Sunday, November 28, 2010 BY TARA KOLTON
Staff Writer North Jersey.com
New Jersey’s first bear hunt in five years is just a week away and set to go on as planned despite a last-ditch effort by several animal rights organizations to have the hunt postponed.
On Monday, Nov. 22, State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Bob Martin rejected an appeal made by the Animal Protection League of New Jersey (APLNJ) and the West Milford-based Bear Education and Resource (BEAR) Group to postpone the six-day hunt, scheduled for a seven-county region that includes parts of Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, Passaic, Morris, Somerset and Bergen counties. The bear hunt, set to take place from Dec. 6 to 11, is authorized under the state’s recently adopted Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy (CBBMP).
"The facts are clear, we have an overpopulation of black bears in New Jersey, and we must address that issue," said Martin in a press statement. "A regulated black bear hunt is one important and necessary tool to deal with the growing number of bears, as part of the state’s overall, comprehensive approach to managing its black bear population."
The DEP estimates that the black bear population for the portion of New Jersey north of Interstate 80 is approximately 3,400 animals, which signifies a marked rise from fewer than 500 in the mid-1990s. Bears have also been reported in all 21 counties, with a corresponding rise in bear complaints.
Martin, responding to a Nov. 17 written request by the APLNJ and the BEAR Group to postpone the hunt, also emphasized "the accuracy of the DEP’s data on bear complaints and bear-human encounters caused by the increasing black bear population, despite contrary public claims of inflated numbers made by Rutgers chemistry professor Edward Tavss," according to the DEP’s Monday statement.
The 2010 Tavss study the DEP is referring to was completed over five months by Tavss, who says he utilized 4,700 records obtained by the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) through the Open Public Records Act. Tavss concluded that "contrary to what the DFW claims, bear nuisance complaints in NJ have significantly declined," according to the Oct. 4 release of the study’s findings. In particular, he claims that a duplication of bear complaints resulted in the DEP and DFW’s allegedly "inflated" bear complaint numbers.
Martin said that a thorough review of bear complaints for 2008 and 2009 by the DEP’s Office of Audit showed "virtually no duplication of complaint reports and verified the accuracy of the information provided in the CBBMP." He said that the audit showed that fewer than 1 percent of about 3,000 bear complaints registered by the DEP in each of those years may have resulted from duplication of information.
"I have reviewed your request and I find that it does not provide any basis to stay the hunt, nor does it raise any legitimate questions about the inclusion of the black bear hunt in the state’s CBBMP," wrote Martin.
The commissioner stressed that the DEP is gathering "more and better information on black bears, providing a valuable resource that contributes to the department’s black bear management efforts."
Commissioner Martin denied the request to stay the hunt after consulting with New Jersey Fish and Game Council (FGC) Acting Chairwoman Jeanette Vreeland, who also was petitioned to postpone the hunt. Vreeland concurred with Martin, but noted a vote of the full FGC which adopted the CBBMP in July, is required to formalize her position. A telephone meeting of the council will soon be held to deal with that issue, according to Vreeland.
Full story ..
Related Stories:
Press Release. DEP Rejects Request to Postpone Bear Hunt
NJ Bear Hunt. NJ Bear Overpopulation Issues
Showing posts with label anti-hunting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-hunting. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Saving hunters from the anti-hunters
Vote Yes on Arkansas Issue 1
Constitutional right to hunt, fish, trap and harvest wildlife
That's Amendment 1's goal. by Doug Smith
Although the Humane Society of the United States is blamed, or credited, for Amendment 1 being on the Arkansas ballot, the HSUS seems coolly uninterested in the proposal. Asked if the HSUS would oppose the adoption of Amendment 1, an executive of the group, Andrew Page, said, "This is not an issue on which we are working. We view these efforts as inconsequential and merely window dressing for the hunting lobby."
