and expanding its range southward and eastward from the forested areas of northwestern New Jersey. The population has grown due to increased black bear habitat as agricultural land reverted to mature forests, protection afforded by game animal status, and bears dispersing into New Jersey from increasing populations in Pennsylvania and New York. Additionally, the state's black bears have some of the largest litters and highest reproductive rates in the nation. Today, black bears can be found throughout the state.
Since 1980, the DFW has steadily increased its efforts to responsibly manage our large and expanding black bear population and to be responsive to the increasing conflicts between bears and people. Since Fiscal Year 2001, DFW has spent more than $9 million on black bear management. This includes $5.5 million of general treasury funds and $3.5 million from the Hunters and Anglers Fund and federal grants. The Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bearpolicy15.htm) allowed for annual hunting seasons, to be evaluated after the 2014 season concludes.
NJ Bear Distribution/Sightings
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/images/bear/bear_sightings_map14sm2.jpg (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/images/bear/bear_sightings_map14.jpg)
Click for maps 1995-2014 (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/images/bear/bear_sightings_map14.jpg)
DFW's bear management strategy is an integrated approach that includes research and monitoring, non-lethal and lethal control of problem bears, public education on how to coexist with bears, enforcement of laws designed to reduce bear related conflicts, and bear population control.
In September, 2014, a fatal predatory black bear attack (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bearfacts_attack9-21-14.htm) occured in West Milford, Passaic County, resulting in the death of a 22-year old male. It is the first documented bear fatality in New Jersey's history. Though extremely rare, such attacks have and do occur throughout black bear habitat in North America.
As insightful as this is there needs to be better educating of HUMANS for CONSIDERING, CONTROLLING, OR ALTERING THEIR BEHAVIOR to NOT result in further negative bear/human problems. One might think the DFW would be instrumental in executing a comprehensive bear management plan, especially in light of the growing HUMAN POPULATION, that passed GREATER RESPONSIBILITY onto humans for avoiding negative bear encounters and management. But NO, it's easier to just kill the bears rather than to elicit more meaningful changes in human behavior.
It is NOT a bear problem! IT IS A HUMAN AND BEAR PROBLEM! How long will humans continue to ignore the consequences of their behavior in negative bear/human encounters?
It is NOT a bear problem! IT IS A HUMAN AND BEAR PROBLEM! How long will humans continue to ignore the consequences of their behavior in negative bear/human encounters?
I agree Dogwood!
RUNT '13''
rocketsocks
12-09-2015, 16:04
32927Some bear meat!Well I'd eat that. I tried to post a picture of a 2 3/4" porter house on a grill, but it didn't work. To each there own.
It is NOT a bear problem! IT IS A HUMAN AND BEAR PROBLEM! How long will humans continue to ignore the consequences of their behavior in negative bear/human encounters?
I agree Dogwood!
RUNT '13''
I've eaten bear meat in stews and stir frys. I liked it. And harvested(YES I KILLED IT) rabbits, squirrels, quail, pheasants, turkey, waterfowl, grouse, woodchucks, Mule and Whitetail deer, etc. I've also always ate the fish I caught. Overwhelmingly, my hunting experiences were not about killing. I considered my most successful "hunts" not killing anything but just being in the outdoors, with friends and family, camping, exercising/hiking long distances, going places where others haven't, etc. I was once proud of all the stock and barrel scratches and dings on my firearms because it reminded me of the places in Nature I had been.
I actually have a greater appreciation for all LIFE now so question before the act my NEED to always take LIFE. I had some rather epiphany emotional experiences after feeling the anguish, pain, fear, suffering, and death in the LIFE I was taking mostly REALLY unnecessarily when experiencing other than clean kills. I no longer hunt but do fish mostly experiencing it in a catch and release way where I'm more aware of not unduly injuring the fish. To a large extent I did, as offered here on this thread, reign in my impulses, instincts, whatever.
When the Zombies come I'll go back to hunting though. :) For now I'm satisfied with the mock kills of humans in paintballing skirmishes and target practice at the local range.
Avoid blanket statements about hunting because it's not all approached equally. For example, look at sustainable hunting practices where ALL LIFE WAS VALUED AS BEING IN A KINSHIP, with a strong day to day bond with NATURE, and taking wild animal life without considering a larger whole was discouraged, such as the hunting of game by Native American Indian tribes which was largely practiced. They took what they NEEDED not so much what they wanted.
Pedaling Fool
12-09-2015, 17:31
don't know, you'd have to ask them.
all i know is this- if i were to go hunting with someone and immediately after they killed an animal i could get them to state one clear reason why they did it, what would it be? "because i wanted to eat it"? maybe, and good for them if so. "because i enjoy spending time outdoors with my son (father, cousin, friends, whoever)"? thats a complete non-sequitur. "because i wanted to see if i could outwit the animal"? ok, if you want, but do you have to kill it to outwit it? why not sneak up on it and take a really awesome picture?
my only conclusion, the only sensible conclusion i can even fathom is the answer is- "because i wanted to kill it."
some have expressed this tinge of sadness that comes with this, which just makes it all the more baffling. to profess a negative reaction to having done something you voluntarily sought to do and succeeded at doing, and which you have probably done before and will do again? that's just strange. i mean thats almost the talk of someone with an addiction.
