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

[berkshirebirder]

The information that follows is from the Care2 website:

http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-welfare/blog/nj-black-bears-in-danger/


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

A report (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/bear/policy_lit/cbbmp_comments_received2010.pdf) showing the public's opinion on the scheduled December black bear hunt in NJ has just been released. Despite the overwhelming number of comments against a statewide black bear hunt, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Robert Martin (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/commissioner/) is in favor of allowing the hunt to go on as scheduled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some points to mention:



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

[JAK]

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

[couscous]

More info for those interested. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-21/new-jersey-black-bears-growing-bolder-prompting-first-hunt-in-five-years.html)

[canoehead]

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

[jersey joe]

Here are some points to mention:



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

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

[Deadeye]

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

[karo]

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

[mipointofvu]

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

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

http://wildnewjersey.tv/2010/07/29/wnj-opinion-a-bear-hunt-is-a-good-thing.aspx

[mipointofvu]

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

[berkshirebirder]

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

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

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

[Tuckahoe]

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

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

[berkshirebirder]

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

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

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

[mipointofvu]

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

[rickb]

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

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

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

[Jack Tarlin]

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

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

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

And many saw more than they could count.

[woodsy]

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

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

[Graywolf]

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

[berkshirebirder]

From the Bloomberg Report link posted above by couscous:


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


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

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

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

[DavidNH]

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

I like seeing bears. Don't you?

David

[jersey joe]

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

I can't speak as a wildlife manager (much less on that really has his priorities straight) but as USERS and HIKERS of the AT, there is no need to reduce the population.
Rickb, you are generally correct, on my thru hike i saw only ONE bear. However, I went out for a two day hike in NJ a couple weeks ago and saw FIVE bear. The numbers are increasing dramatically in the area in large part because the norm is for a mama bear to have three cubs or even four instead of one or two that was common in the past or in different areas.

[Pedaling Fool]

...The numbers are increasing dramatically in the area in large part because the norm is for a mama bear to have three cubs or even four instead of one or two that was common in the past or in different areas.
Let me guess...Global warming:D

[tdoczi]

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

i love that word you capitalize, THEIR. so if i go into the woods, cut down a bunch of the trees with permission of some other humans, and build myself a house and have 2 kids and a dog the local animal population is required to respect the boundaries i've erected because it is suddenly MINE? i dont think so. and if they don't, the answer is to shoot a bunch of them? i know it largely is just me who thinks that way but i can never get how humans have developed this attitude towards wildlife.

[Pedaling Fool]

i love that word you capitalize, THEIR. so if i go into the woods, cut down a bunch of the trees with permission of some other humans, and build myself a house and have 2 kids and a dog the local animal population is required to respect the boundaries i've erected because it is suddenly MINE? i dont think so. and if they don't, the answer is to shoot a bunch of them? i know it largely is just me who thinks that way but i can never get how humans have developed this attitude towards wildlife.
The answer is basically, YES.

It's not just a "human attitude" If a bear finds a den that was previously occupied by a fox (or whatever), there's no "right to ownership". In nature it's all a matter of 'Might equals right', and whoever wins gets the den. We're no different, we are just a product of nature and nature requires us to selfishly look-out for ourselves/species.

The fact that we now look at things in terms of right or wrong is a break from nature.

If you find roaches in your house do you not try and kill them? If a squirrel, raccon or whatever gets in your house do you not try and get them out?

[le loupe]

It would have been interesting to see how a hunting ban would change bear demographics and size and behavior over the next 10 years or so. I would like to know more about the black bear.

That information is available-

"The bear population in northwestern New Jersey has grown from 500 bears in 1992 to more than 3,400 bears, and bears have now been encountered in all 21 counties."

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/science-updates/nj-black-bear-hunt-gets-final-approval-for-december

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

[Jack Tarlin]

tdoczi:

You are completely missing my point. When I emphasize the word "THEIR", what I'm saying is that it's easy for people from New York or Boston or Connecticut to tut-tut and admonish other people, and it's easy for these folks to dictate how things should be done in New Jersey, but it's not New Yorkers or Bostonians who have to deal with these problems, and if it was THEIR houses that were getting raider or were it THEIR kids who were being endangered by wild animals, then you better believe their perspective would be different.

And as to humans "developing" this horrible attitude towards wildlife, well sorry, this attitude has been around for millennia and is not a newly developed attitude created by contemporary people building McMansions in the woods. Hundreds, if not thousands of years ago, native people in America had a very definite and very singular attitude towards wild animals that threatened their families (like, say, wolves, bears, etc.)

When required, they killed them without a second thought. This is not exactly a new concept.

[le loupe]

A state wide hunt is not very humane. All areas including protected areas will be open.

A statewide hunt is not proposed.

"A black bear hunt would take place in December, concurrent with the six-day firearm deer hunting season, with specific rules to be set up by the Division of Fish and Wildlife in coming months. The hunt would be held in portions of a 1,000 square-mile area north of Route 80 in Morris, Sussex, Warren and Passaic counties."

same article as above

[le loupe]

As to baiting- what is wrong with that?

We loathe the "sporting hunter" who is "trigger happy" and kills the trophy. He uses more "honorable" methods?

If you sincerely desire population reduction, baiting allows for guaranteed results.

[tdoczi]

The answer is basically, YES.

It's not just a "human attitude" If a bear finds a den that was previously occupied by a fox (or whatever), there's no "right to ownership". In nature it's all a matter of 'Might equals right', and whoever wins gets the den. We're no different, we are just a product of nature and nature requires us to selfishly look-out for ourselves/species.

The fact that we now look at things in terms of right or wrong is a break from nature.

If you find roaches in your house do you not try and kill them? If a squirrel, raccon or whatever gets in your house do you not try and get them out?

so if i want to kill my neighbor and take his house that would be natural and acceptable? no, of course not. i dont see how going into a bears home and killing it because you dont want to coexist with it is any different. whacky view i know.

if TRULY threatened, then fine. but when people say stuff like 1200 incidents have been reported we're not talking about 1200 deaths or even 1200 incidents of injury or even contact.

and by the way i live in NJ

[Jack Tarlin]

Actually, in most states if you discovered your neighbor breaking into your home, vandalizing or damaging your property, and especially, if your neighbor was threatening your family with bodily harm or worse, well in all 50 states, you WOULD by permitted to shoot him, and most people would feel that doing so would be perfectly "natural and acceptable". If this applies to unwelcome behavior by humans then it certainly applies to bears as well.

[tdoczi]

Actually, in most states if you discovered your neighbor breaking into your home, vandalizing or damaging your property, and especially, if your neighbor was threatening your family with bodily harm or worse, well in all 50 states, you WOULD by permitted to shoot him, and most people would feel that doing so would be perfectly "natural and acceptable". If this applies to unwelcome behavior by humans then it certainly applies to bears as well.

and anyone who wakes up and finds a bear in their house or perhaps even on their property and kills THAT bear i have no argument with.

[chief]

and anyone who wakes up and finds a bear in their house or perhaps even on their property and kills THAT bear i have no argument with.In your original post you say, "i can never get how humans have developed this attitude towards wildlife". Now, after reading a couple of reasonable arguments, you do concede we are allowed to protect our space. See how that works?

[Pedaling Fool]

so if i want to kill my neighbor and take his house that would be natural and acceptable? no, of course not. i dont see how going into a bears home and killing it because you dont want to coexist with it is any different. whacky view i know.

if TRULY threatened, then fine. but when people say stuff like 1200 incidents have been reported we're not talking about 1200 deaths or even 1200 incidents of injury or even contact.

and by the way i live in NJ
Dude, you totally missed it. But to answer your question:

"so if i want to kill my neighbor and take his house that would be natural and acceptable?" Yes, as far as the law of nature is concerned that's just fine...now our laws may have a problem with that...

In nature life is brutal and when the male lion(s) have domain over a pride they are always on alert for rogue males who will run them off and kill all their offspring in order to create an urge-to-mate in the females. Dolphins have shown similar traits.

There is no paradise in nature -- no garden of eden --this is just an illusion created by gullible humans

[tdoczi]

In your original post you say, "i can never get how humans have developed this attitude towards wildlife". Now, after reading a couple of reasonable arguments, you do concede we are allowed to protect our space. See how that works?

I was making the distinction, for sake of clarity, between killing a bear that had actually done something to you and going out hunting. they are not the same thing and someone read my criticism as hunting as me proclaiming we shouldnt defend ourselves. i was never doing anything remotely of the sort and have conceded nothing.

[tdoczi]

Dude, you totally missed it. But to answer your question:

"so if i want to kill my neighbor and take his house that would be natural and acceptable?" Yes, as far as the law of nature is concerned that's just fine...now our laws may have a problem with that...

In nature life is brutal and when the male lion(s) have domain over a pride they are always on alert for rogue males who will run them off and kill all their offspring in order to create an urge-to-mate in the females. Dolphins have shown similar traits.

There is no paradise in nature -- no garden of eden --this is just an illusion created by gullible humans

if thats truly what you believe then great. but are the laws of society seriously the only thing keeping you from killing your neighbors and taking their things? thats not very rand-ian of you.

[Pedaling Fool]

I was making the distinction, for sake of clarity, between killing a bear that had actually done something to you and going out hunting. they are not the same thing and someone read my criticism as hunting as me proclaiming we shouldnt defend ourselves. i was never doing anything remotely of the sort and have conceded nothing.
Just because someone was talking about hunting as a way of defense, it is not the only reason to hunt. Hunting is also useful to control the population. Look at the problems with deer, should we not go out and hunt them. And to do that you got to go out and shoot them.

[tdoczi]

Just because someone was talking about hunting as a way of defense, it is not the only reason to hunt. Hunting is also useful to control the population. Look at the problems with deer, should we not go out and hunt them. And to do that you got to go out and shoot them.

perhaps, but i'm not going to bother going there. i was replying to someone who purely took the defense angle.

[Pedaling Fool]

if thats truly what you believe then great. but are the laws of society seriously the only thing keeping you from killing your neighbors and taking their things? thats not very rand-ian of you.
All right, I'm about to give up on you. You're just not getting it.

thats not very rand-ian of you. What's that mean? I think you're alluding to Ayn Rand. I'm no fan of her; John Gault (yes with a "u") is my real name and I picked it before I even knew who she was.

I respect her past, but she had it wrong and on the other side of the spectrum Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had it wrong when they wrote the Communist Manifesto...which I find a very amusing read.

