Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-08-2012, 02:06 PM
 
11,337 posts, read 11,060,785 times
Reputation: 14993

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by deere110 View Post
There's no way you're real or that if you were that anyone would use you for a real estate transaction. Furthermore, if you're going to make up a fake person in order to go trolling on a discussion forum, pick a better profile picture for God's sake:



Whoever gave you that haircut should be shot on sight
That haircut cost $17 plus a $5 tip. And frankly I didn't realize how good it looked until you presented it in Panavision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2012, 02:07 PM
 
332 posts, read 992,062 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
We "waved a bunch of money around"? That's all it took for you guys to sell out the Bears and Elysium? Interesting.
I have to admit I rarely have this much fun behind at my desk at 4:00 p.m. on a weekday, but this "Marc/chennai" character really is a hoot. The thread is destined be locked at this point, but it was fun while it lasted. Perhaps its for the best-we hunters can go back to what we do best (managing wildlife-including bears), scared suburbanites can go back to hiding under their chaise lounges from rabid woodland creatures, and animal rights activists can go back to Berkeley

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
That haircut cost $17 plus a $5 tip. And frankly I didn't realize how good it looked until you presented it in Panavision.
$22 for a haircut? I guess I'm saving more money than I thought by shaving my own head.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 02:17 PM
 
76 posts, read 174,432 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by deere110 View Post
Six days is enough-we harvested 469 bears last year and 592 in 2010.



You are a silly person. Do you pull up your skirt and scream when you see a mouse on the floor? Seriously. I am hunter. I support the bear hunt. You are not helping. Please stop posting.
I agree with you there. Marc is really hurting the bear hunting case.



Quote:
Originally Posted by deere110 View Post
So the fact that you want to see "mature experienced bears" trumps all?
There are other reasons mentioned in this thrread. But, yes having a relatively normal age structure and experienced animals in the population IS part of having a species. A bear is not a bear just as fawn is not a buck to many deer hunters.

As I said, bear hunters are a tiny fraction of the population and their voices should not be only ones heard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deere110 View Post
We actually manage our deer herd quite well in NJ-through hunting.
Maybe for hunters, but not for health of the overall ecosystem. The following study cites deer overpopulation as a major factor depressing native species in New Jersey forests:

Source:
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2]Biological Invasions[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2]Volume 10, Number 6[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2][SIZE=2] (2008), 785-795, DOI: 10.1007/s10530-008-9247-9
 
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2]A perfect storm: two ecosystem engineers interact to degrade deciduous forests of New Jersey[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2][SIZE=2]Thus if we wish to restore these ecosystems back to a
state that includes more native species (e.g., dominated
by native trees), the engineering species should
be the target of management (Byers et al. [/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]2006[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]).
Royo and Carson ([/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]2006[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]) provide a shortlist of
possible restoration options
when faced with a
recalcitrant understory, which are likely of some
use for the impacted forests we describe here. These
options are geared toward shifting the abiotic balance
such that some seedlings of the dominant native trees
can establish within the existing understory and thus
begin regenerating the forest canopy. A key to this
approach is reducing the abundance of white-tailed
deer. The obvious way to achieve this is to increase
hunting and perhaps set regulations so that they
achieve maximum deer population reduction. There
is much room for exploration in terms of reducing
deer herds in North America and elsewhere since
many ungulate management plans do not take into
account ecological restoration of forests (Holsman
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]2000[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]; Riley et al. [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]2003[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]).
 
Overbrowsing
has been shown to occur at deer densities of 4/km[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][SIZE=1]2 [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2][SIZE=2](Alverson et al. [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]1988[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]) thus it is likely that
nearly all of New Jersey’s forests are in an overbrowsed
state and for many areas the degree of
overbrowsing is severe[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2].
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by deere110 View Post
You have GOT to be kidding me. And what about the towns with no local police? State Trooper are supposed to ride around looking for unsecured trash cans!?
Local, regional police whatever. A few fines and people will get the containers and use them. Therefore, frequent checks will not be necessary after long.