Your hypothetical (emphasis on hypothetical) polling of hunters why they do it is irrelevant. Like I said before, hunting and killing is part of us, it doesn't make it wrong or immoral. (But again, I understand we've set that moral issue aside, since we're all immoral in someone else's eyes, so I'll stop there).
Although, I will say just because someone feels a bit of sadness does not confuse me in the least and it goes to the point that your conclusion that all they want to do is kill for the enjoyment is totally wrong. I would say that the killing, if any thing gives that hunter a much deeper respect for life and an insight into nature that we supermarket meat-eaters don't get. Do you feel a tinge of sadness when you eat a steak?
However, back on topic on why it's important to have a bear hunt. There is no one answer, but most have already been mentioned. However, let me emphasize one important reason. To keep a healthy fear of us in the bear's behavior. This is NOT about feeling superior to a bear or animals in general. It really is the same reason you discipline your dog when you get down to the basics, but it's so much more important when it comes to wild animals, especially ones that could prey upon us. Bears don't fear us because we're bigger and stronger, they fear us because there is a long history of us hunting them, even before Europeans got here, they had to look out for Native Americans; so that fear is based on umpteen generations of bear-human interactions.
Now if you feed a bear it very quickly loses that developed fear of humans, of course that's a bad thing. However, you don't just have to feed a bear, the fact that we are out there with the bears in such large numbers as hikers and not posing a threat starts the same habituation process,albeit it takes much longer for them to totally lose their fear as opposed to feeding them, but it will happen. If we banned hunting bears altogether it will happen when one day a bear will walk right up to you and steal your food and I'm not talking about stealing from a tree, rather being true pests and threatening you as you sit there and try and eat your dinner. Stealing food is a major source of food in the wild.
If anyone believes bears are the cuddly things they appear to some, for whatever reason. Then you need to trust me on this, never attempt to leave a child alone with a bear, it will attack that child as a food source. The only reason most bears don't attack full size humans is because we fight back and hunting enforces that fear, but if a bear ever comes up to a small child with no adults around that kid's life is in real jeopardy. That's not fear talking, that just a fact of life.
To give this thread some AT focus, I would just say that for every lucky hunter who is enjoying bear steak from an animal whose range included the Trail-- there are many more hikers who will never get a chance to see that particular animal.
Seeing a bear on a thru hike is one of the highlights of the trip for most.
All discussion of ecology and lawful rights of hunters aside (some of which have a merit) removing an AT bear has a rather selfish component.
One thing I cannot fathom is how one can tree a bear with dogs -- a common occurrence along the AT -- look it in the eye and then pull the trigger just because the meat tastes good. There has got to be some other motivation, I think.
Do the AT bears wear a special T-shirt or maybe a lapel pin?
Oh, oh I know, they wear a coon skin cap. Wonder where they go it?
Lone Wolf
12-09-2015, 18:12
just whack a few hundred bears and be done with it already. y'all are makin' a mountain outa a mole hill. they'll breed back
YLike I said before, hunting and killing is part of us,
part of you maybe, not part of me, not part a great many other people.
Bears don't fear us because we're bigger and stronger, they fear us because there is a long history of us hunting them, even before Europeans got here, they had to look out for Native Americans; so that fear is based on umpteen generations of bear-human interactions.
so great grand pappy bear sits around the campfire telling the kiddies how his granddaddy got killed by the indians, does he?
this has always been one of the more humorous angles to this debate, in my view. the only bear that learns to fear humans because of hunting is the one you already killed.
There has got to be some other motivation, I think.
shhhh the hunters don't want us to talk about that.
part of you maybe, not part of me, not part a great many other people.
So you dont kill flies, spiders, ticks, mites or snakes trying to bite you or eat you? You must have a bunch of parasitic infections, Lyme disease and equine encephalitis
TexasBob
12-09-2015, 20:50
..........the only bear that learns to fear humans because of hunting is the one you already killed.
No, it ones you miss.
Why is it that you peace loving, tree hugger, save the animal, vegan people are always trying to stir up trouble, maybe you need to go hunting and kill something so you could release some of your anger on something besides other humans! I do not hear hunters trying to convince you that you should go hunting, or that you should eat meat. Why can't you just enjoy your lifestyle without complaining or interfering with someone elses, if you don't like to hunt, or eat meat that is fine with me, but don't try to push your beliefs on me or tell me that my way is wrong.
Why is it that you peace loving, tree hugger, save the animal, vegan people are always trying to stir up trouble, maybe you need to go hunting and kill something so you could release some of your anger on something besides other humans! I do not hear hunters trying to convince you that you should go hunting, or that you should eat meat. Why can't you just enjoy your lifestyle without complaining or interfering with someone elses, if you don't like to hunt, or eat meat that is fine with me, but don't try to push your beliefs on me or tell me that my way is wrong.
I'm pro Soylent Green. It's about time we start killing, umm I mean hunting, umm no I mean "harvesting" other ARMED humans for food to feed to other humans. How do you feel about that? Is that peace loving enough for you? Let's take this meat eating and killing, ummm I mean "harvesting" to the next level. We can hug a few trees, relish the success of a REAL hunt where we are all at deep peril to be killed from what we are hunting, and savor the seasoned spit fire cooked loin of human over the campfire while sitting around singing kumbaya.