[tdoczi]

All right, I'm about to give up on you. You're just not getting it.

thats not very rand-ian of you. What's that mean? I think you're alluding to Ayn Rand. I'm no fan of her; John Gault (yes with a "u") is my real name and I picked it before I even knew who she was.

I respect her past, but she had it wrong and on the other side of the spectrum Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had it wrong when they wrote the Communist Manifesto...which I find a very amusing read.

my apologies for reading something into your name that isnt there. and as i said, if the philosophy you stated about how you would treat your fellow man if unburdened by the laws of society is truly what you believe then i have no further argument.

[Pedaling Fool]

It's not philosophy.

[tdoczi]

It's not philosophy.

replace the word philosophy in my last post with any word you want and the point is still the same.

[Scooby99]

Where do they get the 600k cost of the hunt?

[jersey joe]

Where do they get the 600k cost of the hunt?
I was wondering the same thing. Everything I read said that the bear hunt was the most cost effective way to cull the bear population and the cost of the hunting permits actually helped RAISE money.

[berkshirebirder]

tdoczi, if I understand your view correctly, you are saying it's ok to hunt/kill black bears that have hurt humans or invaded their home or caused damage to human property. You seem to believe it's wrong to go out and kill bears at random.

Animals must establish territories. The greater number there are, the more they come in contact with humans--it's a given. It's necessary to control numbers of top predator animals, unless you believe those animals have more "rights" than humans.

Should we try to control human population growth? I'd say yes. Should we try to limit the amount of land resources used by humans? Also a yes from me. But it's absolutely necessary to keep the number of top predator wild animals proportionate to the amount of wilderness available to them.

[kayak karl]

The most densely populated state is New Jersey. that being said the problem is different then other states. are parks are small and are surrounded by developments. something has to be done.
we also have the most toxic sites. maybe if the bears knew this:confused:

[berkshirebirder]

Where do they (Care2 website) get the 600k cost of the hunt? --scooby99

The figure came up during a meeting over blueberry waffles between Care2 and a 400-pound member of the Bruin Anti-defamation League.

[tdoczi]

The most densely populated state is New Jersey. that being said the problem is different then other states. are parks are small and are surrounded by developments. something has to be done.
we also have the most toxic sites. maybe if the bears knew this:confused:

so why not propose that some people pick up and move out? especially since it is so toxic and we do know this.

[tdoczi]

tdoczi, if I understand your view correctly, you are saying it's ok to hunt/kill black bears that have hurt humans or invaded their home or caused damage to human property. You seem to believe it's wrong to go out and kill bears at random.

Animals must establish territories. The greater number there are, the more they come in contact with humans--it's a given. It's necessary to control numbers of top predator animals, unless you believe those animals have more "rights" than humans.

Should we try to control human population growth? I'd say yes. Should we try to limit the amount of land resources used by humans? Also a yes from me. But it's absolutely necessary to keep the number of top predator wild animals proportionate to the amount of wilderness available to them.


my view in a nutshell is that we should not think it is ok to do to wild animals that which we wouldnt condone doing to humans. you say youre in favor of population controls for humans. would you take that to the point of saying excess humans should be shot and killed at random?

and if you want to fix the proportion of wildnerness available for the bears why doesnt anyone ever propose moving some of the people out? or maybe the bears are trying to scare us into leaving because there are too many of us around.

i have a proposal, using fictional numbers for illustration. lets say that in every 100 square miles in NJ there are twice as many bears as some human scientist has decided is a healthy population. i say as a solution to this problem humans are ordered to vacate an adjoining 50 square miles while simultaneously we reduce the bear population by 25%. sounds reasonable, no?

[berkshirebirder]

tdoczi...stop and think a minute, and don't drag out false analogies. Being pro human population control is NOT the same as believing humans should be killed at random.

I think humans have more rights than animals. I believe it's ok for humans to eat other members of the animal kingdom. That doesn't mean I think it's ok to torture animals, in case you're thinking of using that analogy next.

If you live in northwest NJ, are you saying you'd move out and cede more land to black bears?

[Pedaling Fool]

my view in a nutshell is that we should not think it is ok to do to wild animals that which we wouldnt condone doing to humans. you say youre in favor of population controls for humans. would you take that to the point of saying excess humans should be shot and killed at random?

So you must be a vegan? You know plants feel pain too. Is it alright to kill bugs.

and if you want to fix the proportion of wildnerness available for the bears why doesnt anyone ever propose moving some of the people out? or maybe the bears are trying to scare us into leaving because there are too many of us around.
And if they don't want to move then what? And who/what organization gets to decide? (Note: this would not fall under Eminent Domain -- at least not without some shifty legal maneuvers). Just curious...

i have a proposal, using fictional numbers for illustration. lets say that in every 100 square miles in NJ there are twice as many bears as some human scientist has decided is a healthy population. i say as a solution to this problem humans are ordered to vacate an adjoining 50 square miles while simultaneously we reduce the bear population by 25%. sounds reasonable, no?
Increasing Human population is a problem. Should we adopt the chinese birthcontrol method?

And of course here in the USA our biggest contribution to increase in population is LEGAL immigration. Should we close the borders?

Your "nutshell" has a lot of holes and potential problems. It's easy to sit there and come up with a "new" way to do business, but you can't summarize a new way in a nutshell.

[JAK]

Not saying it will be easy, but continuing to avoid the human overpopulation problem in the name of "freedom" or some such thing is burying our heads in the sand. We have to find the most humane way to do it, and get on with it.

[JAK]

The official Chinese approach wasn't all that bad, for a start.
They do alot of things well. Not sure exactly why they stopped.
Perhaps because they found a market.

[Bearpaw]

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

I don't know if it is still practiced, but in the '90's, a common bear hunting tactic in NC was to chase and tree bears with massive bear hounds, then shoot them out of the tree. I grew up hunting small game and deer (and still do occasionally), but that practice always bothered me. Badly. Baiting seems more ethical to me.

As for hunts in New Jersey, it seems like a necessity. Bears were already an issue in the suburbs when I hiked through NJ eleven years ago. It seems they've only gotten more prevalent since.

[Pedaling Fool]

The official Chinese approach wasn't all that bad, for a start.
They do alot of things well. Not sure exactly why they stopped.
Perhaps because they found a market.
What do you mean by "official Chinese approach". If you're talking about their One-child policy, then I got to ask if you've ever heard of propaganda?

This is one of those issues where it can be played up or down; I'm sure some have played it up, but no doubt the Chinese have played it down.

There is no one method of enforcement thus how it's enforced varies. And In China they don't really embrace the human rights thing.

Overpopulation is a real potential problem, but we don't need to take lessons from the chinese.

[rickb]

i can never get how humans have developed this attitude towards wildlife.

I like the way you think.

Somewhere on Whiteblaze there is a picture of a black bear in the back seat of my car shot at the Delaware Water Gap. People are probably smarter now (I hope I am) but my guess is that many of these grave problems were of people's own making. Not so smart to leave chips and marshmallows in your back seat when going for a hike to Sunfish Pond...

Some people surely would have blamed bears. I know that was my own damn fault.

This spring I could have blamed the mother raccoon for taking up residence in my chimney, but truth be know I was just too cheap to buy a cap and my luck ran out. When they started to make a lot of noise, I dropped a chain and rope down to make the climb a 4.0 and they moved on. Here is picture of one of the crew.

I could have removed them by force, but what the hell. The noise was much better than listening to Snookie on TV.

Right now I am greeted by a ground hog that dug its burrow 4 feet from my front door. And yes it has gotten all the lettuce. That sucks, but who really likes a salad anyway? I hope he doesn't chew on the gas line, but that hole is so freaking big, the gas would disperse pretty well, right?

I am not going to get into the woodpeckers. My point is that I cold have gone into battle mode, but I like challenges where winning isn't a forgone conclusion.

I think it is often times better to just adapt and laugh and enjoy the beauty of God's creation whenever given the chance.

And despite tales of hikers seeing countless bear on a thru hiker, my guess is that most hikers remember each and everyone of them, as a cherished memory. For years longer than even the cold bears and burgers thant seem to be such a highlight at the time.

YMMV.

[Don H]

The "Bear Group" answer to the problem is plastic trash cans with screw on lids. Heck we got raccoons around here that will chew right through a plastic can!
Maybe the folks in NJ need to start hanging their trash.

http://www.savenjbears.com/Cans.html

[BAG "o" TRICKS]

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

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

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

And many saw more than they could count.

I believe there has been two attacks in PA already this year and one was sited lumbering down Church Street in Duncannon PA a few weeks ago, and it wasn't officer Bruno, who by the way is back on duty patroling the Duncannon Streets. Was told by a WCO that the black bear numbers are increasing significantly in some of the more populated areas of PA too. Went to NJ to do some trail magic with Jester a few weeks ago and within a minute of driving toward the top of Sunrise Mountain one walked across the road in front of us. Hate to shoot the bruins but something has to be done in NJ and at the present time a controlled hunt is the only solution. They've tried trapping and tagging and for the most part it doesn't work in all cases and is more costly that a hunt. I'm not sure where some of the cost figures to the NJ taxpayer came from in previous post but last I checked each hunter must pay for and obtain a permit for the proposed hunt, which 'should' make the state some $. I hate to say this, but I feel that if the hunt does not take place to reduce their numbers that someone 'will' sooner or later, be attacked by one.

[General Fireball]

As somebody who lives in the thick of northern NJ bear country, I can tell you that bear/human interactions are so common as to be unremarkable. Two houses in our community were broken into by bears this week (the people were stupid--food left out on tables and windows left open. That's asking for it.) Garbage spread around, feeders smashed, sheds broken open, car windows smashed, pet food (and sometimes pets) disappeared--all very common. Much of this could be changed by people learning how to live in bear country, which some (but hardly all) do. But that won't do it all. This year, for the first time, I have seen bears that were scrawny, scraggly, ill-fed looking--almost like stray dogs. Normally they are all sleek and healthy. This implies the population is outstripping available food (natural and non-). One of these scraggly bears has been charging people. I don't think a hunt is a solve-all, but given the populations pressures, it will help. I'm not a hunter and don't take pleasure in seeing a wild creature killed. But we're talking about a few hundred bear. NJ hunters kill something like 55,000 whitetails a year, and nobody fusses over that.

[JAK]

Ideally, people that live in cities should not be permitted to vote on such matters, or hunt either. For that matter, people shouldn't be living in cities in the first place, but where else are you going to keep them all. So if we do have to have cities, and the majority of people living in cities, we should at least recognize that that is not the best place to be making decisions from, on matters concerning the real world.