Amendment 1, referred to the people by the legislature, would establish a constitutional right for Arkansans to hunt and fish. Sen. Steve Faris of Malvern, the lead sponsor of Amendment 1 (there are 42 others), said, "We need to assure that protections that previous generations have had are there for future generations. Nothing is a given anymore."
Faris said that animal-rights groups had succeeded in banning some types of hunting in some states. He mentioned the success of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) in ending dove hunting in Michigan, but it was the HSUS, not PETA, that was involved there. A PETA spokeswoman said her group had done nothing to stop hunting in Michigan or anywhere else. "We don't lobby," she said. "We encourage our members to oppose or support things." PETA is not planning an anti-Amendment 1 campaign in Arkansas, she said, although "We think these kinds of amendments are silly. Why not a constitutional amendment to shop, or play golf?"
Although protection of hunting and fishing sounds like a no-brainer for the Arkansas legislature, it took three legislative sessions to get the measure on the ballot. In previous sessions, there were concerns that the amendment might weaken the state Game and Fish Commission, which has constitutional authority to regulate hunting and fishing, or that it might endanger property rights. This time, Faris said, "We worked with the Game and Fish Commission, and the NRA [National Rifle Association]. We have a document that doesn't violate property laws and strengthens the role of the Commission."
Full Story at Arkansas Reporter
Constitutional right to hunt, fish, trap and harvest wildlife
That's Amendment 1's goal. by Doug Smith
Although the Humane Society of the United States is blamed, or credited, for Amendment 1 being on the Arkansas ballot, the HSUS seems coolly uninterested in the proposal. Asked if the HSUS would oppose the adoption of Amendment 1, an executive of the group, Andrew Page, said, "This is not an issue on which we are working. We view these efforts as inconsequential and merely window dressing for the hunting lobby."
Amendment 1, referred to the people by the legislature, would establish a constitutional right for Arkansans to hunt and fish. Sen. Steve Faris of Malvern, the lead sponsor of Amendment 1 (there are 42 others), said, "We need to assure that protections that previous generations have had are there for future generations. Nothing is a given anymore."
Faris said that animal-rights groups had succeeded in banning some types of hunting in some states. He mentioned the success of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) in ending dove hunting in Michigan, but it was the HSUS, not PETA, that was involved there. A PETA spokeswoman said her group had done nothing to stop hunting in Michigan or anywhere else. "We don't lobby," she said. "We encourage our members to oppose or support things." PETA is not planning an anti-Amendment 1 campaign in Arkansas, she said, although "We think these kinds of amendments are silly. Why not a constitutional amendment to shop, or play golf?"
Although protection of hunting and fishing sounds like a no-brainer for the Arkansas legislature, it took three legislative sessions to get the measure on the ballot. In previous sessions, there were concerns that the amendment might weaken the state Game and Fish Commission, which has constitutional authority to regulate hunting and fishing, or that it might endanger property rights. This time, Faris said, "We worked with the Game and Fish Commission, and the NRA [National Rifle Association]. We have a document that doesn't violate property laws and strengthens the role of the Commission."
Full Story at Arkansas Reporter
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Will California increase bear hunt limits?
State officials say the bear population, which stands at 38,000, would remain healthy with increased hunt limits. Wayne Pacelle (HSUS) immediately announced that if the California Fish and Game Commission widens the hunt, HSUS will put a measure on the California ballot by 2012 to ban hound hunting of bears. Pacelle continued by bragging they have won 5 ballot initiatives in a row and could win a hound hunting ban by a large margin.
California considers dramatically expanding the number of black bears hunters can kill
By Paul Rogers progers@mercurynews.com
Watch out, Smokey. Keep your head down, Yogi.
Saying that California's black bear population has quadrupled in the past 25 years, state Fish and Game Department officials are drafting new rules that could increase the number of black bears killed by hunters each year in the state by 50 percent or more.
The proposal also would allow hunters for the first time to use global positioning system devices on the collars of hounds that they use to track bears, along with automatic triggers that alert hunters when their dogs have treed a bear.