A1 Steak Sauce included.
The poor vegetarians will be hunted to extinction :D
i made a joke to my gf once about her starving to death in the middle of a vegetable garden. She said "nope, i'll bash the bunnies on the head that come to eat the veggies". I've never looked at her the same way.
illabelle
12-09-2015, 23:09
Why is it that you peace loving, tree hugger, save the animal, vegan people are always trying to stir up trouble, maybe you need to go hunting and kill something so you could release some of your anger on something besides other humans! I do not hear hunters trying to convince you that you should go hunting, or that you should eat meat. Why can't you just enjoy your lifestyle without complaining or interfering with someone elses, if you don't like to hunt, or eat meat that is fine with me, but don't try to push your beliefs on me or tell me that my way is wrong.
That's a broad brush. I'm vegetarian, almost vegan. I like trees a lot, and animals too. But I'm not stirring up trouble, at least not yet...although I did give a few minutes thought to trying to cause trouble on the swimming snake thread, like how they've been hunted too much, and people get pleasure from killing snakes ... but I didn't feel like investing the time. Like most everybody else, I dislike all the back-and-forth bickering on this thread. It's pointless.
So you dont kill flies, spiders, ticks, mites or snakes trying to bite you or eat you? You must have a bunch of parasitic infections, Lyme disease and equine encephalitis
generally not, lol never had a snake try to eat me though. i suppose i swat a gnat every now and then.
No, it ones you miss.
so what we need is bad hunters. got it.
so those bears run away and tell the other bears to be careful then?
Why is it that you peace loving, tree hugger, save the animal, vegan people are always trying to stir up trouble, maybe you need to go hunting and kill something so you could release some of your anger on something besides other humans! I do not hear hunters trying to convince you that you should go hunting, or that you should eat meat. Why can't you just enjoy your lifestyle without complaining or interfering with someone elses, if you don't like to hunt, or eat meat that is fine with me, but don't try to push your beliefs on me or tell me that my way is wrong.
i bet i can find 3 groups of people who would say the same to you about something they do you find abhorrent.
The poor vegetarians will be hunted to extinction :D,,,
LOL. Don't confuse being a vegetarian with being unable to kill. Some bad arse vegatarian soldiers and fighters out there that would have little issue taking out a human in certain situations. Veganism and vegetarianism does not equal pacifism or being a wimp. There motto is we'll kill em(humans) and you grill em. More kale and quinoa for me. :D
I rarely hike in New Jersey because of the bear problem; .......I will be doing the New Jersey section in the dead of winter -
32885
s
I want to hike in bear season! I take precautions like hanging food and not having the smellies out in the open on me during hiking. Unfortunately, I have a chit-chatty partner, whom I think keeps them away! I try to remind my partner several times a day; however, we still didn't see any during our hike through Jersey - perhaps in NY next year???
Black bear can be delicious. Some of the best bratwurst I ever had were made with black bear. Mmmmm. Any way, there's very little open space and an ever growing bear, and people, population in New Jersey. Some might say that a victory in wildlife management, especially since the number have being growing for decades. As a society we (overall society, not everyone, including me) don't like having bears in our back yard and to maintain a healthy bear population in the wilderness that calls for the numbers to be reduced. It happens with all wildlife that individuals hunt. How much space does a healthy bear population need? Well, we have way more than that number, so lets open the hunt. Because, lets face it, the people aren't moving out to create more wilderness. That's a whole other can of worms.
rocketsocks
12-10-2015, 02:46
part of you maybe, not part of me, not part a great many other people.your killin' me :D
joker52186
12-10-2015, 05:14
32928
love peace and chicken grease
Traveler
12-10-2015, 07:12
Why is it that you peace loving, tree hugger, save the animal, vegan people are always trying to stir up trouble, maybe you need to go hunting and kill something so you could release some of your anger on something besides other humans! I do not hear hunters trying to convince you that you should go hunting, or that you should eat meat. Why can't you just enjoy your lifestyle without complaining or interfering with someone elses, if you don't like to hunt, or eat meat that is fine with me, but don't try to push your beliefs on me or tell me that my way is wrong.
How terrible to be peace loving. Sheesh, next thing you know there won't be a fight anywhere. Then what would you kvetch about. :-?
TexasBob
12-10-2015, 10:46
32928
love peace and chicken grease
Priceless, I laughed so hard I could hardly breath.
I've love to see how the typical Whole Foods shopper browsing the butcher displays would react to having to kill their own meat! They wouldn't take pleasure in it, that's for sure.... we are too insulated from our choices in modern society.
squeezebox
12-10-2015, 13:59
When I raised sheep and goats and butchered them. I had a knife for killing, didn't use it for anything else, wrapped it up and kept away from other knives. I would wash before and after killing. It took me a few days until I was ready to eat meat afterwards. But that's just my opinion/feelings. Home grown is the best for meat as well as tomatoes.
I've love to see how the typical Whole Foods shopper browsing the butcher displays would react to having to kill their own meat! They wouldn't take pleasure in it, that's for sure.... we are too insulated from our choices in modern society.
i agree about insulation.
and no, they wouldn't take pleasure in it. but thats how it should be and no one should.