[tdoczi]

tdoczi...stop and think a minute, and don't drag out false analogies. Being pro human population control is NOT the same as believing humans should be killed at random.

I think humans have more rights than animals. I believe it's ok for humans to eat other members of the animal kingdom. That doesn't mean I think it's ok to torture animals, in case you're thinking of using that analogy next.

If you live in northwest NJ, are you saying you'd move out and cede more land to black bears?

if i lived in a bear populated area i'd either learn to deal with it or move.

and i never said you being in favor of human population control meant you wanted to kill people at random. i asked if youw ere, facetiously at that. since you see killing bears at random as an acceptable solution i was asking if you would favor the same as a solution to human overpopulation.

clearly it does boil down to a question of whether humans have a greater right to the planet than any other animals. you say we do. on what do you base this?

[tdoczi]

I like the way you think.

Somewhere on Whiteblaze there is a picture of a black bear in the back seat of my car shot at the Delaware Water Gap. People are probably smarter now (I hope I am) but my guess is that many of these grave problems were of people's own making. Not so smart to leave chips and marshmallows in your back seat when going for a hike to Sunfish Pond...

Some people surely would have blamed bears. I know that was my own damn fault.

This spring I could have blamed the mother raccoon for taking up residence in my chimney, but truth be know I was just too cheap to buy a cap and my luck ran out. When they started to make a lot of noise, I dropped a chain and rope down to make the climb a 4.0 and they moved on. Here is picture of one of the crew.

I could have removed them by force, but what the hell. The noise was much better than listening to Snookie on TV.

Right now I am greeted by a ground hog that dug its burrow 4 feet from my front door. And yes it has gotten all the lettuce. That sucks, but who really likes a salad anyway? I hope he doesn't chew on the gas line, but that hole is so freaking big, the gas would disperse pretty well, right?

I am not going to get into the woodpeckers. My point is that I cold have gone into battle mode, but I like challenges where winning isn't a forgone conclusion.

I think it is often times better to just adapt and laugh and enjoy the beauty of God's creation whenever given the chance.

And despite tales of hikers seeing countless bear on a thru hiker, my guess is that most hikers remember each and everyone of them, as a cherished memory. For years longer than even the cold bears and burgers thant seem to be such a highlight at the time.

YMMV.

you also probably don't weed your garden. i don't either. i like to refer to it as natural vegetation. it doesnt go over well with my neighbor who poisons groundhogs and bunnies in the name of having a "beautiful" lawn.

[tdoczi]

So you must be a vegan? You know plants feel pain too. Is it alright to kill bugs.

And if they don't want to move then what? And who/what organization gets to decide? (Note: this would not fall under Eminent Domain -- at least not without some shifty legal maneuvers). Just curious...

Increasing Human population is a problem. Should we adopt the chinese birthcontrol method?

And of course here in the USA our biggest contribution to increase in population is LEGAL immigration. Should we close the borders?

Your "nutshell" has a lot of holes and potential problems. It's easy to sit there and come up with a "new" way to do business, but you can't summarize a new way in a nutshell.

for the record, i'll state again that killing when truly necessary for survival is acceptable. eating would fall under this category.

i'll also state that i am actually in favor of none of the things i "proposed" therefore debating whether it would be legal emminent domain isnt something i'm going to do. i'm also not in favor of randomly shooting a large group of bears. i think they are all equally ridiculous "solutions." the problem is many people see the one that causes the least discomfort to humans as being perfectly logical while the others arent simply because they would be inconvenient.

heres another "suggestion"- let only residents of the areas that have a bear problem participate in the hunt. if the locals want to kill the bears then let them. if people from distant areas opinions are to be disregarded when they are against the hunt than this seems reasonable enough. thing is i doubt many of the actual residents would want to put the effort into doing anything about it themselves.

[tdoczi]

I hate to say this, but I feel that if the hunt does not take place to reduce their numbers that someone 'will' sooner or later, be attacked by one.

so if killing 200 bears guarantees that 1 human won't be attacked, then killing them is a reasonable course of action? anyone been rattled at by a snake in NJ lately? maybe we should kill them too, i mean, its only a matter of time until someone gets bit!

[berkshirebirder]

Tdoczi asked why I believe humans have more rights than other animals.

Tdoczi, would you vote for a bear to be President of the United States?

If you had to choose between giving food to a child or giving food to a dog, which would you choose?

200,000 years of existence and the creation of a civilization (with many faults but with awe-inspiring achievements as well) makes me place humans at the top of the animal kingdom. Plants and wildlife are a necessary and beautiful part of existence on planet earth, but I believe humans have the right and duty to manage them conscientiously in ways that support human life.

[rickb]

If you had to choose between giving food to a child or giving food to a dog, which would you choose?


My guess is that if one looked at the expenditures on pet food in this country, and compared them to Amrican's contributions to relief agencies targetting hunger in children at home and abroad, you might find your answer.

Pets are important. So is the preservation of wildlife and wild places.

For AT hikers, so are bears along the Trail.

Lets hope those with all the problems in the back yard insure thier bird feeders are unreachable and everyone in thier neighborhoods secures thier trash and pet food (not to mention free roaming pets) before they call out hunters to rescue them.

[tdoczi]

Tdoczi asked why I believe humans have more rights than other animals.

Tdoczi, would you vote for a bear to be President of the United States?

If you had to choose between giving food to a child or giving food to a dog, which would you choose?

200,000 years of existence and the creation of a civilization (with many faults but with awe-inspiring achievements as well) makes me place humans at the top of the animal kingdom. Plants and wildlife are a necessary and beautiful part of existence on planet earth, but I believe humans have the right and duty to manage them conscientiously in ways that support human life.

no, i would not elect a member of another species to be leader of the local subset of my species.

i give WAY more food to my dog than i have ever given to any children. largely because i dont have children, but as someone else suggested i could not have a dog and donate the savings to charity.

basically i read your response as since we are most intelligent and have achieved the most that gives us more rights than other species? is that correct? by this logic wouldnt an intelligent college educated person in a first world country therefore have more rights than most of the people living in the third world? do nasa scientists and people doing research into curing cancer have more rights than you or i? they are certainly smarter and have achieved more. or do you and i get the rights that the achievments of all humans have earned for us?

[berkshirebirder]

I think we're starting to beat a dead horse...sorry...I mean drag the discussion out too long...but

The focus of discussion was species, not individuals. I try not to change the focus or compare apples and oranges to make points. Anyone can win any argument when they do that.

[JAK]

I think we're starting to beat a dead horse...sorry...I mean drag the discussion out too long...but

The focus of discussion was species, not individuals. I try not to change the focus or compare apples and oranges to make points. Anyone can win any argument when they do that.No sense spilling milk over a dead horse. ;)

[mipointofvu]

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

FYI - in the past two weeks there have been two black bear attacks where food wasn't involved. There have been several bear attacks (a hiker included) this year in NJ.

There have also been more than 50 fatalities due to black bears over the past 100 year - but a large portion of them have occured during the past decade. Bears (males) are terroritorial and so ther is conflict in their habitat. I don't think bears would agree that the more is merrier. As for people I don't think those in bear country would agree with the idea either. Black bear populations are increasing in densley populated areas of NJ. There are more human and bear conflicts being reported, attacks are occuring, home breakins by bears are on the increase as are the number of bear-car accidents. There's also the looming prospect of a fatality.

Personally I think balance is needed between bears, people and available habitat. I think people and bears would be merrier with balance in their living quarters instead of cramming as many as possible into a living space. But that's just my opinion. I don't live in an area where bears are all over the place.

[berkshirebirder]

No sense spilling milk over a dead horse.

Especially during the dog days of summer.

:rolleyes:

Good one, JAK.

[Alligator]

Here (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/bear/policy_lit/genetics_rpt_abstract.pdf) is an abstract from a recent study on the population size.

This (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/bear/policy_lit/genetics_rpt.pdf) is the entire paper.

[tdoczi]

Personally I think balance is needed between bears, people and available habitat. I think people and bears would be merrier with balance in their living quarters instead of cramming as many as possible into a living space. But that's just my opinion. I don't live in an area where bears are all over the place.

i dont necessarily disagree, but its interesting that when dicussing "balance" between multiple factors the answer is always only to change one of them. forget about my ridiculous suggestion of forcing people to move. how about even declaring that no further development will take place from what we presently have? it will never happen because the least inconvenient solution for humans is to decrease the number of bears. follow this line of thought to its ultimate conclusion and where do you end up? one elg of the 3 part balance you speak of will always continue to rise so in roder to keep said balance the other two will always decline.

[tdoczi]

I think we're starting to beat a dead horse...sorry...I mean drag the discussion out too long...but

The focus of discussion was species, not individuals. I try not to change the focus or compare apples and oranges to make points. Anyone can win any argument when they do that.

its only apples and oranges because you wish to apply one set of logic to one circumstance and a different set of logic to another. anyone can "win an argument" by doing that.

[berkshirebirder]

The ratio of change in EPS (Effective Population Size) values from the 2001 to 2009 is approximately 3:1. --from the abstract, E. Stroudsburg U. study

Interesting info, thanks Alligator. Does this mean the black bear population in the given area has TRIPLED in EIGHT YEARS?

[General Fireball]

i dont necessarily disagree, but its interesting that when dicussing "balance" between multiple factors the answer is always only to change one of them. forget about my ridiculous suggestion of forcing people to move. how about even declaring that no further development will take place from what we presently have? it will never happen because the least inconvenient solution for humans is to decrease the number of bears. follow this line of thought to its ultimate conclusion and where do you end up? one elg of the 3 part balance you speak of will always continue to rise so in roder to keep said balance the other two will always decline.

I don't believe the correlation between bear problems and continued development is always there. Where I live, in the heart of the NJ Highlands, almost 60% of the land is either permanently protected (state park, forest, wildlife refuge, AT, farmland preservation) or environmentally constrained so it can't be developed. There has been no major development of forested (or any other) tracts in at least twenty years. But the bear problems have occured AFTER that time frame--mostly the last decade. Plus, since we're in the middle of the Highlands Preservation Area, any future development (if indeed any) will be small scale and limited. Yes, development does displace bears, but long term it's a question of available habitat and food supply, both of which are ample around here.

[JAK]

I've been reading that paper from Alligator. Interesting stuff.
One thing really jumped out at me though...

Have the bears in New Jersey actually built a fort?
That's incredible.