Police in these areas aren't fighting city crimes and are usually sitting in speed traps. Population is not that large, particularly in high risk areas adjacent to prime bear habitat. Better to make them work and do something productive.

Even the Dept. of Fish and Game publicly adovocates garbage enforcement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by deere110 View Post
Oh right, the same NJF&W that had to cut it's Conservation Officers to the bone because of state budget cuts so that there are literally a handful to patrol millions of acres statewide. Between the naturephobic realtor and the ursophile who thinks that local police should be chasing garbage scofflaws this thread has really gone off the rails...
Well funding should be increased. Perhaps we can agree there. Conservation officers cover wider areas in western states where paching is more rampant.

We have police giving parking tickets and other silly things. Why not do something that actually prevents problems.

You can have your ~ 20% hunt of the population every year, but not resolving the garbage issue will allow problems to persist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 09:16 AM
 
332 posts, read 992,062 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post
As I said, bear hunters are a tiny fraction of the population and their voices should not be only ones heard.
So your philosophy is that majority rule should always prevail, ie: there are more non-bear hunters than bear hunters, so they should get their way all of the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post
Maybe for hunters, but not for health of the overall ecosystem. The following study cites deer overpopulation as a major factor depressing native species in New Jersey forests:
That's why now more than ever land trusts are opening their lands to hunting. NJ Conservation Foundation, D&R Greenway, Natural Lands Trust, Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space, Hunterdon Land Trust, and many others have all instituted very successful deer management programs. The folks who run these organizations are hardly "pro-hunting," but they do realize that it is a part of good forest management.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post
Local, regional police whatever. A few fines and people will get the containers and use them. Therefore, frequent checks will not be necessary after long.

Police in these areas aren't fighting city crimes and are usually sitting in speed traps. Population is not that large, particularly in high risk areas adjacent to prime bear habitat. Better to make them work and do something productive.
Either you haven't lived in NJ very long or you are simply naive about the nature of law enforcement in general. Any town council (because an act of council, or in the case of the State Police, the State Legislature) that suggests that its the job of their police force to check garbage cans will be laughed out of town hall. I also don't think that the argument "they don't fight city crime...better to make them work rather than sitting in speed traps" is going to win friends and influence people. I live in a rural town with a small police force that does a lot more than write speeding tickets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post
Even the Dept. of Fish and Game publicly adovocates garbage enforcement.
I never once suggested it was a bad idea. It's just something that few people will put a priority on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post
You can have your ~ 20% hunt of the population every year, but not resolving the garbage issue will allow problems to persist.
I don't pretend to support the hunt for the sake of protecting people from bears. That's ridiculous-it's completely irrelevant to me (and most hunters) whether bears get into garbage cans or get on NJ Transit trains, take in a show and eat a few people at NJPAC. Bears are game animals just like any other game animal in the state and should be managed as such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 10:50 AM
 
76 posts, read 174,432 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by deere110 View Post
So your philosophy is that majority rule should always prevail, ie: there are more non-bear hunters than bear hunters, so they should get their way all of the time.
The rule now is less than 1% of the population is dictating bear management and wildlife in general. Hunting should be part of the process to maintaining health ecosystems with good numbers of species WITH appropriate age structures.

Carnivore hunting is incompatible with that and growing numbers of biologists are taking this stand. As the paper, I posted earlier stated, New Jersey forests are not healthy due in part to too many deer. Deer hunting should be a key tool in achieving that (i.e. increasing doe tags, etc.) even if it means less deer for hunters.

At a minimum the board members on the Department of Fish and Game should be representative of the overall population or at least outdoor enthusiasts. Furthermore, their funding should not solely be from hunter fees (i.e. hunter fees should be diverted to general government funds and an equal amount of taxpayer funds should be used for funding fish and game to remove perverse incentives.).



Quote:
Originally Posted by deere110 View Post
That's why now more than ever land trusts are opening their lands to hunting. NJ Conservation Foundation, D&R Greenway, Natural Lands Trust, Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space, Hunterdon Land Trust, and many others have all instituted very successful deer management programs. The folks who run these organizations are hardly "pro-hunting," but they do realize that it is a part of good forest management.
I applaud that. We lack sufficient numbers and types of predators (i.e. red wolves and eastern cougars) so hunting has a big role to play. I would like hunting to be used a key tool to manage deer at healthy levels in all of New Jersey's forests.



