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, 11:14 AM
 
Location: NJ
23,581 posts, read 17,253,889 times
Reputation: 17628

Advertisements

"Hunting of carnivores creates ecological havoc and practical problems which have been repeated over and over in this thread. Reread my posts and you will see the various explanations from prime sources.

For those reasons, many environmentalists, a number of which also hunt, oppose bear and carnivore hunting in general."


So excludes Bear hunting as they are classified as omnivores?

Ecological havoc is quite natural. Its also called natural selection.

Man is part of nature.

the preponderance of biological research accumulated over many decades indicates a consensus which supports controlled hunting as the best method to maintain a healthy population of critters barring loss of suitable habitat. Every new house and shopping center reduces habitat for more than just the bears. In fact that may be considered ethnic cleansing vs random murder committed by hunters.

Remember the grizzly guy who walked among the bears as if they were sheep until the day he and his girlfriend were chewed up and swallowed.

Hey, i want bears roaming the wilds of NJ, controlled hunting and saving habitat from developers is the best way. You want to live within an hour of NYC and have exclusive shopping centers with a railroad running past your door, you are creating ecological havoc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2012, 11:33 AM
 
332 posts, read 991,516 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
Having said that, even in rural areas, landowners should be free to shoot and kill anything they want on property they own.
You may own the land but you don't own the wildlife. Please don't comment on something you know nothing about-as hunters we respect the land, the wild game, and the rules and regulations set forth by NJ Fish and Wildlife whether we're hunting deer, bears, etc... Again, leave the hunting to hunters-we know what we're doing. We are smart, capable, and armed with the knowledge of sound wildlife management-we don't need yuppies telling us to go out and shoot everything that moves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 11:34 AM
 
76 posts, read 174,360 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer View Post
"Hunting of carnivores creates ecological havoc and practical problems which have been repeated over and over in this thread. Reread my posts and you will see the various explanations from prime sources.

For those reasons, many environmentalists, a number of which also hunt, oppose bear and carnivore hunting in general."

So excludes Bear hunting as they are classified as omnivores?

Ecological havoc is quite natural. Its also called natural selection.

Man is part of nature.

the preponderance of biological research accumulated over many decades indicates a consensus which supports controlled hunting as the best method to maintain a healthy population of critters barring loss of suitable habitat. Every new house and shopping center reduces habitat for more than just the bears. In fact that may be considered ethnic cleansing vs random murder committed by hunters.

Remember the grizzly guy who walked among the bears as if they were sheep until the day he and his girlfriend were chewed up and swallowed.

Hey, i want bears roaming the wilds of NJ, controlled hunting and saving habitat from developers is the best way. You want to live within an hour of NYC and have exclusive shopping centers with a railroad running past your door, you are creating ecological havoc.
No, bears are members of the order Carnivora and are therefore carnivores. Carnivore is really a misnomer as most Carnivore species consume non-animal food.

Removing 20% (or more depending on bear population estimate) is not natural in any way. Humans hunting deer replaces natural predation from wolves, cougars, and early humans. Black bears were never hunted in this manner and did not sustain this level of predation. The result will be a general increase in number of adolscent animals in population, which tend to get into trouble more (as the articles in this thread showed). There are numerous scientific studies showing this phenomenon of exploited carnvore species.

So yes, I want a bear population with a somewhat normal age distribution and not the bear equivalent of the movie "Logan's Run."

Black bears are not grizzly bears. Grizzly bears are 20 times more likely to kill someone than a black bear. That being said, I do not support allowing bears in residential area. Ideally, bears would be removed with aversive conditioning through rubber bullets, trained Karelian bear dogs, and other proven methods used to scare bears off. If this is not successful, then lethal removal should be done on the problem bears.

Unfortunately, hunting is not "naturally selecting" for the problem bears since hunts generally do not occur near homes and take bears behaving properly in wilderness areas.

I do support controlled hunting of deer and other game species. I see no reason why bear hunting is necessary to prevent habitat from development. As far as I know, the largest swaths of protected land in the region (Harriman State Park, Sterling Forest State Park, and Newark-Pequannock Watershed) were not funded by hunters.