[tdoczi]

[QUOTE=General Fireball;1037276]There has been no major development of forested (or any other) tracts in at least twenty years.QUOTE]

oh cmon driving up and down rt 23 or rt 15 disproves this theory in about 5 minutes. those targets and walmarts were there 20 years ago? i cant claim i known the inner residential areas of those regions terribly well but more retail doesnt open in an area if there arent more people to shop there.

[perrito]

As usual, a lot of this problem involves a lot of politics. I hate politics.
- Too many homes built in places they shouldn't be.
- Idiots not adapting to their new environment.
- Lack of enforcing (or lack of resources to enforce) laws on proper trash storage.
- If you live in areas with animals, you have to take proper precautions - fences to keep deer and others out of your garden, forego bird feeders to lessen bear interest, preparation to your house to lessen attraction of animals looking for a nest location.

People tend to want to change the environment to suit them instead of being bothered to make these types of adaptations. They end up crying the most. I wonder if they too, are being fined for improper trash handling as the police officer takes their report of a bear incident.

That said, if there are many skinny bears running around out there, this would seem to indicate a lack of available territory for them to establish their turf. It may be an unfortunate necessity to have a bear hunt. But at the same time we need to be more aggressive with the human residents to follow laws created to protect both them and resident wildlife.

[berkshirebirder]

you wish to apply one set of logic to one circumstance and a different set of logic to another. "you were a TOMATO. A tomato doesn't have logic."

Whoever knows what movie that's from wins the argument.

[Lone Wolf]

Tootsie.......

[berkshirebirder]

Congratulations, LoneWolf, ace hiker AND movie fan.

[Lone Wolf]

Congratulations, LoneWolf, ace hiker AND movie fan.

nah. i don't hike anymore.

[JAK]

Interesting info, thanks Alligator. Does this mean the black bear population in the given area has TRIPLED in EIGHT YEARS?


I read or rather skimmed the paper and I'm not sure how actual population and effective population are related, but from what I gathered from the following definition they are not neccessarily linearly related. I wish the paper was more clear on that, and more easy for me to understand, but like most papers it was written for a different audience than myself, and a somwhat different purpose than what I am trying to extract from it. I find the use of genetics in such population studies to be very interesting, but way beyond me, at least for now. Maybe I will find some time to catch up a little, or bump into a biology buddy that might bring me up to speed at least a little.

From the paper...
"The effective population size is the number of breeding individuals in an idealized population that would show the same amount of dispersion of allele frequencies under random genetic drift or the same amount of inbreeding as the population under consideration."

[Alligator]

Interesting info, thanks Alligator. Does this mean the black bear population in the given area has TRIPLED in EIGHT YEARS?
Reading it over, that number appears to apply to management zones 1 & 3. The numbers appear drawn from Table 1. Zones two and four had low sample sizes. It does not apply to the whole state which might be different or not different.

It is noted the technique was based on mark recapture in 2001 and genetics later so there could a little discrepancy in that number due to differing techniques.

That is a large increase no doubt but another figure of interest would be the bear pop. density and how does it relate to other regions. Plus I'd bet other information about population dynamics and stuff about wildlife biology I don't know.

[Tinker]

nah. i don't hike anymore.

Of course not! It's just walking after all! ;)

Some folks get all macho-ish about "HIKING" :D.

[Tinker]

Oh, btw, just weighing in on the hunting thing -

Go ahead - that may be the only way the bears get a healthy fear of man. Relocating problem bears only makes it someone else's problem. Repeat offenders are routinely terminated. Those with a healthy fear of humans will be the least likely to be shot.

........or, move the HUMANS out :D.

[tdoczi]

Oh, btw, just weighing in on the hunting thing -

Go ahead - that may be the only way the bears get a healthy fear of man. Relocating problem bears only makes it someone else's problem. Repeat offenders are routinely terminated. Those with a healthy fear of humans will be the least likely to be shot.

........or, move the HUMANS out :D.
the bears that get hunted are dead, they aremt afraid of anything anymore. the ones still alive if they werent afraid i dont see how they will be afterwards. do bears talk to each other about how so and so got shot by some humans? plus its timed so that many are already in hibernation.

[karo]

I don't know if it is still practiced, but in the '90's, a common bear hunting tactic in NC was to chase and tree bears with massive bear hounds, then shoot them out of the tree. I grew up hunting small game and deer (and still do occasionally), but that practice always bothered me. Badly. Baiting seems more ethical to me.

As for hunts in New Jersey, it seems like a necessity. Bears were already an issue in the suburbs when I hiked through NJ eleven years ago. It seems they've only gotten more prevalent since.

Yeah I thought about the practice of using dogs also. I guess baiting for bears is more ethical, but only if bow hunting maybe, I guess I really don't have enough info to really make an intelligent response to the issue. And that is the problem with any issue. We comment on things that we do not know all the facts about. I am not a bear hunter. I don't know if I would go if even invited. Not that I am scared of the bears mind you, but I would like to know more about the method of harvesting the bear before I could kill one. They are not considered a varmint so I would not feel comfortable with a dog chase/hunt and I don't agree with the baiting method but the wildlife needs to be managed.

[JAK]

I think the theoretical limit of natural increase in black bear populations, not counting immigration, is roughly to double every 2 years, so you could get a 32 fold increase in 10 years at the absolute best. Without hunting and car collisions, if natural forms of premature death take 25% of the population each year, evenly distributed, this would knock it down to a 7.6 fold increase every 10 years. Actually, that doesn't take into account that they don't reach maturity until around age 4, which I think lowers the number some. Also, they are dependant on their mother for at least the first summer, so if the mother dies during that time, that would usually take the cubs out also. The most siginificant control on bear population, in the absence of human intervention, would be factors that would kill the bears in their first 4 years, and also factors that reduce fertility rates. I think food shortage is the most obvious. Perhaps infanticide also, but I think that would also be closely related to food shortage, and crowding.

So what does hunting do? Well, it would result in less competition for food amongst bears, which would result in lower starvation rates, and also higher fertility rates. I think this means hunting leads to somewhat shorter but somewhat happier lives. Not sure. Maybe bears would be happier fighting over limited resources rather than being selectively controlled. What makes a bear happy in the grand scheme of things?

Some animal rights groups favour contraceptives over huntiing. That just seems way wrong to me. I think we need to be part of the process, but it has to be a natural process, and I think that means some limited amount of hunting, and also allowing natural forces to work as they should by limiting food sources. This means hunting deer also, and not providing sources of food for bears. I am not against using food for bait, but if it is overdone it is counter-productive for population management. It becomes farming at some point, which is also the wrong way to go. I think food should only be put out for bears for a very limited time span, not for weeks in advance of the so-called hunting season to make it easier for 'clients' of 'guides'.

If it could be done effectively without food entirely, that would be preferable. I think the only other alternatives are:
1. traps - which are too dangerous
2. chase dogs - which I think cause too much disturbance
3. hunting them during hibernation - which I really do think makes the most sense

[Lone Wolf]

people come before bears. a hunt is needed once again to control the population. it's really very simple

[JAK]

I also tend to be against hunting bears through professional guides and lodges. The only reason I am against this is that too much money comes into play, which causes un-natural forces to come into play. So it ends up being rather like dude-ranching, where bears are practically farmed, the bear population is controlled in a manner which is optimized for sport and profit rather than for a healthy natural environment. I think it would be better if people had to do their own hunting. The meat and the pelts should be the source of revenue. If that is not enough to encourage enough hunting, then maybe the bears need to win a little, and that will get people hunting. Maybe bounties. It shouldn't really be done for 'sport' though. There is nothing wrong with taking some pleasure in it, if it neccessary and done properly, but I don't have much taste for trophy hunting as such, especially when you consider how bears need to be hunted.

In their lairs with a rope around their foot and pointed stick. Now that would be hunting, even if they were rather woozy. Then I think it would be ok to have a guide along, but only to make sure it was done right and proper. The bear should be eaten also. Every last drop of bear fat. You could get some help on that part also. :)

[JAK]

It still amazes me how little we know of bears, or at least how little I know. Population numbers, for example, seem to vary greatly, like anywhere from 400,000 to 1 million. That's alot of bear. Hunting takes about 20,000 in Canada and about the same number in the U.S. so perhaps 5% hunting is needed to control the bear population. In some cases it exceeds 10%, and I think that starts to get into farming, but I could be mistaken.

I don't think alot of bear meat and bear fat gets eaten these days. I think this is a shame, and perhaps even disrespectful, but again I could be mistaken. Not sure how much meat and fat are on the average bear. Say 40,000 bear x 50 pounds anyway, perhaps 100 pounds, so 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 pounds. Now that's alot of bear, but we gotta lotta people also. Personally I haven't been having any of my share of bear meat, which amounts to about 1 oz of bear meat per year. So I have fallen about 3 pounds short, perhaps 4 pounds when you consider the smaller population in Canada when I was born. So who's been eating my bear?

Still, 4 pounds in 48 years ain't much meat from 1,000,000 bears.
We must have ALOT of cows and pigs and chickens.

[JAK]

I had to look it up. Still not sure, but I think my eating habits require the maintainence of a population of about half a cow, half a pig, and maybe 5-10 chickens, not counting milk and eggs. Personally I think I would like to cut back some on cows and pigs and chickens, and make room for just a little more bear, moose, deer, rabbits, and squirrel now and then. I also like lamb and duck, and goose, but don't get that very often either, just special occassions. It's crazy how much cow and pig and chicken I go through without hardly noticing them, and I don't think I eat as much as most people.

[BlazeWalker]

people come before bears. a hunt is needed once again to control the population. it's really very simple

LW again! If they are causing such a big problem, kill em. It seems obvious that the population is out of control, something has to be done to get the balance back. If it keeps up you will see even more problems like disease.

[Migrating Bird]

Daughter (SOBO 09) just called, she grows cultivated blueberries here in W. MM. She has a big bear eating the berries as I write this, my brother is going over to deal with it.

[Luddite]

people come before bears.

Debatable.

"With man gone will there be hope for gorilla? With Gorilla gone will there be hope for man?"

[BAG "o" TRICKS]

so if killing 200 bears guarantees that 1 human won't be attacked, then killing them is a reasonable course of action? anyone been rattled at by a snake in NJ lately? maybe we should kill them too, i mean, its only a matter of time until someone gets bit!

Yes, even if it keeps just one individual from being mauled to death, that is unless you have an better solution to the problem. A hunt 'should' help prevent but not eliminate this and many other problems that occur with the bear overpopulation. Face it certain individuals will never act responsible in bear country, only wish we could eliminate them. I'm not saying that its right or wrong just the easiest means of controlling the population so someone doesn't end up in that situation and its bound to happen again as it has in the past. I've been hearing of more and more bear encounter lately and not just in NJ. Nope I'll take may chance with the snakes. Don't know of too many people in the US who have died from snake bites. Ever wrestle a bear, I have, many years ago, and I'm glad he had a muzzle on and someone to pull him off of me. Hey, maybe that's the solution, maybe we should legalize bear wrestling again.

