The Record: The hunt is on
The Record
THERE are some issues that straddle chasms of opinion so wide, no amount of debate will end in agreement. Hunting is one of those issues.
Today, a six-day bear hunt is set to begin in New Jersey's northwest corner, an area north of Route 78 and west of Route 287 that includes parts of Bergen, Passaic and Morris counties. Licensed hunters using shotgun slugs and muzzle-loading rifles will be allowed to kill one bear apiece, while hunters elsewhere are pursuing deer.
It is the first bear hunt in five years, and comes after a report by the state's Fish and Game Council that recommended regular hunting become a part of the state's bear management plan. State Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin formally approved the hunt last month.
That careful process follows legal rules set by a state appeals court in 2007, when judges disallowed a planned hunt because they considered the state's black bear management plan incomplete. The ruling made clear that hunting must not be a foregone conclusion, but may be part of an overall strategy that allows bears and their human neighbors to safely live side by side, if circumstances and science support it.
That is the thrust of the report by the Fish and Game Council, which reviewed non-lethal bear management options such as birth control and relocation and concluded they are ineffective and too expensive. Animal-rights activists criticized the report as one-sided, noted the council's historic allegiance to hunters and argued that birth control and relocation are possible solutions. Since the data come from projections and limited experiments, the statistics allow plenty of room for debate.
Both sides also are arguing over the population and bear-human encounter statistics in the report, which show growing numbers. Those in favor of the hunt say the number of bears has tripled to 3,400, and that the rising encounter numbers are due to the growing incursion of bears into populated areas. Those opposed say the increase in encounters can be attributed to a lack of reporting standards and duplications. They also differ in their assessments of whether community education programs are sufficient, and whether a ban on feeding black bears has been fully enforced.
Anti-hunting advocates last week asked the state appeals court to stop the hunt, arguing that the DEP and council's science was faulty and that it did not adequately consider the public's point of view. But, as judges affirmed Friday, it's clear that the Fish and Game Council has done its due diligence. The DEP's data are reasonable, it held public hearings as required and it has acted legally in approving a hunt.
Nonetheless, we cannot agree with the ultimate conclusion in this debate. As in the past, we do not support a bear hunt in New Jersey.
A comprehensive management plan cannot begin with hunting as its center; instead, more rigorous bear-aversion strategies such as garbage control should be expanded. Towns throughout New Jersey are starving for revenues — surely bear-prone communities could step up their fine-collection efforts by checking for forbidden bird feeders and unsecured garbage cans. We also support continuing birth control research.
Hunting should be the last resort, after all other strategies are proven ineffective. But saying "when" on non-lethal methods is a judgment call, one that appears motivated by deeply held opinions about hunting as much as — or more than — the statistical analysis of the day. After years of a traditionally hunt-resistant DEP, the sportsmen-dominated Fish and Game Council has at last found a sympathetic ear.
The hunt isn't expected to bring in much revenue, since hunters can add a bear permit to their deer-hunting permit for a measly $2. However, if the council and DEP are serious about the comprehensiveness of their plan, we'd expect to see whatever money is raised spent on public education and enforcing the feeding ban. Everyone can agree on that.
Today, a six-day bear hunt is set to begin in New Jersey's northwest corner, an area north of Route 78 and west of Route 287 that includes parts of Bergen, Passaic and Morris counties. Licensed hunters using shotgun slugs and muzzle-loading rifles will be allowed to kill one bear apiece, while hunters elsewhere are pursuing deer.
It is the first bear hunt in five years, and comes after a report by the state's Fish and Game Council that recommended regular hunting become a part of the state's bear management plan. State Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin formally approved the hunt last month.
That careful process follows legal rules set by a state appeals court in 2007, when judges disallowed a planned hunt because they considered the state's black bear management plan incomplete. The ruling made clear that hunting must not be a foregone conclusion, but may be part of an overall strategy that allows bears and their human neighbors to safely live side by side, if circumstances and science support it.
