BySeth Augenstein | NJ Advance Media for
March 04, 2015
Opponents of a bigger, longer bear hunt charged today that the state is
artificially inflating the number of bruins in New Jersey to placate
hunters, and have vowed to fight a plan to kill more bears each year.
The state’s Fish and Game Council unanimously approved a bear
“management” plan Tuesday that would open the majority of North Jersey
to the hunt adding a total of 633 square miles of new hunting grounds.
The plan would also lengthen the hunt to as much as 16 days each year,
including a week in October, instead of just the current 6-day December
season. The use of bows and arrows would also be allowed.
The bear population is the big contention point, as it has been for more
than a decade of courtroom battles and public protests.
“We’ll be considering all our options — including legal options,” added
Doris Lin, director of legal affairs for the Animal Protection League of
New Jersey.
Before the annual hunt started in 2010, the bear population was
estimated by the state at 3,400. About 1,900 were killed over the course
of the five yearly hunts, held each December.The state said there were
2,500 bears prior to the December 2014 hunt, officials
said at the time.
But when the plan for future hunts was unveiled Tuesday, the population
estimate was revised to its highest total yet: anywhere from 3,500 to
4,000. State biologists said it was data collected during the December
hunt that showed an unexpected surge in the population.
“They have high reproductive rates,” said Tony McBride, a supervising
wildlife biologist with the Division. “It’s all habitat quality.”
Black bear litters are larger here than the average in other parts of
North America, the state scientists say. Females bears in New Jersey
produce three bears per litter — compared to one or two per litter in
the western United States, said McBride.
But five or six cubs have been counted in some New Jersey litters,
according to the new bear management plan. The Garden State has the
perfect mix of southern and northern forests that provide a variety of
acorns and other natural foods which lead to much higher reproductive
rates, said McBride.
But skepticism from the critics abounds. Animal-rights groups allege the
Division of Fish and Wildlife changes its estimates to suit its
hunter-first plans.
The latest population estimates are a way to drum up public support for
the hunt, they contend.
“Whenever it’s convenient for them, they say the bear population is
going up or going down,” said Lin. “Now that they want to expand the
hunt, they say they’re up.”
“It’s hard to know what to say,” added Susan Russell, the wildlife
policy director of the Animal Protection League. “The hunters wanted to
get bowhunting, and they got bowhunting. This is what they wanted — and
they’re going to get it.”
The public will have its say on the new hunt and management plan. The
DEP commissioner must approve the plan, it must be published in the New
Jersey Register, and the public will have 60 days to comment – including
a hearing. Bothwill be announced by the DEP
An NJ Advance Media analysis of statewide bear complaints conducted in
December showed that Category I incidents — the most-serious and aggressive incidents
— increased significantly after the 2013 hunt, as the population
approached pre-hunt levels, according to Department of Environmental
Protection statistics.Aggressive-bear complaints were initially pushed
down by the first hunts, but later made a resurgence.
Dave Chanda, the director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife, told NJ
Advance Media that the approval of the new plan would be too late to
open for the October season this year.
Exposing the Big Game 
We need to protect wildlife from state wildlife agencies. These agencies are mostly set up to serve the wishes of hunters and fishermen, not the majority of the public. They are really an extension of the sportsmen, wildlife sport killing, and fishermen. They stock streams and rivers for fishermen to fish, and game farm to serve ungulate hunters, and sacrifice balanced wildlife ecologies for hunters. In Montana, for example, the governor appoints 5 commissioners to oversee Fish Wildlife & Parks in five districts. One of the commissioners has to know about ranching. No conservationists are among them. Rancher interests and hunter interests are represented. Hunters only make up 6% of the general US public and maybe 15% in Montana. Under this system, it is easy to see why the best interests of balanced wildlife ecology, wildlife habitat, and the desires of the general public are not best represented. Wildlife state agencies in many states should be fired, completely revamped.
Do need to protect wildlife from state and federal wildlife agencies? These agencies are mostly set up to serve the wishes of hunters and fishermen and agriculturists, not the majority of the public. They are really an extension of the sportsmen, wildlife sport killing, and fishermen. They stock streams and rivers for fishermen to fish, and game farm to serve ungulate hunters, and sacrifice balanced wildlife ecologies for hunters. In Montana, for example, the governor appoints 5 commissioners to oversee Fish Wildlife & Parks in five districts. One of the commissioners has to know about ranching. No conservationists are among them. Rancher interests and hunter interests are represented. Hunters only make up 6% of the general US public and maybe 15% in Montana. Under this system, it is easy to see why the best interests of balanced wildlife ecology, wildlife habitat, and the desires of the general public are not best represented. Wildlife state agencies in many states should be fired, completely revamped. Even the USFWS has to be pushed often to protect wildlife, as does the USFS, and BLM. They have to often be sued by conservation organizations. The US Forest Service (USFS) comes under US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Wildlife Services, a wild animal killing agency, killing about 4 million “nuisance” animals a year, comes under USDA. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) mostly serves public grazing, 57% of its’ managed land, plus mining, oil and gas leases, and lumber leases. BLM is mandated to balance the interest of agriculture and extraction industries with recreation and wildlife; but it is easy to see where the meat of their interests are.
The bear population is going up, and so it is time to kill bears. The elk population is going down, so it is time to kill wolves. Funny how all these natural fluctuations require someone’s death as a solution.
Humans like to involve themselves in everyone’s population control but their own.
Isn’t that the truth!
Addendum: Of course, it is assuming that the bear population is really going up and the elk population is really going down (aside from hunting and poaching).
There’s always too many of anything hunters want to kill.
Unless there’s not enough, then it’s the wolves’ fault…