[rickb]

Yes, even if it keeps just one individual from being mauled to death, that is unless you have an better solution to the problem. A hunt 'should' help prevent but not eliminate this and many other problems that occur with the bear overpopulation. Face it certain individuals will never act responsible in bear country, only wish we could eliminate them. I'm not saying that its right or wrong just the easiest means of controlling the population so someone doesn't end up in that situation and its bound to happen again as it has in the past. I've been hearing of more and more bear encounter lately and not just in NJ. Nope I'll take may chance with the snakes. Don't know of too many people in the US who have died from snake bites. Ever wrestle a bear, I have, many years ago, and I'm glad he had a muzzle on and someone to pull him off of me. Hey, maybe that's the solution, maybe we should legalize bear wrestling again.

I am thinking we should keep the bears. No doubt their presence all this publicity is keeping gang bangers and serial murders out of the backcountry.

If keeping extra bears around saves one person from being assaulted by such scum, it will be worth it.

On a more serious note, I am reminded on the monthly walks I lead at conservation properties around my suburban home just how fearful people are. And these are the folks who come out. If some of these good folks perception was to be acted upon, we would trap every fox (rabies, don't you know) and every coyote (they eat cats) around. Earlier in the week the scare story in the Boston Glob was the return of fishers to suburbia.

[JAK]

Yes, even if it keeps just one individual from being mauled to death, that is unless you have an better solution to the problem. A hunt 'should' help prevent but not eliminate this and many other problems that occur with the bear overpopulation. Face it certain individuals will never act responsible in bear country, only wish we could eliminate them. I'm not saying that its right or wrong just the easiest means of controlling the population so someone doesn't end up in that situation and its bound to happen again as it has in the past. I've been hearing of more and more bear encounter lately and not just in NJ. Nope I'll take may chance with the snakes. Don't know of too many people in the US who have died from snake bites. Ever wrestle a bear, I have, many years ago, and I'm glad he had a muzzle on and someone to pull him off of me. Hey, maybe that's the solution, maybe we should legalize bear wrestling again.I take a somewhat different view. If you have zero tollerance on the risk bear attacks, then you would have to have zero bears. So why don't we have zero tollerance for automobile accidents? We have speed limits. Lowering the speed limit by 10% would save alot of lives, but we tollerate a higher death rate for economic and convenience. So why not tollerate a very small death rate due to bear attacks, so we can have some bears as part of natural and diverse ecosystems. I think hunting needs to be part of that, as well as the killing of bears that intrude into densely populated areas, and problem bears in lower populated areas. But zero tolerance of bears makes no sense, when you compare it to other causes. Even from a human-centric viewpoint, most humans like to have bears around, and so we have to tolerate some level of human fatalities, even children. That's just the way it is.

[Lone Wolf]

Debatable.



not at all. not in jersey

[JAK]

I do think the government of New Jersey is doing the right thing, by doing the right thing regardless of public opinion. Government, once elected, has to what it things is right. On matters such as this, it should listen to experts, like from department of natural resources and so forth. I don't think they should listen to hunters, or guides, any more than they should listen to animal rights groups, or even the majority of voters if the majority of voters live in cities. They should keep people informed about what they are doing, and why they are doing it, and if the majority still want to get rid of them when the next election rolls around then so be it.

[JAK]

I'm just hoping if I ever need brain surgery we don't put it to a vote.

[JAK]

A red fox just crossed the street outside our house. Lots of foxes in our small city this year. Not sure why. Haven't noticed more rabbits or squirrels or whatever. Maybe there are more mice. Maybe Eastern Coyotes are driving foxes into the city.

[tdoczi]

[QUOTE=BAG "o" TRICKS;1037502]Don't know of too many people in the US who have died from snake bites. [QUOTE]

and how many blackbear fatalities do you know of??

[TD55]

I seem to remember learning in elementary school, or, maybe some old movie, but haven't we been killing bears over habitat since caveman days? I mean, didn't we kill bears and move into their caves? Probably some of our earliest recorded history (cave paintings) are about killing animals for food. I don't know for sure, but I'll bet there is a cave painting of some guy killing a bear in one of those caves. Seems like bear killin' is natural. Davy Crokett would agree, I'm sure.

[tdoczi]

not at all. not in jersey
luddite was debating whether people come first or not. what does whether its in jersey or not have to do with that?

[JAK]

luddite was debating whether people come first or not. what does whether its in jersey or not have to do with that?I think Lone Wolf''s point was not whether or not that people don't come first, but whether or not that all things need to be debated before a government acts.

[Lone Wolf]

luddite was debating whether people come first or not. what does whether its in jersey or not have to do with that?

folks come first. bears need to go. what don't you understand?

[JAK]

I seem to remember learning in elementary school, or, maybe some old movie, but haven't we been killing bears over habitat since caveman days? I mean, didn't we kill bears and move into their caves? Probably some of our earliest recorded history (cave paintings) are about killing animals for food. I don't know for sure, but I'll bet there is a cave painting of some guy killing a bear in one of those caves. Seems like bear killin' is natural. Davy Crokett would agree, I'm sure.It is natural. Killing people is natural also, but there are limits.

[tdoczi]

folks come first. bears need to go. what don't you understand?
the "not in jersey" part.
what dont you understand?
is there a state in which you feel bears should come first?

[JAK]

Again, he said it wasn't debatable in jersey, refering to the actions of the government there.

[Lone Wolf]

the "not in jersey" part.

is there a state in which you feel bears should come first?

no. bears, mice, cats, birds will always come 2nd

[JAK]

Noah was told to come forth, but he came fifth, so he got a jack-knife.

[Lone Wolf]

Noah was told to come forth, but he came fifth, so he got a jack-knife.

noah who? he's fiction. bears are real. kill em or extradite em

[JAK]

Of course it isn't really about bears vs people.
It's about people that want more cuddly bears vs people that want less ferocious bears.

Which should come first, after all, cars or people?
Cars kill alot of people, and they don't even want to go fast, but we let them.

[JAK]

It would be rather cool to have a car hunting season,
or at least lower speed limits on weekends and holidays?

It's not about bears vs people any more than it's about cars vs people.
It's about people vs people. That's just the way we function.

Until you are actually facing a bear, or a car, or a bear with a car.
Then its quite different.

[JAK]

noah who? he's fiction. bears are real. kill em or extradite em
Noah who? Why Noah Joisey, of coiss!

[Pedaling Fool]

the "not in jersey" part.
what dont you understand?
is there a state in which you feel bears should come first?
Are you trolling or do you really just don't get it?

[Tuckahoe]

I think that some folks like to see themselves pontificate.

[tdoczi]

Are you trolling or do you really just don't get it?
no i really didnt get it. i mean look at it this way-

LW- people come first.
luddite- thats debateable
LW- not in jersey

thats the way i read the exchange. i dont think asking for clarification of that makes me a troll.

[General Fireball]

There has been no major development of forested (or any other) tracts in at least twenty years.

oh cmon driving up and down rt 23 or rt 15 disproves this theory in about 5 minutes. those targets and walmarts were there 20 years ago? i cant claim i known the inner residential areas of those regions terribly well but more retail doesnt open in an area if there arent more people to shop there.

The development on Route 23 is mostly because of the construction of Route 287--new and better highway access. And yes, of course there's been lots of development in northern NJ. But where I am (the Wawayanda plateau) the last major development occurred over 20 yrs. ago. Everything else is watershed or state park. The bear "problem" has occurred long after development stopped. And as someone who grew up here, I can tell you that most of the development of the last few decades didn't dislocate any bears from their habitat because, quite simply, for most of that time period there were no bears. I was born in the early 60s and never saw a bear up here until the late 80s.

[General Fireball]

the bears that get hunted are dead, they aremt afraid of anything anymore. the ones still alive if they werent afraid i dont see how they will be afterwards. do bears talk to each other about how so and so got shot by some humans? plus its timed so that many are already in hibernation.

You're absolutely right. That's why while I agree hunting may lessen bear-human problems simply and crudely by lowering the overall population, it's not the panacea that hunters think it will be. This is because a) the problem bears (that roam the residential areas) are the least likely to get shot, since you can't hunt in or near such area. It's the bears out in the forest, mostly minding their own business, that get culled. And b) you're right--unless bears pass each other in the woods and say, "hey, watch out for those two-legged ******ers, they got guns," I am not sure how it changes the behavior of survivng bears . .

[tdoczi]

The development on Route 23 is mostly because of the construction of Route 287--new and better highway access. And yes, of course there's been lots of development in northern NJ. But where I am (the Wawayanda plateau) the last major development occurred over 20 yrs. ago. Everything else is watershed or state park. The bear "problem" has occurred long after development stopped. And as someone who grew up here, I can tell you that most of the development of the last few decades didn't dislocate any bears from their habitat because, quite simply, for most of that time period there were no bears. I was born in the early 60s and never saw a bear up here until the late 80s.

i think the construction of 287 is a major factor. the growth on 23 is certainly related, but i see it as being connected to population. 287s existence made the area easier to get to which amde more people willing to live there which made it a desirable location for retail development. i briefly knew a friend of a friend whos family had lived near highpoint for generations and the easiest thing to set them off on a long and ugly rant was asking them about people moving into sussex county and trying to turn it into bergen county. again, cant say exactly how much population may have grown or where exactly and if the land taken may ahve had impact on bears or not, but growth has occurred. and 287 wasnt completed until after i started driving in 1993.

at the very least i think you have people living up there who want to live in the suburbs, not the countryside and seeing bear in their backyards doesnt fit with their concept of how they want to live.

[the goat]

so if i want to kill my neighbor and take his house that would be natural and acceptable? no, of course not. i dont see how going into a bears home and killing it because you dont want to coexist with it is any different. whacky view i know.

you really don't see how it's different? do you think bears and humans should be afforded the same rights?

i'd say that is a "whacky view"!

[Luddite]

I don't think thats a whacky view. They're saying theres a bear population problem. Thats what they say down here in Florida about alligators. They build their gated communities on the edge a swamp and all of a sudden the people complain that theres too many alligators. I say, if you don't regulate growth and urban sprawl you're going to have to learn to coexist with animals(sometimes predators) that sometimes come out of the fragmented forests to eat your garbage.