I've love to see how the typical Whole Foods shopper browsing the butcher displays would react to having to kill their own meat! They wouldn't take pleasure in it, that's for sure.... we are too insulated from our choices in modern society.
Don't pick on the Whole Foods shoppers singling them out. Grocery store shoppers of MANY persuasions would likely recoil from the common industrial meat packing slaughter house procedures and possibly reconsider their food choices if they knew about them. The meat packers/Meat Industry - poultry, pork, beef, seafood/farm raised fish - know this so hide their common procedures from the public. They have even prompted colluding politicians/lawmakers to enact laws that make it illegal to unveil what happens in these industries. The food industry really does not want you to fully know where your food comes from, what's in it, and how it is processed.
The food industry really does not want you to fully know where your food comes from, what's in it, and how it is processed.
Indeed. It is purely motivated by profit, as so many of us seem to be. Growing up in the San Joaquin Valley, one gets to witness what goes on from farm to plate. It is, in a word, appalling. For this reason I'd be all for hunting, but then I somehow became too empathetic for the wild animals too, since the High-Sierra was not all that far. Given the choice, I'd rather kill a man, especially a hunter, than a wild animal. Reducing the human population is the only way we'll remain as free and wild as our fellow (wild) animals.
I find it mildly amusing that the vast majority of people don't know what they're putting into their bodies, but especially how to refrain from doing so. Ours is allegedly the wealthiest nation on Earth, or has been anyway, but we are far, far from the healthiest. It is our choice as individuals to change that, and we're fortunate options exist. It's weird that we all want someone else to take responsibility for us.
Don't pick on the Whole Foods shoppers singling them out. Grocery store shoppers of MANY persuasions would likely recoil from the common industrial meat packing slaughter house procedures and possibly reconsider their food choices if they knew about them.
True, but the WFM crowd is kind of fun to pick on given how natural and wholesome they think all of their choices are.... and how much they are willing to spend for things I suspect are not a whole lot healthier than cheaper options.
True, but the WFM crowd is kind of fun to pick on given how natural and wholesome they think all of their choices are.... and how much they are willing to spend for things I suspect are not a whole lot healthier than cheaper options.
By astutely observing the characteristics of the typical Whole Foods shopper anywhere I go verse the typical Wally World shopper anywhere I go I'd have to submit the Whole Foods shopper is decidedly living a healthier lifestyle and is more intelligent.
"It's weird that we all want someone else to take responsibility for us."
It's weird but also planned that way through behavioral conditioning and "willful blindness." Someone sells you on the idea that they will assume your responsibilities or make life easier for you while not telling you what you WILL HAVE TO give up in return - freedom, personal power, more hand in decision making, money, etc Makes it easier to get you to step inside the baited cage that way. Somewhere down the road, IF YOU ARE FORTUNATE, you finally come to the awareness you're no longer in control of your own life and you're an enslaved caged animal.
This is a dangerous discussion. The slave owners don't want the slaves to know they are enslaved.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/johann_wolfgang_von_goeth.html)
Since European societies tend towards excesses rooted in the religious and social beliefs the human animal is separate from and superior to the rest of Nature, disconnecting from Nature(the larger global ecology), while systematically establishing a highly prioritized connection with the economy(the flow of money), it opens the door for justifying the rampant exploitation of Nature through the dominance of the human centric mindset. Much of U.S. culture has been strongly influenced by or directly assumes these beliefs. Although this system has untold benefits for its population and the world, there are other consequences that is not readily heralded especially from within by the system's adherents. It is practically observed in a U.S. economic system that promotes waste, unnecessary consumption, and unbridled Materialism.
Under such a system, how might the environment, Nature, or a larger perspective involving ecology, or even "managing" a local bear population be approached?
Could it lead to these observations?
“Conservation is getting nowhere because it is incompatible with our Abrahamic concept of land. We abuse land(Nature, the Environment) because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land(Nature, the Environment) as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”
“The modern dogma is comfort at any cost.”
“We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes – something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.”
If this self serving human centric system is allowed to fully develop does it not also lead to perspectives of separation and superiority among the human population regarding race, economic and political systems, National/Regional norms, etc?
Contrast that cultural system with the cultures of Native American Indians who would discouraged waste, tended not to promote unnecessary consumption, avoided unbridled Materialism, connected intimately with Nature(the Environment) not seeing themselves separate from Nature but seeing themselves as part of Nature. They had a strong sense of belonging in and with the environment. There was an equilibrium and less destruction NOT just because of more game and less of a human population but because the culture's values were different too.
So, this system moves forward serving it's best human interests until humanity turns on itself?
Ok, have to get back on the hamster wheel. Work calls. Actually, work is a passionate joy, at least most of the time, that I'd largely do without getting financially imbursed. What a concept, hey?
Given the choice, I'd rather kill a man, especially a hunter, than a wild animal. Reducing the human population is the only way we'll remain as free and wild as our fellow (wild) animals.
From what I can tell, if you're going to kill a hunter, you better bring some help.