That is the thrust of the report by the Fish and Game Council, which reviewed non-lethal bear management options such as birth control and relocation and concluded they are ineffective and too expensive. Animal-rights activists criticized the report as one-sided, noted the council's historic allegiance to hunters and argued that birth control and relocation are possible solutions. Since the data come from projections and limited experiments, the statistics allow plenty of room for debate.
Both sides also are arguing over the population and bear-human encounter statistics in the report, which show growing numbers. Those in favor of the hunt say the number of bears has tripled to 3,400, and that the rising encounter numbers are due to the growing incursion of bears into populated areas. Those opposed say the increase in encounters can be attributed to a lack of reporting standards and duplications. They also differ in their assessments of whether community education programs are sufficient, and whether a ban on feeding black bears has been fully enforced.
Anti-hunting advocates last week asked the state appeals court to stop the hunt, arguing that the DEP and council's science was faulty and that it did not adequately consider the public's point of view. But, as judges affirmed Friday, it's clear that the Fish and Game Council has done its due diligence. The DEP's data are reasonable, it held public hearings as required and it has acted legally in approving a hunt.
Nonetheless, we cannot agree with the ultimate conclusion in this debate. As in the past, we do not support a bear hunt in New Jersey.
A comprehensive management plan cannot begin with hunting as its center; instead, more rigorous bear-aversion strategies such as garbage control should be expanded. Towns throughout New Jersey are starving for revenues — surely bear-prone communities could step up their fine-collection efforts by checking for forbidden bird feeders and unsecured garbage cans. We also support continuing birth control research.
Hunting should be the last resort, after all other strategies are proven ineffective. But saying "when" on non-lethal methods is a judgment call, one that appears motivated by deeply held opinions about hunting as much as — or more than — the statistical analysis of the day. After years of a traditionally hunt-resistant DEP, the sportsmen-dominated Fish and Game Council has at last found a sympathetic ear.
The hunt isn't expected to bring in much revenue, since hunters can add a bear permit to their deer-hunting permit for a measly $2. However, if the council and DEP are serious about the comprehensiveness of their plan, we'd expect to see whatever money is raised spent on public education and enforcing the feeding ban. Everyone can agree on that.
THERE are some issues that straddle chasms of opinion so wide, no amount of debate will end in agreement. Hunting is one of those issues.
Today, a six-day bear hunt is set to begin in New Jersey's northwest corner, an area north of Route 78 and west of Route 287 that includes parts of Bergen, Passaic and Morris counties. Licensed hunters using shotgun slugs and muzzle-loading rifles will be allowed to kill one bear apiece, while hunters elsewhere are pursuing deer.
It is the first bear hunt in five years, and comes after a report by the state's Fish and Game Council that recommended regular hunting become a part of the state's bear management plan. State Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin formally approved the hunt last month.
That careful process follows legal rules set by a state appeals court in 2007, when judges disallowed a planned hunt because they considered the state's black bear management plan incomplete. The ruling made clear that hunting must not be a foregone conclusion, but may be part of an overall strategy that allows bears and their human neighbors to safely live side by side, if circumstances and science support it.
That is the thrust of the report by the Fish and Game Council, which reviewed non-lethal bear management options such as birth control and relocation and concluded they are ineffective and too expensive. Animal-rights activists criticized the report as one-sided, noted the council's historic allegiance to hunters and argued that birth control and relocation are possible solutions. Since the data come from projections and limited experiments, the statistics allow plenty of room for debate.
Both sides also are arguing over the population and bear-human encounter statistics in the report, which show growing numbers. Those in favor of the hunt say the number of bears has tripled to 3,400, and that the rising encounter numbers are due to the growing incursion of bears into populated areas. Those opposed say the increase in encounters can be attributed to a lack of reporting standards and duplications. They also differ in their assessments of whether community education programs are sufficient, and whether a ban on feeding black bears has been fully enforced.
Anti-hunting advocates last week asked the state appeals court to stop the hunt, arguing that the DEP and council's science was faulty and that it did not adequately consider the public's point of view. But, as judges affirmed Friday, it's clear that the Fish and Game Council has done its due diligence. The DEP's data are reasonable, it held public hearings as required and it has acted legally in approving a hunt.