Quote:
Originally Posted by deere110 View Post
Either you haven't lived in NJ very long or you are simply naive about the nature of law enforcement in general. Any town council (because an act of council, or in the case of the State Police, the State Legislature) that suggests that its the job of their police force to check garbage cans will be laughed out of town hall. I also don't think that the argument "they don't fight city crime...better to make them work rather than sitting in speed traps" is going to win friends and influence people. I live in a rural town with a small police force that does a lot more than write speeding tickets.
Again these are sparsely populated areas adjacent to prime bear habitat. Its an easy task to spot violaters on garbage day and ticket them. Police patrol the town anyway so why not enforce existing laws? A few hefty fines and people will change their ways. Its not exactly difficult to use a bear proof container.

The sad thing is without this bears will continue to leave the woods and cause problems in residential areas as the stories in this thread show. As a result, we will continue to get the Marc's of the world to shout "eradicate."


Quote:
Originally Posted by deere110 View Post
I don't pretend to support the hunt for the sake of protecting people from bears. That's ridiculous-it's completely irrelevant to me (and most hunters) whether bears get into garbage cans or get on NJ Transit trains, take in a show and eat a few people at NJPAC. Bears are game animals just like any other game animal in the state and should be managed as such.

This is the arrogant nature of hunters. Wildlife belongs to all residents of the state - not just you. By taking out 20% of the population, killing experienced bears people enjoy seeing or at least knowing are out there, and using lack of fair chase techniques (baiting by jelly doughnuts and shooting from an adjacent tree stand), and creating a distorted population age structure and social chaos, is not something many people agree with.

Hunting should be an integral part of creating healthy forests with proper numbers of native flora and fauna. Currently, wildlife is just treated like a big game farm and IMHO that is not correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 01:18 PM
 
11,337 posts, read 11,060,785 times
Reputation: 14993
Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post

This is the arrogant nature of hunters. Wildlife belongs to all residents of the state - not just you. By taking out 20% of the population, killing experienced bears people enjoy seeing or at least knowing are out there, and using lack of fair chase techniques (baiting by jelly doughnuts and shooting from an adjacent tree stand), and creating a distorted population age structure and social chaos, is not something many people agree with.

Hunting should be an integral part of creating healthy forests with proper numbers of native flora and fauna. Currently, wildlife is just treated like a big game farm and IMHO that is not correct.
Not sure I understand this. All ages and sexes should be huntable. If a pest population is to be eliminated, you would not limit yourself to older bears. ALL bears would be eliminated. So there would not be the "social chaos" you are worried about.

Same with deer. If they multiply to the point where they are creating dangers on the highways, it is necessary to eradicate all of them. Both sexes. And all ages.

It is irrational, once a species is determined to be a belligerent pest, to spare any segment of the offensive intruders. All must go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 01:52 PM
 
76 posts, read 174,432 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
Not sure I understand this. All ages and sexes should be huntable. If a pest population is to be eliminated, you would not limit yourself to older bears. ALL bears would be eliminated. So there would not be the "social chaos" you are worried about.

Same with deer. If they multiply to the point where they are creating dangers on the highways, it is necessary to eradicate all of them. Both sexes. And all ages.

It is irrational, once a species is determined to be a belligerent pest, to spare any segment of the offensive intruders. All must go.
Hunting of predator populations results in a greater proportion of younger animals. This is proven by numerous scientific studies where excessive adult mortality is made up by increased birth rates/survival of younger animals. Furthermore, hunters target larger mature animals more often resulting in more adolescent animals which cause trouble.

Bears nor deer will never be eradicated in the state. The citizens would never put up with it. Full stop.

Most people do not view bears as "pests", but rather the state's largest and most majestic animal.