By astutely observing the characteristics of the typical Whole Foods shopper anywhere I go verse the typical Wally World shopper anywhere I go I'd have to submit the Whole Foods shopper is decidedly living a healthier lifestyle and is more intelligent.
Well I can't argue with that.
From what I can tell, if you're going to kill a hunter, you better bring some help.
The vast majority of humans, including hunters, would be easy prey for another human hunter as humans aren't accustomed of being preyed upon no less another human especially when the hunt involves a quick demise. Humans are very much a top predator in the world. And, they do NOT LIKE IT when they are not at the top of the predator chain. The human mindset is that the TOP PREDATOR TITLE belongs to them. Yet, in some ways they refuse to acknowledge that.
When are we going to see a World's Deadly Predators, Top 10 Predators, etc show that includes the human predator and its capacity for self serving characteristics?
Last Call
12-10-2015, 20:18
Can't you buy meat at Kmart nowadays?
The only time I haven't felt like I'm at the top of the food chain was on a day hike above Lake Louise many years ago when there were grizzly warning posters at the trailhead. I didn't like the feeling.
The vast majority of humans, including hunters, would be easy prey for another human hunter as humans aren't accustomed of being preyed upon no less another human especially when the hunt involves a quick demise. Humans are very much a top predator in the world. And, they do NOT LIKE IT when they are not at the top of the predator chain. The human mindset is that the TOP PREDATOR TITLE belongs to them. Yet, in some ways they refuse to acknowledge that.
When are we going to see a World's Deadly Predators, Top 10 Predators, etc show that includes the human predator and its capacity for self serving characteristics?
I don't hunt, but some my friends do. Two of them are ex-Rangers so I am pretty sure they can fit in at the top of the predator hierarchy. They walk and climb across high elevation valleys and peaks to chase goats and sheep.
They eat rocks and crap flowers
Pretty sure they and for that matter any other hunter can take Uriah and his ilk.
Having someone write about killing another human versus an animal is a pretty good indicator of how f'ed up our country is.
Fortunately the people who protect our freedom don't discriminate against the idiots. Even the ones who hear carrots scream in their dreams
jersey joe
12-10-2015, 23:34
I'm not for or against the NJ Bear Hunt but the state has decided that the Black Bear population needs to be controlled. Bear Hunts are the cheapest most effective way to control the black bear population. If there were no hunt, other avenues would be taken including chemical fertility control which would cost the state a lot more money.
I don't hunt, but some my friends do. Two of them are ex-Rangers so I am pretty sure they can fit in at the top of the predator hierarchy. They walk and climb across high elevation valleys and peaks to chase goats and sheep.
They eat rocks and crap flowers
Pretty sure they and for that matter any other hunter can take Uriah and his ilk.
Having someone write about killing another human versus an animal is a pretty good indicator of how f'ed up our country is.
Fortunately the people who protect our freedom don't discriminate against the idiots. Even the ones who hear carrots scream in their dreams
kudos for your friends, and maybe its just a regional difference, but those arent the sort of people you generally find hunting around here.
I'm not for or against the NJ Bear Hunt but the state has decided that the Black Bear population needs to be controlled. Bear Hunts are the cheapest most effective way to control the black bear population. If there were no hunt, other avenues would be taken including chemical fertility control which would cost the state a lot more money.
the state has decided or the state has successfully been petitioned by hunters and their allies? not saying i know the answer either way, but isnt a meaningless distinction.
Traveler
12-11-2015, 06:49
By astutely observing the characteristics of the typical Whole Foods shopper anywhere I go verse the typical Wally World shopper anywhere I go I'd have to submit the Whole Foods shopper is decidedly living a healthier lifestyle and is more intelligent.
So that means on alternate days you are less intelligent at Walmart as opposed to more intelligent at Whole Foods on the off days?
Traveler
12-11-2015, 06:51
I'm not for or against the NJ Bear Hunt but the state has decided that the Black Bear population needs to be controlled. Bear Hunts are the cheapest most effective way to control the black bear population. If there were no hunt, other avenues would be taken including chemical fertility control which would cost the state a lot more money.
Therein lays the problem, even with a bear hunting season the population continues to grow in NJ.
Therein lays the problem, even with a bear hunting season the population continues to grow in NJ.
as ive said once before in a different thread months ago, id like to see some hard numbers concerning that, primarily what the supposed rate of growth during the past few years when a hunt was held versus the last few years before the hunt. they dont seem to exist. vague blanket declarations are, like you have said in another thread, a campfire story.
as ive said once before in a different thread months ago, id like to see some hard numbers concerning that, primarily what the supposed rate of growth during the past few years when a hunt was held versus the last few years before the hunt. they dont seem to exist. vague blanket declarations are, like you have said in another thread, a campfire story.
Why dont you ask the game biologists in NJ? Im sure they have records.
Traveler
12-11-2015, 09:58
as ive said once before in a different thread months ago, id like to see some hard numbers concerning that, primarily what the supposed rate of growth during the past few years when a hunt was held versus the last few years before the hunt. they dont seem to exist. vague blanket declarations are, like you have said in another thread, a campfire story.