Nonetheless, we cannot agree with the ultimate conclusion in this debate. As in the past, we do not support a bear hunt in New Jersey.
A comprehensive management plan cannot begin with hunting as its center; instead, more rigorous bear-aversion strategies such as garbage control should be expanded. Towns throughout New Jersey are starving for revenues — surely bear-prone communities could step up their fine-collection efforts by checking for forbidden bird feeders and unsecured garbage cans. We also support continuing birth control research.
Hunting should be the last resort, after all other strategies are proven ineffective. But saying "when" on non-lethal methods is a judgment call, one that appears motivated by deeply held opinions about hunting as much as — or more than — the statistical analysis of the day. After years of a traditionally hunt-resistant DEP, the sportsmen-dominated Fish and Game Council has at last found a sympathetic ear.
The hunt isn't expected to bring in much revenue, since hunters can add a bear permit to their deer-hunting permit for a measly $2. However, if the council and DEP are serious about the comprehensiveness of their plan, we'd expect to see whatever money is raised spent on public education and enforcing the feeding ban. Everyone can agree on that.
Today, a six-day bear hunt is set to begin in New Jersey's northwest corner, an area north of Route 78 and west of Route 287 that includes parts of Bergen, Passaic and Morris counties. Licensed hunters using shotgun slugs and muzzle-loading rifles will be allowed to kill one bear apiece, while hunters elsewhere are pursuing deer.
It is the first bear hunt in five years, and comes after a report by the state's Fish and Game Council that recommended regular hunting become a part of the state's bear management plan. State Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin formally approved the hunt last month.
That careful process follows legal rules set by a state appeals court in 2007, when judges disallowed a planned hunt because they considered the state's black bear management plan incomplete. The ruling made clear that hunting must not be a foregone conclusion, but may be part of an overall strategy that allows bears and their human neighbors to safely live side by side, if circumstances and science support it.
That is the thrust of the report by the Fish and Game Council, which reviewed non-lethal bear management options such as birth control and relocation and concluded they are ineffective and too expensive. Animal-rights activists criticized the report as one-sided, noted the council's historic allegiance to hunters and argued that birth control and relocation are possible solutions. Since the data come from projections and limited experiments, the statistics allow plenty of room for debate.
Both sides also are arguing over the population and bear-human encounter statistics in the report, which show growing numbers. Those in favor of the hunt say the number of bears has tripled to 3,400, and that the rising encounter numbers are due to the growing incursion of bears into populated areas. Those opposed say the increase in encounters can be attributed to a lack of reporting standards and duplications. They also differ in their assessments of whether community education programs are sufficient, and whether a ban on feeding black bears has been fully enforced.
Anti-hunting advocates last week asked the state appeals court to stop the hunt, arguing that the DEP and council's science was faulty and that it did not adequately consider the public's point of view. But, as judges affirmed Friday, it's clear that the Fish and Game Council has done its due diligence. The DEP's data are reasonable, it held public hearings as required and it has acted legally in approving a hunt.
Nonetheless, we cannot agree with the ultimate conclusion in this debate. As in the past, we do not support a bear hunt in New Jersey.
A comprehensive management plan cannot begin with hunting as its center; instead, more rigorous bear-aversion strategies such as garbage control should be expanded. Towns throughout New Jersey are starving for revenues — surely bear-prone communities could step up their fine-collection efforts by checking for forbidden bird feeders and unsecured garbage cans. We also support continuing birth control research.
Hunting should be the last resort, after all other strategies are proven ineffective. But saying "when" on non-lethal methods is a judgment call, one that appears motivated by deeply held opinions about hunting as much as — or more than — the statistical analysis of the day. After years of a traditionally hunt-resistant DEP, the sportsmen-dominated Fish and Game Council has at last found a sympathetic ear.
The hunt isn't expected to bring in much revenue, since hunters can add a bear permit to their deer-hunting permit for a measly $2. However, if the council and DEP are serious about the comprehensiveness of their plan, we'd expect to see whatever money is raised spent on public education and enforcing the feeding ban. Everyone can agree on that.
No comments:
Post a Comment