[the goat]

I say, if you don't regulate growth and urban sprawl you're going to have to learn to coexist with animals(sometimes predators) that sometimes come out of the fragmented forests to eat your garbage.

i say, if you don't regulate animal populations.... [insert rest of your statment]

[full conditions]

i say, if you don't regulate animal populations.... [insert rest of your statment]
"You can't just let nature run wild." -- Wally Hickel, former governor of Alaska

[chief]

I don't think thats a whacky view. They're saying theres a bear population problem. Thats what they say down here in Florida about alligators. They build their gated communities on the edge a swamp and all of a sudden the people complain that theres too many alligators. I say, if you don't regulate growth and urban sprawl you're going to have to learn to coexist with animals(sometimes predators) that sometimes come out of the fragmented forests to eat your garbage.
Part of learning to coexist with animals is to allow limited and regulated hunting when animal populations make a comeback, as the State of Florida has done with alligators since 1988.

[chief]

Part of learning to coexist with animals is to allow limited and regulated hunting when animal populations make a comeback, as the State of Florida has done with alligators since 1988.Forgot to mention my own state, Alabama, where there is limited and strictly regulated alligator hunting on the Mobile River Delta and other places. Seems very reasonable to me as does the NJ bear hunt.

[Alligator]

That's not peaceful coexistence:eek:. People need to conquer their herpetophobia.

[chief]

You're absolutely right. That's why while I agree hunting may lessen bear-human problems simply and crudely by lowering the overall population, it's not the panacea that hunters think it will be. This is because a) the problem bears (that roam the residential areas) are the least likely to get shot, since you can't hunt in or near such area. It's the bears out in the forest, mostly minding their own business, that get culled. And b) you're right--unless bears pass each other in the woods and say, "hey, watch out for those two-legged ******ers, they got guns," I am not sure how it changes the behavior of survivng bears . .
I'm sure bears, like most wild animals, would prefer to stay away from developed areas. So, culling the bear population by hunting may be just what's needed to lower competition for food and territory, allowing the remaining bears to stay in the forests. Hunters have been doing it for years with other animals.

If you can't figure out how animals come to fear humans after they've been hunted a few years, there's no hope for you.

[chief]

That's not peaceful coexistence:eek:. People need to conquer their herpetophobia.
Are you speaking to me? If so, I didn't say anything about "peaceful".

[Alligator]

Are you speaking to me? If so, I didn't say anything about "peaceful".Well yeah man, you can't "co-exist" if you are predating on someone.

1 : to exist together or at the same time
2 : to live in peace with each other especially as a matter of policy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coexistence#)

Just saying.

[chief]

Well yeah man, you can't "co-exist" if you are predating on someone.

1 : to exist together or at the same time
2 : to live in peace with each other especially as a matter of policy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coexistence#)

Just saying.

3: to live in peace with each other especially as a matter of fear

Just saying.

[Alligator]

3: to live in peace with each other especially as a matter of fear

Just saying.
You can't live if you are dead. That's the part you are missing. You can't coexist with your neighbor if you shoot him:-?.

Anyway, I was just kidding around because of the alligator reference there chief. If the bear population size is exceeding the carrying capacity then a hunt might be in order.

[chief]

You can't live if you are dead. That's the part you are missing. You can't coexist with your neighbor if you shoot him:-?.

Though your other neighbors will either leave you alone, or cull you. Either way, peace prevails, eventually!

Oh yeah, we were talking about bears, with a side of gators.

[Pedaling Fool]

...I say, if you don't regulate growth and urban sprawl...
I hear this every now-and-then and I've watched specials and read some about this topic on the various proposals on how to control urban sprawl. But the problem is that all the proposals I've heard/read will only have minimal impact -- very minimal.

To have real impact it seems like there would need to be much intervention in our liberties - probably why you don't hear elected officials say much on this. Our poplulation is growing fast, but it's mainly a factor of legal immigration again not something you hear about much. By and large this issue is ignored and people only make a simple statement, "We need to halt urban sprawl", but I have yet to see how we do that without some serious changes in the way we do things.

Maybe we need to send more people to Canada, they only have about 30 million up there. Would that be ok with you JAK:D

[General Fireball]

I'm sure bears, like most wild animals, would prefer to stay away from developed areas. So, culling the bear population by hunting may be just what's needed to lower competition for food and territory, allowing the remaining bears to stay in the forests. Hunters have been doing it for years with other animals.

If you can't figure out how animals come to fear humans after they've been hunted a few years, there's no hope for you.

I don't wonder how hunting will make bears fear humans--the fact is they already are generally quite wary of humans around here. I don't understand how it will change their behavior. Like I say, most of the bears I see around here will run away if you so much as make a loud noise, or throw a rock at them. It does not, however, stop them from coming around looking for food resources from humans.

P.S.--as for there being no hope for me--ya got me there.

[BAG "o" TRICKS]

I take a somewhat different view. If you have zero tollerance on the risk bear attacks, then you would have to have zero bears. So why don't we have zero tollerance for automobile accidents? We have speed limits. Lowering the speed limit by 10% would save alot of lives, but we tollerate a higher death rate for economic and convenience. So why not tollerate a very small death rate due to bear attacks, so we can have some bears as part of natural and diverse ecosystems. I think hunting needs to be part of that, as well as the killing of bears that intrude into densely populated areas, and problem bears in lower populated areas. But zero tolerance of bears makes no sense, when you compare it to other causes. Even from a human-centric viewpoint, most humans like to have bears around, and so we have to tolerate some level of human fatalities, even children. That's just the way it is.

Never said zero tolerance, just that a hunt to decrease the population may help eliminate certain problems and could help prevent others from occuring.
I have no problems with bears its just when they become a problem due to overpopulatioin, and that's the problem. You got a better solution give it to NJ widlife officials

[rickb]

You might like this book, BOT.

http://www.beastinthegarden.com/Excerpt.htm

[JAK]

Maybe we need to send more people to Canada, they only have about 30 million up there. Would that be ok with you JAK:DJust don't bring any of those alligators that build those gated communities, and maybe give our bears some warning so they can start building their forts. Had no idea animals were so clever until I read this thread.

[JAK]

Never said zero tolerance, just that a hunt to decrease the population may help eliminate certain problems and could help prevent others from occuring. I have no problems with bears its just when they become a problem due to overpopulatioin, and that's the problem. You got a better solution give it to NJ widlife officialsSorry about that. I never read past your first sentence until after I posted. Our views are not all that different.

[karo]

The major problem with NJ is that they outlawed the bear hunting and now the over population of bears is clashing with the spreading human population. Now it will take alot to get the bears under control.

[tdoczi]

well after reading all these posts maybe i was wrong. i guess its a good thing humans are here to keep all of these populations of wild animals in control. it seems the world would be a miserable place with too much of everything, everywhere if we werent around to kill the excess!

theres one animal more overpopulated, more taxing and more damging to its environment and more dangerous to each other than any bear or gator or deer. i'll give you all 3 guesses.

[tdoczi]

you really don't see how it's different? do you think bears and humans should be afforded the same rights?

i'd say that is a "whacky view"!

i've already asked this of someone else here and it didnt go far, but would you like to take a stab at educating me as to why human life is inherantly more valuable than the lives of any other animal?

[berkshirebirder]

The human's ability to continue arguing after everyone loses interest makes him superior.

[JAK]

i've already asked this of someone else here and it didnt go far, but would you like to take a stab at educating me as to why human life is inherantly more valuable than the lives of any other animal?Because unfortunately, the land does not vote.

[JAK]

The human's ability to continue arguing after everyone loses interest makes him superior.The better answer.

[perrito]

You're absolutely right. That's why while I agree hunting may lessen bear-human problems simply and crudely by lowering the overall population, it's not the panacea that hunters think it will be. This is because a) the problem bears (that roam the residential areas) are the least likely to get shot, since you can't hunt in or near such area. It's the bears out in the forest, mostly minding their own business, that get culled. And b) you're right--unless bears pass each other in the woods and say, "hey, watch out for those two-legged ******ers, they got guns," I am not sure how it changes the behavior of survivng bears . .

Sounds like hunting season is done at the wrong time. It should be during the times (not when they're hibernating) when and where "problem bears" are active.

[tdoczi]

The human's ability to continue arguing after everyone loses interest makes him superior.
or perhaps the humans willingness to keep reading and posting in a thread theyve lost interest in?

[jersey joe]

Sounds like hunting season is done at the wrong time. It should be during the times (not when they're hibernating) when and where "problem bears" are active.
I briefly thought the same thing but the problem with this is that the problem bears are problems in populated areas. Hunting in populated areas, in backyards etc. doesn't sound very safe to me.

[the goat]

i've already asked this of someone else here and it didnt go far, but would you like to take a stab at educating me as to why human life is inherantly more valuable than the lives of any other animal?

dumbest question i've ever seen on whiteblaze. period.

and trust me, that's saying a lot.

[tdoczi]

dumbest question i've ever seen on whiteblaze. period.

and trust me, that's saying a lot.

if its such a dumb question it should be easy for you to answer

[Pedaling Fool]

i've already asked this of someone else here and it didnt go far, but would you like to take a stab at educating me as to why human life is inherantly more valuable than the lives of any other animal?
You keep asking this question as if there’s some kind of universal answer or truth. There’s not. Remember in nature "Might equals right". We feel the need to remove bears from our neighborhoods, which is a great danger to our kids. Not because we are "mean unethical species" rather, because it’s in our nature. In the same way it’s in the nature of one bear to fight off another bear in his "territory", it’s in his nature to protect his self-interests.

Does one bear have more right to a given area then another? Animals have no problem in killing another of it’s own kind, other species and little babies so they can have sex.

Don’t blame me, it’s Mother Nature that created all this fighting amongst species. Contrary to popular belief, nature is not about serenity; it’s all about fighting for your own interests. If you observe nature you'll notice that greed is the mantra that animals live by. We're a little different, but in the end we seem to be nothing more than animals.

[tdoczi]

You keep asking this question as if there’s some kind of universal answer or truth. There’s not. Remember in nature "Might equals right". We feel the need to remove bears from our neighborhoods, which is a great danger to our kids. Not because we are "mean unethical species" rather, because it’s in our nature. In the same way it’s in the nature of one bear to fight off another bear in his "territory", it’s in his nature to protect his self-interests.

Does one bear have more right to a given area then another? Animals have no problem in killing another of it’s own kind, other species and little babies so they can have sex.

