Controversial NJ Hunt Ends with 328 Bears Killed

Sun December 14, 2003 05:18 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A total of 328 black bears were killed in New Jersey's first hunt in 33 years, officials said on Sunday, adding they were not sure the controversial exercise would be repeated next year.

Fifty-three bears were killed on Saturday, the last day of a six-day hunt officials organized to control a bear population they said had grown aggressive and threatened public safety.

Hunters were met by more than 100 protesters at Wawayanda State Park on Saturday. Some hunters said they were heckled as they headed into the woods, but no serious incidents were reported.

The number of demonstrators on the final day was triple the showing at Monday's opening day of the hunt.

more...http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=3989960

I feel sorry for the bears.

There must be a better way...this is wrong! :mad: :puke:

pretty wrong. What is wrong is when man tries to alter nature. There is an island where I live that is loaded with deer. They have succeeded in breeding to large herds and have decimated the flora and auna to the point where they dominate. In natural environments, this tends to even out, but on this island, where they are protected,due to the protests of the citizens, they have succeeded in destroying much of the natural forest over time and consequently have destroyed habitat that is necessary to other wildlife. I suppose that the bear in NJ are in similar circumstances. It is too bad that they are being killed for no other reason--I love nature and wild life and love to observe it in as natural an environment as I can. I have watched several different changes occur where I live over a period of twenty years. Right now, we have caught in a have a heart trap nine flying squirrels that for some reason have invaded our attic. We have never had flying squirrels invade our house, although we have had red squirrels. We have to drive them at least ten miles away and release them back into the wild. They are endangered, but I do not want them destroying my house either.

Red Top Mountain near Atlanta is basically an island surrounded by civilization. The deer are overwhelming the resources of the mountain, and cannot leave. We now have starving deer standing by the roads. Very sad. Really cannot hunt with rifles because of proximity to development. The deer need to be thinned, either by hunting or some sort of birth control. I dislike hunting, but this is not fair to the deer. Bow hunting seems to be the best choice. I would rather see some hunted then all of them starving.

They usually are.

You have statistics to back that up, right? Only slob hunters drink while hunting; my grandfather, uncle and I have yet to encounter a drunken hunter in the woods in years of hunting together. Where are the many thousands of deaths every year if the majority of the millions of sportsmen and women who hunt are drunk? Go make insulting, baseless slurs elsewhere, they aren't welcome here.

in eastern Oklahoma. Poaching is a word that means, to them, something to do with eggs.
:grr:

when you write "I have yet to encounter a drunken hunter".
In New Hampshire, in 1973, a friend of mine was shot to death by a drunken hunter. My friend was 15 years old when that stupid idiot shot him.

If it only happens every couple of years (every ten or so) and its regulated then I have no problem with it.

I live in NJ....and in my area (Northern Bergen county) we're having problems with bear....they're expanding into residential areas (residential as in run of the mill, middle class suburbia) One of my old highschool teachers' sons (a 5 yr old) was almost mauled when a bear came onto her deck.

The animals were becoming a safety hazard, and thanks to the bush economy we can't afford to move them onto nature reserves. This was the best option.

First off, I'm not a hunter, so don't think of me as some butcher killing innocent animals.
Ok, hundreds of years ago we pushed the bears out, but thats not my fault blame it on people from the 18th century.

Twenty years ago the bears weren't here, they all lived deep in the woods and didn't bother anyone, but recently their population has exploded and they're moving back into the area we developed almost a century ago.
I'm not living on a housing development that was recently built on some huge piece of property, most of the homes in my area are small, one family 3 bedroom houses with a 20 sqare foot backyard and I'm a total of 5 minutes from Manhattan. When the bears come into a city ad go dumpster diving for food, they are a safety threat, not defending their natural habitat.

If there were another way I would have supported it but The state can't afford to do anything else, blame bush* for this, not me

perhaps from land that had been "developed" nearby, a little further out in "the country". We've seen the same thing around here with deer as sprawl eliminates habitat. Granted some people fear bears but I'd wager a dollar to a donut that deer cause more death, injury and destruction of property in the process of becoming road pizza. I support the right to arm bears!

So you are saying you live where no animals ever lived. I don't believe it. I also doubt the bears "have always been there". What animals did the bears displace to move in? Are we not animals too?

Still I had no idea there were that many bears in NJ; I thought they needed larger ranges. But I don't know much about bears really. They have problems with bears at many national parks (due in part to idiot humans feeding them and leaving food out). It is a huge problem to have so many bears so close to human habitation even if the bears technically were there first. I believe that regular hunts would help thin the populations plus maybe condition the bears into staying awat from people and their dwellings. Hunting is an appropriate management tool and sometimes the only solution to a problems. It is in part anti-hunting sentiment that has led to deer overpopulation in many places. Since humans have also eliminated natural predators like wolves, hunting is the only way to keep deer from starving to death. Birth control programs may be useful but are often ruinously expensive for state agencies to administer.