This one isn't exactly a campfire story, but I understand the point. There are a lot of pro/anti hunting sites that have all kinds of weird information. There have been various reports in on-line and print publications on this issue that carry some credibility, along with literally thousands of pages of DEP reports, benchmarking studies, and control program options. I have excerpted some information from the NJ.com site where they seem to have stated the issue well.
"State biologists say the bear population in the northwestern part of New Jersey is estimated at between 3,500 and 4,000 bruins -- and has only increased since annual hunts began in 2010."
"A five-year management plan passed in 2010 relied on a regular, one-week December hunt to thin the expanding bruin population. By the beginning of the 2010 hunt, the population was estimated at 3,400, officials said at the time. Despite the some 1,900 kills over the five hunts, reproduction has outpaced the "harvest," experts said."
Several sources have similar information, however this was the most concise without having to sort through 1,137 pages of complex reports that also exist from the NJ State DEP who have studied bear habitats and control methods over the past half decade.
All things considered, I think the issue really is less about hunting and more about people being educated in not attracting bears along with the farmlands that have gone fallow and creating new habitat areas where bears can find land to use where people aren't in large numbers if any. Obviously, there needs to be a combination of various things, including hunting to control a bear population, if in fact it can even be done.
Why dont you ask the game biologists in NJ? Im sure they have records.
if i ever happened upon one i certainly would.
This one isn't exactly a campfire story, but I understand the point. There are a lot of pro/anti hunting sites that have all kinds of weird information. There have been various reports in on-line and print publications on this issue that carry some credibility, along with literally thousands of pages of DEP reports, benchmarking studies, and control program options. I have excerpted some information from the NJ.com site where they seem to have stated the issue well.
"State biologists say the bear population in the northwestern part of New Jersey is estimated at between 3,500 and 4,000 bruins -- and has only increased since annual hunts began in 2010."
"A five-year management plan passed in 2010 relied on a regular, one-week December hunt to thin the expanding bruin population. By the beginning of the 2010 hunt, the population was estimated at 3,400, officials said at the time. Despite the some 1,900 kills over the five hunts, reproduction has outpaced the "harvest," experts said."
Several sources have similar information, however this was the most concise without having to sort through 1,137 pages of complex reports that also exist from the NJ State DEP who have studied bear habitats and control methods over the past half decade.
All things considered, I think the issue really is less about hunting and more about people being educated in not attracting bears along with the farmlands that have gone fallow and creating new habitat areas where bears can find land to use where people aren't in large numbers if any. Obviously, there needs to be a combination of various things, including hunting to control a bear population, if in fact it can even be done.
those quotes, which you describe as "the most concise" are very vague. they basically say "back in 2010 there were XXX number of bears, weve killed xxxx number, but there are still more than there in 2010" ok, really? how many more? how many were there in 2008, 2009, etc?
my issue is that if bears are reproducing that quickly then the years of say 2006-2010, when there was no hunt and presumably the bears were reproducing roughly as fast, should have seen a MASSIVE explosion in bear population, but while there was certainly some growth, it wasnt by the few thousand bears you would think it would be if all else besides the hunt was consistent.
TexasBob
12-11-2015, 11:54
Here is a story about the hunt and number of bears taken. Season runs 127-12/12
http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/index.ssf/2015/12/total_of_366_bears_killed_as_of_hunts_third_day_1. html
TexasBob
12-11-2015, 11:58
Here is a bear cookbook with delicious recipes for sweet and sour bear pot roast, bear fat pie crust and other goodies.
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/bear_recipeguide.pdf
Here is a bear cookbook with delicious recipes for sweet and sour bear pot roast, bear fat pie crust and other goodies.
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/bear_recipeguide.pdf
telling that it is on the state DEP website, dont you think?
gpburdelljr
12-11-2015, 12:10
if i ever happened upon one i certainly would.
You know how to use a phone don't you?
You know how to use a phone don't you?
oh yeah im sure one of them wants to get on the phone and talk to me.
TexasBob
12-11-2015, 12:53
You know how to use a phone don't you?
oh yeah im sure one of them wants to get on the phone and talk to me.
You are a New Jersey resident so give it try what do you have to lose? The worst thing that can happen is they say "Sorry, too busy to talk". They probably can direct you to some report on the web that will tell you what you want to know. Collecting data is what they do.
August W.
12-11-2015, 14:52
You are a New Jersey resident so give it try what do you have to lose? The worst thing that can happen is they say "Sorry, too busy to talk". They probably can direct you to some report on the web that will tell you what you want to know. Collecting data is what they do.
It speaks volumes that tdoczi would rather anonymously bicker with otherwise uninvolved strangers on the internet than contact anyone who is directly involved in studying and managing bears in that region, and why you folks continue to entertain this person is beyond me.
Hmmm...... wonder how much bear habitat has been compromised by the production of the electricity I have waisted reading and responding to this thread? Wonder if others reading this have thought about that?
Hmmm...... wonder how much bear habitat has been compromised by the production of the electricity I have waisted reading and responding to this thread? Wonder if others reading this have thought about that?
I am currently guilty. I am in need of reform. Change is in the wind Can you steer me in the direction of a 12 Step Program?
Oops, slipped again.
It speaks volumes that tdoczi would rather anonymously bicker with otherwise uninvolved strangers on the internet than contact anyone who is directly involved in studying and managing bears in that region, and why you folks continue to entertain this person is beyond me.