Don’t blame me, it’s Mother Nature that created all this fighting amongst species. Contrary to popular belief, nature is not about serenity; it’s all about fighting for your own interests. If you observe nature you'll notice that greed is the mantra that animals live by. We're a little different, but in the end we seem to be nothing more than animals.

didnt you already say all this once before?

[the goat]

i've already asked this of someone else here and it didnt go far, but would you like to take a stab at educating me as to why human life is inherantly more valuable than the lives of any other animal?


dumbest question i've ever seen on whiteblaze. period.

and trust me, that's saying a lot.


if its such a dumb question it should be easy for you to answer

if a human being and a cat are both drowning and you have the ability to save one and only one of them, which one do you reach for and why?

[Luddite]

dumbest question i've ever seen on whiteblaze. period.

and trust me, that's saying a lot.

Thats why our planet is trashed, though. We think we are the most important species on the planet and we're not.

The Buddhists believe that animals can become enlightened just like humans.

[the goat]

Thats why our planet is trashed, though. We think we are the most important species on the planet and we're not.

The Buddhists believe that animals can become enlightened just like humans.

we are the most important species on the planet, but that doesn't give us a right to trash it.

[JAK]

Sounds like hunting season is done at the wrong time. It should be during the times (not when they're hibernating) when and where "problem bears" are active.Interesting point. Still. where they hibernate could be somewhat related to how problematic the bears might be. Males tend to be more problematic. That can be determined at the time of hibernation. Also, selectively reducing the male:female ratio, in a species like bears, can reduce the rate of natural increase. This is because although male bears do "get around" some, they have a very limited time period to do so, like 2-3 weeks, and half the females have young cubs and so will not be interested until the next year. Hunting can be selective too, maybe, at least in avoiding females with cubs, but at the time of hibernation you could avoid females altogether. When hibernating females are either pregnant, with newborns, or with yearlings. If you wait until february I think it is, they would be with newborns or yearlings. You should be able to tell without disturbing them.

I think the time to deal with intruding or nuisance or dangerous bears is not during hunting season, but right at the time of the incident. I don't agree with relocation, even of females with cubs. Alot of problems occur in parks, because they tend to be protected in parks, and conditioned to people in parks. I think parks need to have their own management plans, separate from the rest of the state, but I don't think relocation makes real sense in any case, especially when there is an overpopulation of bears to begin with.

My main argument is whatever you do I don't think the management plan should be geared towards better hunting, or towards eliminating hunting. I think the management plan should be geared towards maintaining a healthy and diverse ecosystem and safety. I think reducing the bear population by about 5% each year, on average, accomplishes both. It does it even better if it is selective. Maximizing hunting revenue, or 'sportmanship', or catering to the thoughts and feelings of the non-hunting crowd, should not be a real consideration. It should be driven primarily by biologists and natural resources type folks. Maybe doing it while hibernation is taking place isn't the complete answer, or even part of the answer, but it shouldn't be ruled out.

[TD55]

i've already asked this of someone else here and it didnt go far, but would you like to take a stab at educating me as to why human life is inherantly more valuable than the lives of any other animal?
Because you will never run into a bear that will share his or her food with you on the AT. YOU WILL RUN INTO HUMANS THAT WILL. Also, I've never gotten a ride into town by a bear. I have gotten rides into town by humans. And bears have been known to crawl under shelters for hibernating in the winter. They crap and stink up the shelter. Humans only crap in and under shelter rarely.

[JAK]

The alternative to hunting is famine, or sterilization/contraception.

Famine is natural, or perhaps no more or less humane than hunting, but I think if you used famine alone as a management strategy you would have more agressive and problematic bears. You need a little bit of starvation now and then, but you can't rely on it exclusively.

I think sterilization/contraception of wild animals is just wrong. Perhaps I need to give it more thought, but the underlying thing is that if you want a more natural ecosystem, you need more natural behavoir and natural selection, then you really shouldn't interfere at this level. I think selective elimination of individual animals is the better wat to go, but you have to be selective in the right way, with the right objectives in mind. To this end I don't think you should cater to the hunting crowd any more than the touchy-feely crowd. I think most biologists would agree with the idea of minimal intervention, and they would be in the best position to figure out the best means of doing so without bias. It might involve hunting. It might not.

[JAK]

Even if humans valued bears and humans equally, humans would still need to adopt a bear population management strategy. Even if humans valued bears more than humans, humans would still need to adopt a bear population management strategy. Chosing to do nothing is still a strategy. Sometimes it is the best strategy. Sometimes it isn't.

[JAK]

Even if you are not sure what the best strategy is, you still have to make a choice.

[sheepdog]

bears are a renewable resource



and quite tasty when properly prepared

[sheepdog]

the bears that get hunted are dead, they aremt afraid of anything anymore. the ones still alive if they werent afraid i dont see how they will be afterwards. do bears talk to each other about how so and so got shot by some humans? plus its timed so that many are already in hibernation.
you should study bear hunting.


Dog hunters often tree bears and then let them go. Plus the bears that are naturally shy of people don't get harvested as often and pass those genes on to their young. Bold bears not afraid of humans are toast and don't live to reproduce. Sometimes bears are shot at by hunters and missed, they learn people are to be avoided. Bear season is not scheduled when bears are hiberanting in a well thought out management plan. Weather can affect things sometimes.
There is lots more but I'll spare you.....;)

[JAK]

I don't know much of hunting bears with dogs, so I really shouldn't have commented on that. I think biologists should learn what they can from hunters, and other woodsmen, particularly traditional methods which would include the use of dogs in many places. In the end however, I think it should be the role of government biologists and research biologists to determine how bear populations should be managed as part of ecosystems, which in the end I think should be a combination of managing land use, selective hunting by various means but with best practice determined on a biological basis, elimination of specific problem bears by individuals or authorities as needed, and letting nature run its course.

[JAK]

At least that's what I suppose. I am not a biologist.

[txag]

The issue about increasing the bear hunt numbers is happening in NM right now. They want to raise the number of bears to be hunted from 406 to 733. I don't know how you arrive at a number like 733 but bear #734 must feel pretty lucky right now.

http://www.koat.com/news/24540022/detail.html

I am not a hunter but from the article/video it seems that this plan pleases neither the activist or huntsman. It probably would reduce the resource load on Game & Fish that has had to kill at least 30 bears here this year - and it is their plan.

[sheepdog]

At least that's what I suppose. I am not a biologist.
I am not a biologist either




but I did stay at a Holiday Express last night. :banana

[tdoczi]

if a human being and a cat are both drowning and you have the ability to save one and only one of them, which one do you reach for and why?

the human. and if it were a choice between killing a bear and letting it kill a human i'd without hesitation say kill the bear. that isnt QUITE what a bear hunt is though.

as for why, i would guess its out of a feeling of obligation to protect one's own kind. if you rig the question slightly and i had to choose between saving my dog who was drowning and a strange human i didnt know, well, call me horrible but the person is going down. the mere fact that they are human means nothing to me.

[tdoczi]

Because you will never run into a bear that will share his or her food with you on the AT. YOU WILL RUN INTO HUMANS THAT WILL. Also, I've never gotten a ride into town by a bear. I have gotten rides into town by humans. And bears have been known to crawl under shelters for hibernating in the winter. They crap and stink up the shelter. Humans only crap in and under shelter rarely.

again, that essentials boils down to earned rights. which again brings up the question of whether or not every human has earned that right because of the actions of some humans. is a human who never would share his food or give anyone a ride therefore less valuable? its largely why i included the word inherant in this post.

[JAK]

Fundamentally it's not about rights. It's about biology.

[JAK]

Not saying that empathy shouldn't be part of it. Empathy should be part of the biology, and that empathy should be extended to bears, and to the entire biosphere. In a healthy ecosystem, healthy humans should be empathetic. It can't just be about crunching numbers or ideological tunnelling.

[JAK]

Hunting without empathy is just killing.

[sheepdog]

the human. and if it were a choice between killing a bear and letting it kill a human i'd without hesitation say kill the bear. that isnt QUITE what a bear hunt is though.

as for why, i would guess its out of a feeling of obligation to protect one's own kind. if you rig the question slightly and i had to choose between saving my dog who was drowning and a strange human i didnt know, well, call me horrible but the person is going down. the mere fact that they are human means nothing to me.
you are one strange duck

[TD55]

you are one strange duck
PLEASE, LETS LEAVE THE DUCKS OUT OF THIS.:banana

[tdoczi]

you are one strange duck
perhaps. but the way i see it my dog lives with me and is my obligation. a random human is just that, someone random.

[sheepdog]

I guess I'll just avoid the troll bait ;)

[TD55]

perhaps. but the way i see it my dog lives with me and is my obligation. a random human is just that, someone random.
Fair enough. You have notified us. If we see you and your dog drowning we should save the dog.

[rickb]

perhaps. but the way i see it my dog lives with me and is my obligation. a random human is just that, someone random.

I think I understand.

I don't spend money on dog food, but I have spend hundreds of dollars on wild bird seed and high end binoculars and such.

I could have forgone these things and sent the money to groups buying mosquito nets and vaccines to save human life, but (by my actions) I clearly valued the birds in my back yard more than one more innocent human life living abroad.

Perhaps we are uniquely selfish.

Or perhaps others just choose to see what they wish to.

[sheepdog]

I think I understand.

I don't spend money on dog food, but I have spend hundreds of dollars on wild bird seed and high end binoculars and such.

I could have forgone these things and sent the money to groups buying mosquito nets and vaccines to save human life, but (by my actions) I clearly valued the birds in my back yard more than one more innocent human life living abroad.

Perhaps we are uniquely selfish.

Or perhaps others just choose to see what they wish to.
It's all about balance


one should be charitable and one should take care of themselves

[JAK]

It is rather strange isn't it. Empathy and apathy are too sides of the same coin in a way, because you can't be everywhere or all things at once. Just thinking about it would drive me crazy, if I gave a damn. The best I can do is go from one whim to another, from time to time. Let a bumble bee out of the house without killing it the other day. Yeah that oughta be enough to channel flick past the save-a-child ads for a week or two.

[Harrison Bergeron]

When people are seeing (and being harassed by!) bears in their back yards, then obviously there are too many bears and not enough hunters.

There wouldn't be so many bears in the first place if there weren't humans for them to sponge off of. So unless you are willing to remove yourself from the human race for the sake of controlling the bear population, the only solution is to hunt them. Fortunately, by an amazing coincidence, many humans are excellent hunters, so even if you don't want to kill one yourself, someone else will be more than happy to take care of it for you -- so long as some misinformed bear hugger doesn't get in their way.