FLAME AWAY YOU F***ING COWARDS

Can't say I appreciate being called a "fucking coward", and I don't imagine it would fly if I were to post that all anti-hunters were "fucking pussies", would it?

I wouldn't post that, tho, because I have a slightly more mature and nuanced worldview and I don't believe it. It's unfortunate how far away from the land and nature people have gotten, and how unimaginable it would be for them to fulfill their natural role as a predator. It's unfortunate that people have come to view animals the way they do; too much Disney I suppose. It's unfortunate that people are unable to face the realities of the need to cull animal populations. I'd say all these are people are a product of nurture, however, not that they were "fucking cowards" or some such childish nonsense.

...but support controlled hunting. Man's encroachment on animal habitat leaves a lot of animals with little too feed on and there are few natural predators left to thin the herds. Often, hunting animals is way more merciful than letting Bambi starve to death.

is a coward now?

coward: One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

courage: The quality that enables one to face danger or fear with confidence and resolution.

Blasting a 4 pound bird with a shotgun does not fit either definition.

This one might fit:

poseur: One who affects a particular attribute, attitude or identity to impress or influence others.

(Kerry did show tremendous courage in Vietnam while Bush was out boozing, but that's another topic.)

interesting....

But his Harley ride onto the Tonight Show stage and this much-photographed pheasant shooting episode seem artificial.

So you are calling John Kerry a coward? Have you seen the photo of him on a bird hunt with his shotgun? Do you think calling fellow Democrats cowards will help get out the vote? My brothers are over today for the last day of black powder deer season and they saw your words and just laughed. I'm not laughing because I know attitudes and words like that will turn off more and more hunting Democrats.

what a country! . . .

The Democratic party I belong to does not take such sexist stands. I don't have a penis and think you may want to consider thinking a bit more before making such sexist remarks...or not.

Does anyone here have ~100,000 acres of forested land lying around and in need of some bears? Or care to donate money to help capture and spay/neuter the bears? Black bears are now fairly common throughout the eastern US, so there aren't many areas they could be moved to that are in need of bear repopulation. New Jersey isn't the only area in the US facing problems with growing wildlife populations, and simply shipping the bears to another part of the state or country would likely just reinforce the problem over again in someone else's backyard. Other than hunting, I don't see any alternatives to the overpopulation problem.

rethug governor has made possible up here in Alaska with our wolves
and hunt them by air? Shoot them as they run themselves to death. How much manhood does that take? Very, very, VERY little.

We have said no as a state over and over on votes about this but he
packed the game board with hunters and guides and nutjobs.

Now we are going to have our wolves chased down by planes and shot. That is what hunting is now.

So 328 will have little impact on the overall health of the population of black bears.

yeah, and in many places where viable populations exist they are poached for bogus Chinese meds. Great Smokey Mts NP lost 50% of it's bears over a 2-3 yr period. What's overpopulating is humans.
Birth control is a possibility for the bears but would seem more resonable for a supposedly rational species, neh?

From the Smithsonian National Zoological Park website (http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1999/2/fact-americanblack.cfm):

"Status: Unlike the other seven bear species, many American black bear populations are thriving. Only the isolated Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi populations are listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. However, other unlisted but scattered populations, such as those in Florida, are vulnerable to poaching, habitat loss, and roadkill deaths. Some estimates put the continent's black bear population at about a half million."

"Birth control is a possibility for the bears but would seem more resonable for a supposedly rational species, neh?"

Reasonable? Yes, in a perfect world. Doable? Hardly in the real world. Do you have any estimates on how much birth control costs per bear? From articles I've read about contraceptive testing on deer, the minimum cost per each deer was $300+ per year, with contraceptives needing to be readministered every 6 months to 1 yr. Furthermore, these tests were in confined areas where migration was limited. A free-ranging population of a large animal like a bear would be extremely difficult to use contraceptives on successfully. It also has many still-unresolved problems. If you put out contraceptives-laced bait, how do you guarantee that the correct dosage is recieved? One large dominant bear may eat much more than the dosage and leave too little left for smaller bears. Or, how do you guarantee that other animals don't eat the bait as well? If you dart them, that sends costs way up (up to $1000 per animal in deer at least) and you have to find a way to keep track of what bears have been darted already so that you don't waste darts on already-darted bears. Out of several thousand hunters, only 328 shot bears. How long would it take shooters armed with dart guns to dart enough bears to put a dent in their population? Where does the money to dart hundreds of bears each year come from? Hunters, on the other hand, actually pay for the opportunity to hunt bears.