State hunting managers say the rules — which would increase the current limit of 1,700 killed annually — would offer more people the opportunity to hunt and wouldn't significantly affect the health or size of the overall black bear population in California, now at 38,000. The growing bear population also is increasingly causing problems, they note.
"There are more reported incidents of bears causing private property damage," said Doug Updike, a wildlife biologist with the state Department of Fish and Game. "People are moving into bear habitat, and we have more bears that are more widely distributed. We are having more interactions between bears and people."
But animal rights groups promise to fight the proposed new rules, starting Thursday when the state Fish and Game Commission holds a hearing in Sacramento. A final vote is expected April 21.
Full story ....
California considers dramatically expanding the number of black bears hunters can kill
By Paul Rogers progers@mercurynews.com
Watch out, Smokey. Keep your head down, Yogi.
Saying that California's black bear population has quadrupled in the past 25 years, state Fish and Game Department officials are drafting new rules that could increase the number of black bears killed by hunters each year in the state by 50 percent or more.
The proposal also would allow hunters for the first time to use global positioning system devices on the collars of hounds that they use to track bears, along with automatic triggers that alert hunters when their dogs have treed a bear.
State hunting managers say the rules — which would increase the current limit of 1,700 killed annually — would offer more people the opportunity to hunt and wouldn't significantly affect the health or size of the overall black bear population in California, now at 38,000. The growing bear population also is increasingly causing problems, they note.
"There are more reported incidents of bears causing private property damage," said Doug Updike, a wildlife biologist with the state Department of Fish and Game. "People are moving into bear habitat, and we have more bears that are more widely distributed. We are having more interactions between bears and people."
But animal rights groups promise to fight the proposed new rules, starting Thursday when the state Fish and Game Commission holds a hearing in Sacramento. A final vote is expected April 21.
Full story ....
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Animal lovers should stop sending money to zealots
Spokane Review, November 12, 2009
By Rich Landers
I took a beating in the letters-to-the-editor pages a few weeks ago for pointing out the threat national-scale animal rights groups pose to the sports of hunting and fishing.
Now I’m turning the other cheek.
Readers shouldn’t assume that the published letters were the only reaction.
Nor should they think the threat these groups pose is limited to hunters and anglers.
The published letters came mostly from one group of Spokane-area animal rights activists and Wayne Pacelle, the national figurehead for the Humane Society of the United States.
But many phone calls and e-mails called for more scrutiny of these groups and the moral fascism they are trying to impose on society’s use and enjoyment of animals.
One veterinarian pointed out that these groups are clawing their way through legal and legislative channels toward giving pets individual rights rather than leaving them designated as the property of their owners.
The vet said that, among other problems, this would have huge repercussions in the costs of veterinary care and liability.
“Can you imagine the costs of routine pet procedures if we have to run unnecessary tests and insure ourselves for protection against possible multimillion-dollar lawsuits?” he said.
Full story ....
By Rich Landers
I took a beating in the letters-to-the-editor pages a few weeks ago for pointing out the threat national-scale animal rights groups pose to the sports of hunting and fishing.
Now I’m turning the other cheek.
Readers shouldn’t assume that the published letters were the only reaction.
Nor should they think the threat these groups pose is limited to hunters and anglers.
The published letters came mostly from one group of Spokane-area animal rights activists and Wayne Pacelle, the national figurehead for the Humane Society of the United States.
But many phone calls and e-mails called for more scrutiny of these groups and the moral fascism they are trying to impose on society’s use and enjoyment of animals.
One veterinarian pointed out that these groups are clawing their way through legal and legislative channels toward giving pets individual rights rather than leaving them designated as the property of their owners.
The vet said that, among other problems, this would have huge repercussions in the costs of veterinary care and liability.
“Can you imagine the costs of routine pet procedures if we have to run unnecessary tests and insure ourselves for protection against possible multimillion-dollar lawsuits?” he said.
Full story ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