Hmmm...... wonder how much bear habitat has been compromised by the production of the electricity I have waisted reading and responding to this thread? Wonder if others reading this have thought about that?
id rather not annoy professional people who have a job to do. i have no such reservations about tossing thoughts onto a message board for people to be free to choose whether to reply to or ignore.
Traveler
12-11-2015, 16:40
those quotes, which you describe as "the most concise" are very vague. they basically say "back in 2010 there were XXX number of bears, weve killed xxxx number, but there are still more than there in 2010" ok, really? how many more? how many were there in 2008, 2009, etc?
my issue is that if bears are reproducing that quickly then the years of say 2006-2010, when there was no hunt and presumably the bears were reproducing roughly as fast, should have seen a MASSIVE explosion in bear population, but while there was certainly some growth, it wasnt by the few thousand bears you would think it would be if all else besides the hunt was consistent.
Unfortunately, though we can get a pretty fair idea of the number of bears taken by hunting along with car wrecks and problem bear kills, the total population is an estimate. It may be a fairly accurate estimate, but its not a hard number. There are, however increasing bear/human interactions that are reported through the past 5 years or so, another indication bears are increasing in number.
My point was, hunting alone will not provide bear population control unless the season is expanded by a week or three, but even then its questionable. Other contributing factors to the bear population increases could be bears from surrounding states being trapped and released, or just pushed out of their range by other bears. Its a regional issue to be sure.
Traveler
12-11-2015, 16:42
Hmmm...... wonder how much bear habitat has been compromised by the production of the electricity I have waisted reading and responding to this thread? Wonder if others reading this have thought about that?
I am currently guilty. I am in need of reform. Change is in the wind Can you steer me in the direction of a 12 Step Program?
Oops, slipped again.
If you shop around you can probably find bargain Bear recovery centers that use a 7 or 6 step program. Might save a few bucks.
If you shop around you can probably find bargain Bear recovery centers that use a 7 or 6 step program. Might save a few bucks.
LOL.
Oops slipped up again. Do I have to return my 30 mins of electronic sobriety chip? :D
Traveler
12-11-2015, 17:25
LOL.
Oops slipped up again. Do I have to return my 30 mins of electronic sobriety chip? :D
The 6 step program has 15 minute Lucidity Chips, you can trade 2- 30 minute sobriety chips for one Lucidity Chips (affectionately called Loonies)
Unfortunately, though we can get a pretty fair idea of the number of bears taken by hunting along with car wrecks and problem bear kills, the total population is an estimate. It may be a fairly accurate estimate, but its not a hard number. There are, however increasing bear/human interactions that are reported through the past 5 years or so, another indication bears are increasing in number.
My point was, hunting alone will not provide bear population control unless the season is expanded by a week or three, but even then its questionable. Other contributing factors to the bear population increases could be bears from surrounding states being trapped and released, or just pushed out of their range by other bears. Its a regional issue to be sure.
decent population estimates for more years than 2010 would be an improvement.
the increasing bear human interactions (are there numbers that support this? i mean there have been a lot of "incidents" even before the hunt began in 2010. this might be an "increase" in the same way we all think violent crime is on the rise even though the opposite is true) can just as easily by a sign of further human encroachment than of increased bear population. perhaps a more accurate interpretation of the statement you quote is "despite the hunt being held for the past 5 years, nuisance bears continue to be an issue"
Traveler
12-11-2015, 17:42
decent population estimates for more years than 2010 would be an improvement.
the increasing bear human interactions (are there numbers that support this? i mean there have been a lot of "incidents" even before the hunt began in 2010. this might be an "increase" in the same way we all think violent crime is on the rise even though the opposite is true) can just as easily by a sign of further human encroachment than of increased bear population. perhaps a more accurate interpretation of the statement you quote is "despite the hunt being held for the past 5 years, nuisance bears continue to be an issue"
The NJ DEP started the current Bear rating system in 2000, so there is another 10 years of data if you want to dig around the archive of PDF files. I have inserted a link to the NJDEP Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy. Though it doesn't have a lot of what you are looking for, it does have "Literature Citations" of materials used in development and execution of the Policy. Most of these are PDF files that can be referenced. Not sure it will help or not, theres a LOT of stuff there. Mull some cider!
http://www.njfishandwildlife.com/bearpolicy15.htm
The NJ DEP started the current Bear rating system in 2000, so there is another 10 years of data if you want to dig around the archive of PDF files. I have inserted a link to the NJDEP Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy. Though it doesn't have a lot of what you are looking for, it does have "Literature Citations" of materials used in development and execution of the Policy. Most of these are PDF files that can be referenced. Not sure it will help or not, theres a LOT of stuff there. Mull some cider!
http://www.njfishandwildlife.com/bearpolicy15.htm
at a glance it doesnt seem to have much of what i am looking for. the summary of complaints for 2006-2010 would be very interesting were there a comparative document for more recent, post bear hunt years. maybe there will be soon.
squeezebox
12-11-2015, 17:56
Damn horny bears
Speak for Yourself!!