There was a study by the NJ Department of Wildlife some years ago which showed non-hunting outdoor recreation had a much larger economic impact on the state than hunting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 11:43 AM
 
332 posts, read 991,516 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post
I do support controlled hunting of deer and other game species. I see no reason why bear hunting is necessary to prevent habitat from development. As far as I know, the largest swaths of protected land in the region (Harriman State Park, Sterling Forest State Park, and Newark-Pequannock Watershed) were not funded by hunters.
350K acres statewide (and more every year) ARE funded by hunting and fishing license fees. Ever drive down a rural road and see diamond shaped green and white signs on the trees? That means that the land is a NJ State Wildlife Management Area. Some of the larger pieces are 10-12K acres with the largest (Greenwood Forest) about 20K acres. These areas are open to passive recreation (hiking, biking, canoeing, etc...) free of charge despite the fact that they are bought and maintained with OUR license fees. You're welcome. FYI the Newark Watershed wasn't formed to protect habitat or even provide outdoor recreation-it was to supply water to Essex County-nothing more, nothing less. In fact, until about the late 1970s the area was off limits entirely-it was only fairly recently that they began selling hiking permits. Deer hunting is permitted there as well, with the proper permit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post
There was a study by the NJ Department of Wildlife some years ago which showed non-hunting outdoor recreation had a much larger economic impact on the state than hunting.
So if a study showed that indoor recreation and shopping had an even larger economic impact on the state would you advocate for more shopping malls? This is NJ, we're a diverse state with diverse people and a diverse landscape, part of what allows for that diversity is people letting each other be to do whatever it is they're going to do. Obviously you're a hiker, nature lover, etc...guess what? So am I! I enjoy hiking, camping, canoeing, biking, and being outdoors just as much as I love hunting and fishing-it's all the same to me. I don't come and find you and ruin your hike so why do you feel the need to bother me?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 11:52 AM
 
2,908 posts, read 3,876,062 times
Reputation: 3170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
It is logical in population centers of humans to not permit encroachment by bears or any other animals that become pests due to excessive population. The country is large enough that areas far from population centers can and have been segregated as national parks and refuges. Many other areas are naturally remote and there is no clash between human and animal life.

However, in population centers, such as northern NJ, it would be irrational to allow bears, deer, raccoons, geese, or anything else to populate to the point of being a danger or nuisance to humans.

In such cases it is rational to kill off the offending species to reduce its population to manageable levels. Rights do not apply to animals, only humans, so any animal "rights" argument is inherently irrational.

Therefore, the killing of excess bears, is moral, rational, and correct. Frankly, there should be no bears at all in human population centers.
The question is why are some of the areas where the bear have traditionally lived, now "population centers"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 11:58 AM
 
2,908 posts, read 3,876,062 times
Reputation: 3170
Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post
Yup, a young dispersing bear wandering into human territory during spring time. These types of bears will only increase as hunting skews the population to more young bears like this.

The bear was extremely dangerous sitting in that tree. Wonder where they hid all the dead humans?

Maybe we should kill all people's dogs since some will eventually get loose in the street?

Seriously, get a grip.

Too funny Chennai.
Yes, there are some ignorant people out there.
BTW, when was the last time some one was attacked and/or killed by a bear in NJ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 12:04 PM
 
332 posts, read 991,516 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by theS5 View Post
BTW, when was the last time some one was attacked and/or killed by a bear in NJ?
What is the price of tea in China? Answer? The same as the previous question-it doesn't matter nor is it relevant to whether or not bears should be hunted like any other wild game. Squirrels and rabbits don't attack people, yet we have a small game season. Fears of bear attacks are perpetuated by misguided suburbanites in an attempt to ally themselves (for reasons unknown to the author) with rural folks. As a hunter I don't care who supports or does not support hunting, I'd just prefer that non-hunters (supportive or not) leave me alone. Sorry if this all sounds a little rude, but I find it ridiculous that hunting garners such scrutiny in the state of NJ these days. In the neighboring states of NY and PA these arguments are complete non-starters because people simply mind their own business. As hunters we don't come into your neighborhoods and tell you how to live your lives, we'd appreciate it if you didn't tell us how to live ours.

Last edited by deere110; 05-08-2012 at 12:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 12:37 PM
 
76 posts, read 174,360 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by deere110 View Post
350K acres statewide (and more every year) ARE funded by hunting and fishing license fees. Ever drive down a rural road and see diamond shaped green and white signs on the trees? That means that the land is a NJ State Wildlife Management Area. Some of the larger pieces are 10-12K acres with the largest (Greenwood Forest) about 20K acres. These areas are open to passive recreation (hiking, biking, canoeing, etc...) free of charge despite the fact that they are bought and maintained with OUR license fees. You're welcome. FYI the Newark Watershed wasn't formed to protect habitat or even provide outdoor recreation-it was to supply water to Essex County-nothing more, nothing less. In fact, until about the late 1970s the area was off limits entirely-it was only fairly recently that they began selling hiking permits. Deer hunting is permitted there as well, with the proper permit.
To be fair WMAs are also funded by Green Acres. Green Acres are funded by all taxpayers, most of which are not hunters and especially predator hunters.

Green Acres has funded over $3 billion of land acquisitions (this figure would be higher if we adjusted older years figures for inflation). In addition, the Highlands Act will maintain habitat for lots of species by limiting development in the preservation area.

