Posted on 11/19/2004 9:52:01 AM PST by d-back
The encounter last weekend between three bears and two Boy Scouts at a camp in Warren County was more harrowing than originally reported, as the bears pawed at the teenagers for an hour, bit one of them and attempted to bite the other, according to a report by state wildlife investigators.
The boys, who were later vaccinated for rabies, cowered on a rock as they fended off the two 60-pound cubs and the mother bear at the Yards Creek Scout Reservation in Blairstown on Saturday night, wildlife investigators said.
One of the boys was bitten twice by a cub. The animal first bit down on the boy's left arm -- leaving four scratch marks as the youth pulled away -- and then bit the boy's right hand, leaving three puncture wounds, according to a Division of Fish and Wildlife report obtained by The Star-Ledger on Wednesday. The second boy escaped injury when the second cub bit his coat sleeve -- but missed his arm -- and tried to pull him off the rock, the report said.
The state Department of Environmental Protection did not release the report until last night -- after being pressed by The Star-Ledger-- leaving officials from the Central New Jersey Council of the Boy Scouts to field questions about the incident. The council initially reported the incident as a brief, minor encounter with two bears, and said only one bear had "scratched" a scout's hand before the cubs ran off. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
"But the northwest corner of the state, where I live, where my wife grew up, where her folks live, is rural. It's red state country, and it's got wildlife. I want it to stay that way. This is our little piece of Montana. I want it to keep that character. If we follow your thinking, we'll just say the hell with it, it's new jersey, and pave over the rest of the state."
I agree with you there.
Overdevelopment is a blight on the nation and New Jersey certainly has had more than its share. But when the Construction lobby is so powerful back there and spends so much money, its to be expected.
I just don't want to see all over NJ paved over, and I don't want to see the bear population decimated. I am all for a balance. I'm worried we'll kill off too many of em. I'm worried that people will want to denaturalize the area. I just hope we can have a reasonable balance. Thanks for not getting ticked off at me.
"Based on last years numbers, I can't imagine we'll need another hunt in 05."
Are you willing to pay damages to anyone who suffers damages from your bears?
Perhaps New Jersey should set up a fund where people like you, who want bears even though they are sometimes dangerous ,and sometimes cause property damage, can pay into, in order to reimburse people who suffer damages due to your love of bears?
Well thanks for finding an area of agreement. I think you're right about the construction lobby. Heck, they're still putting in more retail stores all over the place. 50 years ago, Little Falls, Garfield, Wallington, was all farm land. Now it's wall the wall concrete, houses crowded in together, not a place I would ever want to live. I hope Wantage Twp never gets like that.
In addition to: always have bear spray AND a camp-ax/tomahawk on your belt if you cannot have a .44 mag or shotgun
Wow, you know me so little. Remind me why bear policy in NJ is any of your business? Or do you just like having opinions on things?
I'm quite surprised that it seems the Scouts had not been instructed in how to fend off a bear attack.
Encounters like this will happen. The bears need to be relocated to a spot VERY far away as the bears will travel great distances to return to familiar territory. One of them kept returning to an area near me after being relocated twice, 50-100 miles away. Bears that lose their fear of humans are dangerous.....make sure they fear you.
WHich is why you do not CHASE AFTER them, but aggressively hold your ground in such a way as to indicate that invading your space would not be a good idea.
Nice strawman. FR's has plenty of those, too. I don't say bears are harmless. I say some level of risk in life is acceptable, whether we're discussing tobacco, guns, bears, sports, or many other things. The goal is not a risk-free society.
Nope. Perhaps we should manage wildlife rationally, rather than just be scared babies about it.
...and small caliber handguns.
That's not true. Planes can crash. Even divers can have accidents that could hurt others. Private planes crash and destroy property from time to time. It's not risk free. It's a risk people accept. Raccoons can bite and cause rabies. Kids could die from it. We don't exterminate all the raccoons. Wonder why? Maybe because risk free life is not the goal.
Posted by Huck:
"...I say some level of risk in life is acceptable, whether we're discussing tobacco, guns, bears, sports, or many other things..."
Risk and subsequently obtaining the skills and tools required to meet that risk are what bring enjoyment to life. You raise a great sports analogy.
While not bragging, I'm an accomplished skier and have successfully tackled extremely challenging trails on several continents. Is risk involved? Absolutely. The key is the preparation to maximize the chances for a favorable return on risk investment. My physical conditioning is solid. Equipment like boots, bindings, and skis are modern, top-quality, and well-tuned. I would never attempt the difficult terrain I've done any other way.
My belief is that the same applies with bears. While I don't actively seek them while hiking, I totally respect them and consider them a beautiful part of nature. At the same time, I maintain that due to our superior intelligence, we should embrace tools developed to preserve our safety and well-being in the field.
Getting bitten, clawed, or killed by a bear is an awfully steep price of admission to outdoorsmanship. Bears must also learn a healthy respect for the potentially-lethal dangers posed by mankind. This is why I think a scheduled bear hunt and the presence of armed humans brings a very healthy balance back to nature.
~ Blue Jays ~
Four days later, Huck, and you're still talkin' trash on this thread. Folks concerned about black bears are "scared babies," the Scouts were "wussies" because getting "nicked" by a bear was "no big deal"--you're a riot. Love the advice you gave regarding an enraged black bear sow: just knock her over. Hope nobody's dumb enough to take that advice.
I totally agree people should learn what they need to learn. That's not just how to kill bears, but also how to co-exist with them. As for the population, like I say, I recognize that we humans need to control animal populations. I have no issue with that. But when people come on here and suggest that ANY risk of ANY bear attack means we need to hunt, well, that's just insane and I am against that sort of idiocy.
I just read on the NH website, the last time a black bear killed a person was 1794. I don't know what it is in NJ, but whatever it is, it is low enough for my taste. We had a growing bear population. No question. But I am not in favor of accomodating the milque toasts in Morris County who are too chicken to live within 40 miles of black bears. If I get to vote on it, I'll vote for rugged individualism, not scared suburban lamos.
People are still posting to me. I am answering those posts. If you don't want in on it, then buh-bye.
Love the advice you gave regarding an enraged black bear sow: just knock her over. Hope nobody's dumb enough to take that advice.
I think you've got me confused with someone else.
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.