Lone Wolf
12-11-2015, 19:40
humans kill 3/4 million babies here in the US a year. what's 400 bears or so?
squeezebox
12-11-2015, 19:56
humans kill 3/4 million babies here in the US a year. what's 400 bears or so?
Let's not go there please!!
This thread needs to die!!
vamelungeon
12-11-2015, 20:54
humans kill 3/4 million babies here in the US a year. what's 400 bears or so?
And a great number of the people who lament the death of the bears aren't bothered one whit by the babies.
Lone Wolf
12-11-2015, 21:00
just tryin' to bring a little perspective into view. the thread has drifted so much, as always. time to close it out.
just tryin' to bring a little perspective into view. the thread has drifted so much, as always. time to close it out.
I am glad I don't think like you -- the guilt I'd feel for sitting by and not taking up arms to stop mass murder on such a scale would likely drive me insane.
Wise Old Owl
12-11-2015, 23:01
I don't think like LW and he is right. The thread needs to die. Uh the statistic was much higher...
Apparently there is a major problem in growing rubber trees in the USA. No worries Rick.
rocketsocks
12-11-2015, 23:35
The widest, and possibly the longest bear hunt is set to open in New Jersey on Monday 12/7. It is very difficult for me, as a hiker and a nature enthusiast to understand the thinking that goes into making decisions like this. Why are some estimated 3500 black bears in the state too many?
I read an article in my local newspaper that stated a simple fact: If humans were more careful about how they dispose of food scraps, and didn't go so far as to feed the bears (deliberately), we would not need to reduce the bear population. Yet no one has attempted to write legislation to "seal the lid" on trash cans, and impose heavy fines, and even jail time (or at least community service) for those who feed bears.
It's a simple problem, with a simple solution - and killing 20% of the bear population is not the solution.
If we humans didn't continue to invade the bears' territory by tearing down forests to build homes, we wouldn't have the problem. The main reason New Jersey has such a problem with bears, is that people have pushed their homes into the bears' territory, giving the bears easy meals, and causing them to habituate with man. Then, when the same bears go back into the forest, and come across hikers on the trails, they immediately associate those hikers with food, and begin tracking them. In September, the Ramapo State forest was closed because "aggressive bears" were tracking hikers.
I rarely hike in New Jersey because of the bear problem; especially during the warmer months. I have already decided that if I want to complete the AT in sections, I will be doing the New Jersey section in the dead of winter - when bears are hibernating, and humans are mostly indoors.
32885
Please do your share to save the bears!
ArdenI've lived in jersey for 45 years...I've yet to see a bear. truth!
I don't think like LW and he is right. The thread needs to die. Uh the statistic was much higher...
Apparently there is a major problem in growing rubber trees in the USA. No worries Rick.
end this thread and start a new one
why do bears need to reduce the human population
Pedaling Fool
12-12-2015, 09:50
Wait, Wait....!!!....before you end the thread, one last drift...another interesting wildlife story.
http://news.yahoo.com/mysterious-buffalo-herd-runs-amok-canadian-prairies-232029710.html
Ottawa (AFP) -
A mysterious buffalo herd numbering almost 100 has appeared in the Canadian prairie province of Saskatchewan, officials said Friday, 150 years after they were hunted to the brink of extinction.
Police issued a warning to drivers to watch out for the large animals on local highways, while officials in the town of Tisdale, Saskatchewan, 300 kilometers (185 miles) north of the provincial capital Regina, try to sort out what to do with the beasts.
Spokespeople for the police and the town said they have no idea where the animals came from, and it remains unclear if they are domesticated or wild.
"We're not sure where they're from," Royal Canadian Mounted Police Sergeant Daryl Andrusiak told AFP.
"They were spotted crossing a highway south of town," he said.
"The last thing you'd expect to see while driving on a highway in Saskatchewan nowadays is a buffalo, so we wanted to alert the public of the danger.
"They have very dark fur so they're not easy to spot and they're quite well built (weighing about 1,400 pounds), so I don't see any (vehicle) collision with them ending very well."
There have been a few near misses but no crashes, so far, and one animal rammed a vehicle. The herd has also pushed through fences into barnyards.
Buffalo, also known as bison, are raised on some Saskatchewan farms for meat, but no farmer has reported a missing herd.
And the closest known wild herd, which was reintroduced by conservationists about a decade ago, lives more than 500 kilometers away in a national park.
A spokesperson for the town said their poundkeeper is considering corralling and relocating the animals, but nobody is sure where to send them if they do manage to round them up.
Meanwhile, large numbers of moose -- which normally live in Canada's boreal forests -- have also been moving into Saskatchewan farmlands in recent years.
Scientists are studying why, but speculate that a lack of predators and an abundance of food (crops) is at least part of the reason.
sound like woods buffalo have come out of N Alberta - they are damn big, I had a mutual startling with one while hiking in the national park near Edmonton - it was coming on dark as I was finishing a loop when I came upon it apparently grazing in the trail - fortunately it was facing away from me as it charged off into the brush, otherwise I could have easily been steamrolled
Wait, Wait....!!!....before you end...before you go.....here's another interesting story I NEED to tell.
I bet that's not the first time you did that. :D
472 killed last week
More Bears Killed in Hunt
http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-bears-killed-in-new-jersey-hunt-1450057996