Has anyone ever thought about what great contribution bears actually make to the environment, anyway? They're lousy predators and do nothing towards controlling the overpopulation of game animals, like deer. In the wild, when there aren't any humans to sponge off of, they get by sponging off the real predators by stealing their kills.

I agree that bears are interesting enough to keep a few around in the back woods, but when it gets to the point where they're coming out of the woods to audition for Jackass with a YouTube trampoline video, then it's time to turn the hunters loose!

[rickb]

While I don't discount the possibility that last post might be right in the end, here is another take which I think is at least as well informed, for those who are not inclined to discount the US Humane Society out of hand. Link is here: http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/the_problems_and_solutions_for_new_jerseys_black_b ear_population/



Black Bears and People in New Jersey


New Jersey is an example of what can happen when a human population explosion collides with a rebounding bear population. The state also has the potential to be a model for peaceful human-bear coexistence.

How Many Bears? How Many People?
In recent decades, New Jersey's bear population slowly recovered from the devastating effects of habitat loss and over-hunting. The exact size of the current population isn't known because, although black bears are primarily found in north and central New Jersey, the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/) has only performed population studies in the western and eastern regions. In 2003, the agency estimated these regions contained 1490 bears.
Since scientists simply don't know how many bears there are in New Jersey, there is no way to determine how many bears can be killed without jeopardizing the black bear population. The species is late to mature and reproduces slowly, so it is especially vulnerable to over-hunting.
New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the United States. Between 1950 and 2000, the population nearly doubled to reach 8.4 million. As development eats away at black bear habitat, the number of reported human-bear conflicts has risen. These conflicts appear to be largely property related, categorized by the Division of Fish and Wildlife as "nuisance" complaints.

Hunting May Increase, Not Decrease, Human-Bear Conflicts
New Jersey hunting proponents claim that reducing the number of black bears will reduce human-bear conflicts. But a growing bear population doesn't necessarily lead to more problems. Between 1985 and 2002, the estimated Minnesota bear population increased from 8,000 to 21,000, but complaints dropped from 2,859 to 625. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources suggested a link between the drop in complaints and residents learning to live with bears and prevent most conflicts.
New Jersey's hunt targets the bears who are the least likely to come into conflict with humans, because the hunt takes place far from inhabited areas. The state Department of Fish Wildlife has the authority to kill individual bears that repeatedly cause damage or exhibit fearless or aggressive behavior towards humans.
The hunt may actually increase conflicts, since hunters are allowed to lure bears on non-federal lands with bait such as pastries and cooking grease. Habituating bears to human food sources teaches them to seek out homes, campgrounds and other human-related food sources.

How to Reduce Human-Bear Conflicts
Residents can keep everybody safe by taking a few precautions. The most important thing you can do is eliminate any outdoor food sources:


use a bear-proof garbage can (the Bear Resource Group (http://www.savenjbears.com/) has a Crittercan program (http://www.crittercan.org/), and some communities will subsidize your purchase)
if possible, keep garbage indoors until trash day
don't put food scraps in your compost pile
collect fruit from trees once it is ripe
thoroughly clean barbeques
don't feed your pets outdoors

If approached by a bear, act aggressively—make noise and throw objects—and never turn your back or run. Negative experiences with humans will teach bears to avoid areas where humans dwell. To learn more about living peacefully with bears, visit our Solving Problems with Black Bears page (http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/urban_wildlife_our_wild_neighbors/solving_problems/species/encounters_with_black_bears.html).

[sheepdog]

we have bears in our yard about ever three years, usually in the spring. They pillage the bird feaders, eat the spawning suckers out in the creek, put on a good show and leave quietly. If they become a nuisance we shoot them with paint ball guns and chase them away. There is also the old fill a baloon up with amonia and water, cover with honey and hang high enough for the bear to reach up for it on his hind legs.

[Tilly]

When people are seeing (and being harassed by!) bears in their back yards, then obviously there are too many bears and not enough hunters.

There wouldn't be so many bears in the first place if there weren't humans for them to sponge off of. So unless you are willing to remove yourself from the human race for the sake of controlling the bear population, the only solution is to hunt them. Fortunately, by an amazing coincidence, many humans are excellent hunters, so even if you don't want to kill one yourself, someone else will be more than happy to take care of it for you -- so long as some misinformed bear hugger doesn't get in their way.

Has anyone ever thought about what great contribution bears actually make to the environment, anyway? They're lousy predators and do nothing towards controlling the overpopulation of game animals, like deer. In the wild, when there aren't any humans to sponge off of, they get by sponging off the real predators by stealing their kills.

I agree that bears are interesting enough to keep a few around in the back woods, but when it gets to the point where they're coming out of the woods to audition for Jackass with a YouTube trampoline video, then it's time to turn the hunters loose!

I was going to keep out of this, but since I lived in NJ for 25 years and have happily seen many, many a bear while hiking there, this paticular post caught my interest.

First off, you call those against the bear hunt (before derisively called them 'bear huggers') misinformed. But then you go on to say that the only reason that the bear population is increasing is because the bears are 'sponging off humans.' Is this true? Is this THE reason that bear numbers are increasing? You have proof of this? I would like to see it, actually.

Also I question the notion that species are only important to keep around, or not hunt into extinction, if they are 'interesting' enough. Is this a good model? Would it be better if black bears were more like their Grizzly cousins, as 'better' predators? Is it really true that black bears, who are indeed a native species of NJ, are not important to the ecosystem? Are they damaging it because they don't hunt deer?

Also, there are hardly any 'real predators' in NJ for bears to 'sponge' of off, anyway. No big cats, no grizzlies, wolves, etc. There are plenty of animals that 'sponge' off of other animals kills, ravens/vultures for instance. I would like to see some evidence that scavengers are indeed bad for the environment.

I'm not going to say whether or not I'm for or against the bear hunt, but this post, to me, is full of fallacy.

[General Fireball]

The Humane Society info is a wee bit funny. Pick fruit once it is ripe? Lemme tell ya, the bears don't care if it's ripe. Or if it even produces good fruit. Chokecherry, crabapple . . . I have had bears climb through and systematically demolish these trees on my property, making em look they were through a hurricane. It doesn't really bother me, but seriously--real advice would be: cut down anything on your property that produces any fruit or berry in any marginal way edible, whether planted by you or wild. Then abandon any aspirations of every growing such a thing again. Also, abandon any notion that you will ever feed the birds again, except when the average temperature goes below freezing. And for the record: bears are definitely the biggest scroungers out there. They will eat anything, they're the Andrew Zimmern of the animal world. One big plus: in the old days, a dead deer would stay on the side of the road forever, till it was rotten and bloated. Now, gone in a day or two. Thank you, Mr. Bear.

[sheepdog]

The Humane Society info is a wee bit funny. Pick fruit once it is ripe? Lemme tell ya, the bears don't care if it's ripe. Or if it even produces good fruit. Chokecherry, crabapple . . . I have had bears climb through and systematically demolish these trees on my property, making em look they were through a hurricane. It doesn't really bother me, but seriously--real advice would be: cut down anything on your property that produces any fruit or berry in any marginal way edible, whether planted by you or wild. Then abandon any aspirations of every growing such a thing again. Also, abandon any notion that you will ever feed the birds again, except when the average temperature goes below freezing. And for the record: bears are definitely the biggest scroungers out there. They will eat anything, they're the Andrew Zimmern of the animal world. One big plus: in the old days, a dead deer would stay on the side of the road forever, till it was rotten and bloated. Now, gone in a day or two. Thank you, Mr. Bear.
you can keep them away and teach them to fear your area. It takes some work, try the water baloon filled with amonia and water, suspend it high enough that the bear has to reach up for it. Cover it with honey . They get a face full of that and they usually don't come back.

[booger]

Because you will never run into a bear that will share his or her food with you on the AT. YOU WILL RUN INTO HUMANS THAT WILL. Also, I've never gotten a ride into town by a bear. I have gotten rides into town by humans. And bears have been known to crawl under shelters for hibernating in the winter. They crap and stink up the shelter. Humans only crap in and under shelter rarely.Good points, I would add that when a bear shows me his/her deed to my property or at least pays my property taxes, I will leave, otherwise I reserve my right to protect my property from all intruders:dance

[canoehead]

"sheepdog (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/member.php?u=14920)try the water baloon filled with amonia and water,"

Might this blind the animal if it gets into their eyes? and who's to say it's gonna be a bear breaking that balloon.
You have to make your area bear proof and yes that means no bird feeders, trash, fruit trees & bushes or ANY food source.. Bears a creatures of habit and will remember where they got their last meal and almost always goes back to get more.. just sayin..
I am a Ranger at a scout camp and deal with this every year. the answer is.
PREVENTION.

[sheepdog]

"sheepdog (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/member.php?u=14920)try the water baloon filled with amonia and water,"

Might this blind the animal if it gets into their eyes? and who's to say it's gonna be a bear breaking that balloon.
You have to make your area bear proof and yes that means no bird feeders, trash, fruit trees & bushes or ANY food source.. Bears a creatures of habit and will remember where they got their last meal and almost always goes back to get more.. just sayin..
I am a Ranger at a scout camp and deal with this every year. the answer is.
PREVENTION.
You hang it so only a bear can get at it, it does no permanent harm to the bear and it is effective. I learned this while living in Alaska where we had lots of problem black bears.

[jersey joe]

Bear hunt starts in NJ tomorrow.
6,500 permits issued.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/bergen/120510_New_Jerseys_black_bear_hunt_ready_to_get_un der_way.html

[Oogie Boogie]

Good points, I would add that when a bear shows me his/her deed to my property or at least pays my property taxes, I will leave, otherwise I reserve my right to protect my property from all intruders:dance

Did you ever stop to think a little less selfishly and consider that the bears have been living on these lands for many thousands of years longer than anyone whose skin isn't red? Or are you just so stuck in your selfish little today's picture that you actually believe what you just said, and expect others to do the same? Come on, seriously, you choose where you live. A bear is just following food.

Who got the bright idea that ammonia in the eyes won't permanently blind a bear? Have any of you ever gotten even a drop of ammonia in your eye? Before you put up a balloon of it and bait a bear into torture and possible permanent blindness in one or both eyes, you should try it on yourself.

Here's some info on ammonia: http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/emergency/chemical_terrorism/ammonia_tech.htm

[Luddite]

The Humane Society info is a wee bit funny. Pick fruit once it is ripe? Lemme tell ya, the bears don't care if it's ripe.

I think what they meant was get your fruit off of the tree as soon as possible.