I was referring to humans controlling their population to allow other species some space.
As concerning thriving, west of the Mississippi, sure, for the time being. Here in the east the population is pretty much in the Appalachians and is being chipped away on the edges all over the place. For a population to have a good chance over the long term it is estimated that 500 breeders are required for genetic stability. That's a lot of bear territory! With the ship loads of money we're sending to China and the very high prices bear gall bladders are fetching poaching is a grave concern.
Yes, I agree providing bc for a common species like deer is foolish feelgoodism for the folks who have displaced the deer and their natural predators themselves!

and 328 men now feel like they have bigger penises . . . what a country! . . .

well that's not sexist at all.......what about women that hunt. Do they have bigger vaginas now, too?

The Hunters I know carry at least 2 knives, one for skinning, one for de boning, in addition, usually a 3rd all around utility knife/

All are kept very sharp, some use stones, other the modern diamond studded kwickie.

Hunters are usually responsible, they hunt seriously, no drugs, no drinking, too much danger. They are safety concious. After the kill, they gut/bleed/skin/debone with great efficiency.

The rookie wanna be hunters usually waste the animal with poor skinning/etc.

This is why they have Hunter Ed classes

were in hibernation this time of year. I guess they go in a little deeper into winter.

The bears are not in a natural system, since they are interacting with human beings. Since the bears are not in a natural system, it is *too late* to let nature take its course, since nature has been preempted. I do not hunt myself, but this kind of hunting is about the only kind I can see the need for--barring your family actually needing the food. These bears were put into a system of our creation that was dangerous for both of us. If their population is reduced, peace will continue. We're not about to lower *our* population so we lower that of the bears. It's a choice between bulldozing some developments and turning out the people or killing some bears.

(in NJ) we were country folks. The people there hunted to supplement their diets. They probably still do. They also raise chickens (or did) and other animals to kill and eat. It's how things have always been done since the dawn of man. I could not bring myself to kill an animal unless I was badly needing food, but I can't fault others for it. Going out and getting your own meat is really no different than planting your own vegetable garden. These folks are making themselves responsible for at least a part of their own sustenance.

Those of us who eat any meat at all have really no good argument against hunting because they are eating the result of someone else's animal killing. The vegans do have an argument (not a very good one). None of our prehistoric ancestors would have survived if they had not eaten meal, animal and vegetable, that came their way.

Edit: What I am totally against is trophy hunting - which is just ego stroking, in a way.

What happened was the growth of massive, industrial home building and suburban sprawl into the habitats of the these animals. Instead of people living with less, the bears have to be massacred.

I totally agree with you that suburban sprawl is a horrid thing to see, it destroys land valuable for wildlife and the rural community. I've watched with disgust as little 5 acre "hobby farms" have popped up around the area my dad's farm is located, gobbling up farmland and woods. However, in many situations like in NJ, the wildlife are actively migrating into the cities, not just the cities encroaching on their habitat. Cities and suburbs provide an easy source of food, shelter and protection from predators for wildlife. Deer, coyotes, crows and bears are all prime examples of this. The gardens and shrubs we plant provide easy food for deer, and the garbage dumpsters, birdfeeders, petfood dishes, and even the pets themselves provide easy food for coyotes and bears. They have no predators, human hunter or otherwise, except for the occassional car accident. Even if suburban sprawl were to stop in it's tracks and even reverse today, we would still be seeing these problems with wildlife in the towns and cities.

NJ human population in 1900: 1,883,669
NJ human population in 2000: 8, 414,350
An increase of 446%.
Historically, anything or anyone that got in the way of settler expansion in the US has been hunted out of existence, whether the buffalo, the wolf or the American Indian.
In the words of William Tecumsah Sherman "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."


"This'll teach you to stay out of our open dumpsters!"

of death and destruction we have become. It is so far out of control and I wish there was someway to stop the progression, but it just keeps getting worse, doesn't it?

Around here we have a yearly bear season and it helps keep the controlled. I have only take three in my entire life here but most of my native friends have several dozen. Bear meat is quite good if allowed to season on the hide long enough.

(OK, here comes the yeah-but part, sort of...)

As I am not an expert on animal population biology or ecology I cannot form a meaningful opinion on whether or not the hunt was really the right thing to do in context of the human development taking place there. I trust that the people of New Jersey will judge how well their wildlife managers are doing their job, and make any appropriate adjustments.

sitting comfortably on their behinds in their blinds in wait for a bear to come along and take the bait. One shot and the bear is dead. The only finger that is lifted in this so-called hunt is the one on the trigger. Disgusting to witness the delight, boasting and 'bravado' exhibited by these 'mighty hunters'. These mighty hunters pose for the camera with their kill and then have the trophy stuffed for their private collections. Bloodlust at it's finest.

We're here, we're queer, we don't want anymore bears.