Now if we put your idea into place, we would be shooting all around people's home to achieve "all must go." So the risk of one in a million bears killing someone, which is 56 times less risky than a person killing you, is worth turning our neighborhoods into free fire zones? Sorry, I'll take my chance with the bear running up a tree or away than bullets flying over my head thank you.

Eradicating all of the bears would lead to higher deer numbers and traffic accidents, lyme disease and other complications. Furthermore, wildlife watching has a big economic impact on New Jersey, and no doubt the largest mammal is a big part of that:

The state of New Jersey had 1.7 million wildlife watchers, 16 years old and older, in 2006. With 1.7 million participants in this hobby, New Jersey ranked 20th in the nation. These 1.7 million individuals spent $537 million in retail sales, $74.9 million in state and local taxes and $82.5 million in federal taxes as well as a total multiplier effect of $938 million. There were also 9,591 jobs and $334 million paid in salaries, wages and business owner income related to wildlife watchers.

Economic Impact of Wildlife Watching in New Jersey - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Preserved Open Space (largest tracts in Northern New Jersey tend to have lots of bears) Increases Property Values Compared to Unpreserved Open Space. If bears were such a danger, no one would want to live in these areas.

[LEFT]A number of studies have documented the fact that proximity to preserved open space such as
forests, wetlands, wildlife habitat, and natural areas enhances the value of residential property
and thereby leads to higher home sale prices. The same studies show that the effect on property[/LEFT]
values of proximity to unpreserved open space tends to be smaller or even negative.

http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/economics/parks-report.pdf


The issue is bear attractants. Even the NJ Dept of Fish and Game, which is a huge proponent of the bear hunt, states this:


The number-one black bear related complaint received by the Division of Fish and Wildlife each year is black bears getting into trash. Human garbage is attractive to black bears and it is often an easily obtainable, high-energy food source. Residents should be aware that it is illegal to feed black bears in New Jersey, either intentionally or unintentionally. Anyone who feeds bears could face a penalty of up to $1,000 for each offense.
In an effort to increase garbage management efforts within bear habituated communities, municipal officials are encouraged to work with local waste haulers to make certified bear-resistant garbage containers available to residents and businesses.

NJDEP Division of Fish & Wildlife - Bear Facts for Municipalities

Last edited by chennai01; 05-09-2012 at 02:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 10:07 PM
 
11,337 posts, read 11,060,785 times
Reputation: 14993
Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post
Hunting of predator populations results in a greater proportion of younger animals. This is proven by numerous scientific studies where excessive adult mortality is made up by increased birth rates/survival of younger animals. Furthermore, hunters target larger mature animals more often resulting in more adolescent animals which cause trouble.

Bears nor deer will never be eradicated in the state. The citizens would never put up with it. Full stop.
You are not understanding again. Let me repeat. Bears should be eradicated from areas where humans dominate the landscape. So let's take New Jersey north of Route 78. I will allow bears in remote sections of Sussex County, Warren County, Hunterdon County, and possibly sections of rural Passaic County. I will not allow bears in Bergen, central and southern Passaic, Union, Morris, Hudson, Essex, Somerset, and Middlesex counties. When bears appear in the non-permitted areas, the procedure will be to call animal control and have the bear either killed, or, paid for solely by donations from conservationists, transported back to the permitted areas. Then, a sufficient hunting season should be enacted whereby hunters are allowed to kill excess bears in the permitted areas, since bears in New Jersey do not have natural predators.

The bottom line goal is to remove bears from population centers, where I have determined using simple rational logic and rules of human safety that they are not to be allowed.

Quote:
Most people do not view bears as "pests", but rather the state's largest and most majestic animal.
This is not true.

But in any case, I don't care about this. Bears are objective pests in human population centers. They are not majestic or special or lyrical or any other such nonsense. They are just big mammals. You obviously were overexposed to Yogi Bear and Gentle Ben as a child. Possibly amplified in later life with doses of Nemo and Bambi as amplifying catalysts.