The Newark-Pequannock Watershed may have been preserved for drinking water, but the effect on wildlife (particularly bears) has been tremendous. The City of Newark owns this land and I'm willing to bet very few of its residents hunt bears and other predators.

While I appreciate that hunter fees help conserve wildlife, I'd argue most of those fees (primarily game species like deer, wild turkey, etc.) go to the species that are hunted.

More importantly, is that these fees are simply earmarked to fund wildlife. The government could easily divert those fees to pay for welfare or pension benefits and use general income and sales tax revenues to fund wildlife. The key is how much money do hunters and non-hunters contribute to the state in the form of fees, taxes, tolls, etc. Non-hunters and even anti-hunters likely contribute more funds than hunters, particularly the small minority of hunters which take carnivores.

The problem is virtually the entire board is comprised of hunters and disproportionately manage wildlife in the interest of hunters verses other users (similar to most states). As a result, a minor of the state's users dictate wildlife management which is unfair IMHO. IMHO, the board should more equitably represent all of New Jersey's population since all of the state's residents own the wildlife.

For most people, deer and other game species hunting is not a big deal. However, things do change when include bears and other carnivores. That is the rub, at least for me, and this is not unique to New Jersey.



Quote:
Originally Posted by deere110 View Post
So if a study showed that indoor recreation and shopping had an even larger economic impact on the state would you advocate for more shopping malls? This is NJ, we're a diverse state with diverse people and a diverse landscape, part of what allows for that diversity is people letting each other be to do whatever it is they're going to do. Obviously you're a hiker, nature lover, etc...guess what? So am I! I enjoy hiking, camping, canoeing, biking, and being outdoors just as much as I love hunting and fishing-it's all the same to me. I don't come and find you and ruin your hike so why do you feel the need to bother me?
The issue is we are talking about residents who "use"/"consume" wildlife. Unfortunately, some of these uses are not entire compatible. For example, if I am a wildlife watcher and enjoy seeing bears in their natural state with normal age structures and social systems and many mature animals, hunting is incompatible with that.

A big premise in most states, including New Jersey, is that carnivores only purpose is to have adequate numbers to provide future hunting opportunities. This premise is based on assumption that hunters (or carnivore hunters to be precise) are only constituency that matters. Economic analysis indicates that wildlife users far outnumber and contribute more funding than hunters, particularly carnivore hunters.

So in the end, the question is how do we manage bears in the interest of all parties? IMHO, the Department of Fish and Game has not considered other users adequately and not explored alternative strategies (strict garbage requirements, aversive conditoning/lethal removal of problem animals).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 12:50 PM
 
332 posts, read 991,516 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post
For most people, deer and other game species hunting is not a big deal. However, things do change when include bears and other carnivores. That is the rub, at least for me, and this is not unique to New Jersey.
People see bears as cute and cuddly, which is only natural-who didn't have a favorite teddy bear growing up? The reality of this line of thinking of course, is that it's silly. Bears are beautiful animals and are wondrous to observe in their natural habitat, but so are deer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post
For example, if I am a wildlife watcher and enjoy seeing bears in their natural state with normal age structures and social systems and many mature animals, hunting is incompatible with that.
The bear season is six days long. So long as you're not in the woods from about December 1st to December 7th I don't see how bear hunting would affect you in any way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post
A big premise in most states, including New Jersey, is that carnivores only purpose is to have adequate numbers to provide future hunting opportunities. This premise is based on assumption that hunters (or carnivore hunters to be precise) are only constituency that matters. Economic analysis indicates that wildlife users far outnumber and contribute more funding than hunters, particularly carnivore hunters.
As I said before, if it all came down to economic benefit and nothing else, we would all advocate paving everything and putting up shopping malls.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post
So in the end, the question is how do we manage bears in the interest of all parties?
Quite simple actually-allow hunters the chance to harvest a bear six days out of every year, and allow folks like yourself the other 359 days out of the year to observe them in their natural habitat. Seems like an awfully fair compromise to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chennai01 View Post
IMHO, the Department of Fish and Game has not considered other users adequately and not explored alternative strategies (strict garbage requirements, aversive conditoning/lethal removal of problem animals).
So who is going to pay for the "garbage police" who are supposed to go around and make sure that people are storing garbage properly/cite those who are not? Who's going to pay for the "aversive conditioning?" Who's going to pay for the "lethal removal of problem animals?" You? I didn't think so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 01:18 PM
 
11,337 posts, read 11,052,034 times
Reputation: 14993
Quote:
Originally Posted by theS5 View Post
The question is why are some of the areas where the bear have traditionally lived, now "population centers"?
Because humans have occupied these areas. Just as the bears did before they lived there. Species migration and resource utilization is natural and normal.
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