Posted on 12/02/2003 7:54:57 AM PST by neverdem
Environmentalists, Native Americans and hikers collectively filed suit Monday to prevent New Jersey's first bear hunt in 33 years from taking place on the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
The Delaware Water Gap is comprised of over 67,000 acres of protected park land, which houses more than 130 species of rare and endangered birds, mammals, and plants. The park makes up about 20 percent of the total area open to the state's bear hunt.
The coalition says bear hunting on protected park lands is in violation of federal environmental laws.
The hunt is scheduled for Dec. 8. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include: The Fund for Animals, The Center for Animal Protection, The Humane Society of the United States, and several individuals.
"Regardless of what happens on New Jersey's state lands, national parks are unique and require special attention," said Michael Markarian, president of The Fund for Animals.
"The National Park Service has thumbed its nose at federal law by allowing the trophy hunting of bears without studying the potential impacts to the environment, to the bear population, and to rare species such as bald eagles," Markarian said.
"Bears are not a public safety threat in New Jersey, but thousands of bear hunters in our woods are the real danger," said Sue Russell, policy director for the New Jersey-based Center for Animal Protection.
"What our state needs to solve bear/human conflicts is not to shoot bears at random for trophies, but rather to implement a progressive policy of aversive conditioning, authentic public education, and bear habitat preservation," said Russell.
A poll commissioned by several New Jersey wildlife organizations found 58 percent of registered New Jersey voters are opposed to the bear hunt, while 67 percent think the state should use non-lethal methods to reduce bear-related incidents instead of the hunt.
Sixty-eight percent of voters say Gov. James McGreevey broke his campaign promise to support a five-year ban on bear hunting.
"New Jersey voters will long remember Governor McGreevey turning his back on bears. If the governor won't stand by his word, we will ask the court to prevent the circumvention of our federal environmental laws," said Wayne Macelle, senior vice president for the Humane Society of the United States.
Last month, the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation announced it plans to look into the merits of a lawsuit separate from the Delaware Water Gap issue. This lawsuit is against the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to suspend all hunting, fishing and trapping.
Bud Pidgeon, president of the foundation, said the suit alleges that the state's Division of Fish and Wildlife has issued sporting licenses to convicted felons.
"To besmirch the reputation of sportsmen by linking us to felons is unconscionable," said Pidgeon. "Sportsmen are America's greatest conservationists, paying literally billions each year to fund fish and wildlife programs across the country."
Steve Ember, a plaintiff in the Delaware Water Gap suit and a prominent hike leader who has led hundreds of hikers into the park land, said, "Almost every hiker I've known has been thrilled to see black bears in New Jersey. The experience of observing wild bears ranks among the highest benefits of hiking. We don't want our bear population and our hiking experiences jeopardized."
"For many generations, the bear has lived in harmony with the Native Americans," said Santos Hawk's Blood, a plaintiff in the suit and a member of the Chiricahua Apache Nation and the Lone Warrior Society.
"The bear is our four-legged relative who gave us the knowledge to heal ourselves. That is why we call him brother. While our brother bear has tried to share the land, his home, with us, he is blamed any time he shares the crops or the property of the people. He is called a 'problem' even if human neglect, ignorance, or carelessness is really to blame," Hawk's Blood said.
The bears are certainly continuing to push southward and eastward. The irony in the letters I see in the editorial section of the newspaper is that they are primarily written by bleeding heart liberals in left-leaning towns where the bears aren't a threat.
One of my favorites was a guy from Asbury Park informing readers that supporters of the hunt are blowing things out of proportion. Easy to say when you're living down the shore and the problem is of extremely high impact in Warren, Sussex, Hunterdon, and Morris counties. Check it out next time you're reading letters to the editor, it's a complete hoot...
You'll very rarely see a letter from a resident of Sparta, Newton, Rockaway, or similar nearby town saying, "Hey, leave the fuzzy bears alone. There's hardly any of 'em, and the few that visit are cute little rascals that my kids love to feed crackers and pet in the backyard!"
~ Blue Jays ~
I think when Mommas poodle was gulped down in two bites she might think about what a bear can do to her kid on the way to school.
But hey, looks like you can deer hunt: "Of the 'beasts of the earth' (which basically refers to land mammals with the exception of swarming rodents), you may eat any animal that has cloven hooves and chews its cud. Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6. Any land mammal that does not have both of these qualities is forbidden. The Torah specifies that the camel, the rock badger, the hare and the pig are not kosher because each lacks one of these two qualifications. Sheep, cattle, goats and deer are kosher."
Regards....
Exactly right! The re-introduction of wolves in Michigan's U.P. reveals much that the environazi's don't want let out. A small pack of wolves generally take down 2-4 deer a day. They were exterminated for a reason, they're a threat to man and property. I hear that locals practice an unspoken rule: the 3 S's, shoot, shovel, shut-up! You can skip number 2.
Because that would be a lie.... We do want to use some of those lands that the enviros want to save... we do want to kill some of the animals and we do want to cut down those trees.... But the truth is, the way we want to use it is ~not~ harmful. Use so often means damage that we need to not let the meaning become the same thing. Hunting bears is not damage, logging is not damage. They look at a clear-cut and see damage. I look much closer than they do at clear cuts, I ride through them on my horse, over the years it takes for them to re-grow. The birds and deer and elk and bears THRIVE in the clear cut areas. The variety of young to mature stands is a net gain to the critters that live there. They move back in the day the machines leave. They seek and find grasses, browseables, and berries to eat in those open areas, stuff they need that doesn't grow under the heavy forest. Those clear cuts are terrific habitat, as good for the food they need as the nearly mature stands of trees where they slip in to find cover when we ride through.
Back to the bears, they need to be told of the roaming bears that will take place if there is no hunt. That bears, unlike us, do not tolerate other bears living in the same space. They need to see that the trophy hunters who take the largest animals are taking the aging animals who would begin to take up the same territory without reproducing as well as the younger animals that will move in when the old are gone. Hunting teaches animals to run from our approach. Most animals shot in the woods have been 'missed' at lots of times already. Believe me.... we do not want bear or deer that don't fear us. For their safety they need ot fear our homes, and our roads. Hunting keeps the herds young and sharp and producing... managed properly it means more animals.
The everyday joe needs to be told all that. Most people who go on trail rides with me who cringe at the temporary ugliness of the clear cuts when we ride in get this lecture, and most if not all respect their benefits after I point them out. Don't give up and let them ~make you~ say radical things just because they are. We should be ~right~ not just equally reactive.
IK - this was the next thread I opened my trap on.
while being hunted?
Just read in The Star Ledger this morning that minors will be prohibited from this hunt for their safety, in consideration of protestors that may be present.
The authorities are saying this is For The ChildrenTM and is to protect them from a potentially volatile situation. Needless to say, the anti-hunting crowd is joyful regarding this update. From a long-term perspective, they see it as a way to reduce the number of hunters in the future.
~ Blue Jays ~
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1033942/posts
You know, screw New Jersey. If they consider the protestors a danger, they should handle the protestors. Instead they ban kids.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.