I don't want to psychoanalyze from such a great distance, but many animal lovers who take it too far share a common experience: unpleasantness with one or many human beings. The natural result is to seek escape from humanity, and displace the affection to other living things. For some it is domestic pets. For others it is the Animal Kingdom at large. Not saying this is you, but it is very common.

Quote:
Now if we put your idea into place, we would be shooting all around people's home to achieve "all must go." So the risk of one in a million bears killing someone, which is 56 times less risky than a person killing you, is worth turning our neighborhoods into free fire zones? Sorry, I'll take my chance with the bear running up a tree or away than bullets flying over my head thank you.
Silly hyperbole and mischaracterization. Review above. Bears in human areas would be subject to removal by animal control officers. I would prefer they just be shot at this point, because it would be cheaper and waste less tax dollars. However, if conservationists object, and are willing to foot the entire bill, I would allow tranquilization and transport back to the permitted areas.

Quote:
Eradicating all of the bears would lead to higher deer numbers and traffic accidents, lyme disease and other complications.
How? I thought bears didn't eat deer. In any case, my plan would also get rid of all superfluous deer in human population centers. Extended hunting seasons would easily get rid of the excess deer and allow hunters to enjoy venison.

Quote:
Furthermore, wildlife watching has a big economic impact on New Jersey, and no doubt the largest mammal is a big part of that:

The state of New Jersey had 1.7 million wildlife watchers, 16 years old and older, in 2006. With 1.7 million participants in this hobby, New Jersey ranked 20th in the nation. These 1.7 million individuals spent $537 million in retail sales, $74.9 million in state and local taxes and $82.5 million in federal taxes as well as a total multiplier effect of $938 million. There were also 9,591 jobs and $334 million paid in salaries, wages and business owner income related to wildlife watchers.


Fine, no problem.Wildlife watchers can simply go to the wild to watch the life. Sussex County and the Poconos are not that far.

The bottom line is that pest populations of any kind are not acceptable in human population centers. Whatever gets out of hand should be eradicated by humane means. In our habitat, we come first and that's that. Our safety and comfort are not everything, they are the only thing. In our habitat. By doing this, we behave naturally and harmoniously with the Universe, playing by the same rules that the animals themselves utilize to control each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 10:34 AM
 
76 posts, read 174,432 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
You are not understanding again. Let me repeat. Bears should be eradicated from areas where humans dominate the landscape. So let's take New Jersey north of Route 78. I will allow bears in remote sections of Sussex County, Warren County, Hunterdon County, and possibly sections of rural Passaic County. I will not allow bears in Bergen, central and southern Passaic, Union, Morris, Hudson, Essex, Somerset, and Middlesex counties. When bears appear in the non-permitted areas, the procedure will be to call animal control and have the bear either killed, or, paid for solely by donations from conservationists, transported back to the permitted areas. Then, a sufficient hunting season should be enacted whereby hunters are allowed to kill excess bears in the permitted areas, since bears in New Jersey do not have natural predators.
Bears will not inhabit the bulk of the populated areas you stated. I don't know why you are creating this staw man argument that I propose bears in Bergen County? I support bears existing in places NJ Department of Wildlife deems as appropriate habitat. The issue is how we achieve that.

The habitat is not sufficient in developed parts of the state and bears cannot persist in these areas. Bears showing up in these areas are young bears searching for territory during spring time after dispersal from their mothers. The hunting strategy you advocate will increase the number of the bears and result in more of these incidents (young bears can wander great distances).

A sizebale portion of Morris County is prime bear habitat and is designated by NJ Department of Fish and Game as such. In fact, this area is more suitable habitat than large portions of Sussex, Warren and Hunterdon Counties (agricultural and residental) determined by scientific studies by Department of Fish and Game. NJ Department of Fish and Game has mapped out where bears should exist in New Jersey and these are deemed the most appropriate areas based on bear habitat and potential for conflicts with humans.

As a Morris County realtor, you are quite ignorant about the county.

Just out of curiosity, what specific places should bears exist? Don't just say "rural sussex county?" I want a specific plot of land, such as state parks, forests, Wildlife Management Areas, etc? When answering this, consider how fragmented each population will be and whether it will be large enough to prevent in-breeding? You complained about bears causing trouble in Ogdensburg (which are clearly due to noncompliance with New Jersey garbage laws)? Are you aware this town abuts some of the largest undeveloped wild lands in the state?

Seriously, you should educate yourself on this matter before shouting ignorant statement from roof tops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
The bottom line goal is to remove bears from population centers, where I have determined using simple rational logic and rules of human safety that they are not to be allowed.
And bears are routinely removed from these areas. Bears roam into these areas during a specific time of the year and are generally non-events.

Persistant and more serious problems occur in development (encouraged by realtors such as yourself) adjacent to prime bear habitat and lack of proper garbage control (something you proudly tout). The solution is easy and simply requires a garbage container that screws on tightly enough to prevent a bear from opening it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
This is not true.

But in any case, I don't care about this. Bears are objective pests in human population centers. They are not majestic or special or lyrical or any other such nonsense. They are just big mammals. You obviously were overexposed to Yogi Bear and Gentle Ben as a child. Possibly amplified in later life with doses of Nemo and Bambi as amplifying catalysts.

I don't want to psychoanalyze from such a great distance, but many animal lovers who take it too far share a common experience: unpleasantness with one or many human beings. The natural result is to seek escape from humanity, and displace the affection to other living things. For some it is domestic pets. For others it is the Animal Kingdom at large. Not saying this is you, but it is very common.
Honestly, Marc your characterization of me is pretty funny. The only person with issues is yourself. You are obviously a frustrated and angry person who is displacing his anger on something that cannot fight back. I don't know if you were picked on as a kid or are just a bitter man due to the real estate market tanking, but you are the one with issues.

Frankly, your judgment is quite questionable given the content and tone of your posts. Seiously, any potential client can google your name and find this discussion.

On bears, most people don't view them as pests. People flock to see bears along roads to the point the term "bear jam" has been coined. The overwhelming bulk of bears cause no problems and the few that do are almost always the result of people being downright stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
Silly hyperbole and mischaracterization. Review above. Bears in human areas would be subject to removal by animal control officers. I would prefer they just be shot at this point, because it would be cheaper and waste less tax dollars. However, if conservationists object, and are willing to foot the entire bill, I would allow tranquilization and transport back to the permitted areas.
They already are removed. I don't see bears being allowed to stay in Union or whatever inappropriate part of the state they head to.

And again, you ignore that bears are brought in by readily available food through unsecured garbage, etc. You can shoot the bear that wanders from the woods into Ogendensburg, but another one will come right down with calorie dense food readily available. You will never solve the issue unless you eradicate the entire state's population.

Now, if that's you position there is no reason to continue this debate as we are going nowhere. However, if i were you, I wouldn't want my potential clients reading that, but to each his own.



[quote=Marc Paolella;24237208]How? I thought bears didn't eat deer. In any case, my plan would also get rid of all superfluous deer in human population centers. Extended hunting seasons would easily get rid of the excess deer and allow hunters to enjoy venison. [/quote}

Wow, you also lack reading comprehension. I already posted studies showing bears being signficant predators of deer fawns in this thread. Really, you need to actually read my posts.

On eradicating deer by population centers, how exactly are you going to achieve that? Deer in these areas live close to and even within human development and any shooting will be close to residential areas? Deer are attracted to these areas due to ample food and lack of predators. Are you advocating shooting massive numbers of deer on suburban streets and lawns?

Quote:
The bottom line is that pest populations of any kind are not acceptable in human population centers. Whatever gets out of hand should be eradicated by humane means. In our habitat, we come first and that's that. Our safety and comfort are not everything, they are the only thing. In our habitat. By doing this, we behave naturally and harmoniously with the Universe, playing by the same rules that the animals themselves utilize to control each other.
What is a human population center? That is a broad term. Again I advocate bears living in the areas scientifically determined to be best habitat in terms of natural features and potential for human conflict.

The issue is how we achieve it.

And no, I don't agree with your view "I own everything and F everything else."

Last edited by chennai01; 05-10-2012 at 11:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top