State proposal: No bear hunt in '07
05/08/07 13:17 Filed in: NJ Bear
Issue
(newton) nj herald
By BRUCE A. SCRUTON
bscruton@njherald.com
The Fish and Game Council, faced with top politicians' objections to a bear hunt, has put forward a proposal to eliminate a bear hunt this year, but mandates a hunt in 2008 and 2009 if the number of serious bear-human encounters don't come down by nearly a third in each of the next two years.
"Council is not willing to subject the citizens of New Jersey to this level of risk to public safety and property damage for more than a year," says the proposed policy, which was sent to state Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Lisa Jackson at noon on Thursday.
By BRUCE A. SCRUTON
bscruton@njherald.com
The Fish and Game Council, faced with top politicians' objections to a bear hunt, has put forward a proposal to eliminate a bear hunt this year, but mandates a hunt in 2008 and 2009 if the number of serious bear-human encounters don't come down by nearly a third in each of the next two years.
"Council is not willing to subject the citizens of New Jersey to this level of risk to public safety and property damage for more than a year," says the proposed policy, which was sent to state Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Lisa Jackson at noon on Thursday.
"Home entries and
attempted home entries increased significantly in the
late 1990s and remain unacceptably high despite
intensive efforts to eliminate problem bears and
despite intensive education efforts," the policy
notes in its conclusion section.
It adds "a prolonged period of evaluation of the effectiveness of non-lethal methods, many of which have been employed for many years, is not an appropriate public policy given the resultant threats to public safety and the burden of property damage currently endured by New Jersey citizens."
The proposed policy was posted on the Division of Fish and Wildlife Web site on Friday, although there was no press release from DEP saying it had been posted.
Two weeks ago, the department posted Commissioner Lisa Jackson's recommendations to the council, although the document was written as if it came from the council.
Among her suggestions is that non-lethal methods of controlling bears be given more time to work.
Under state law, the Fish and Game Council sets hunting and fishing seasons as well as bag limits and where hunting and fishing is permitted. The law requires a public hearing on the council's proposed policy that must also be approved by the DEP commissioner.
The DEP is also under a court order to come up with an agreed-upon policy and set a deadline of Friday or the court will mandate a policy.
The state is the defendant in two lawsuits pending in the court system over the 2005 black bear management policy. One of the suits was filed by anti-hunting groups while sportsmen's associations filed the other suit.
In releasing the recommendations in late July, the department also scheduled a public meeting for Wednesday evening at the State Museum in Trenton. Much of the problems with bears, however, are occurring in the northwestern part of the state, especially Sussex County, more than 50 miles away from the site of the hearing.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine has been publicly against a bear hunt and last fall, Jackson, a political appointee, rescinded the 2005 black bear policy which had been approved by the previous commissioner. That policy set up a black bear hunt, to go along with the annual six-day shotgun deer season. A hunt was held in 2005.
In withdrawing approval of the policy last year, Jackson said non-lethal parts of the policy, such as education, garbage control and even birth-control, had not been given a chance to work.
In her recommendations, she wrote: "Council recommends that DFW (Division of Fish and Wildlife) should continue to focus on an integrated strategy for black bear management that includes continuing the educational campaign, pursuing legislative initiatives, conducting research and population monitoring, continuing appropriate control measures, (and) investigating alternate population control methods."
The council's proposed policy sets benchmarks of a 30 percent reduction in Category One incidents for 2008 and another 30 percent reduction in 2009. If the numbers aren't met, a hunt will be held.
Category One bears are those animals which have broken into a house, caused considerable property damage or attacked humans, pets or livestock. Traditionally, the Division of Fish and Wildlife has been the collection point for complaints and has issued a monthly report to the council.
But those reports will no longer be given to the council, a source said, and the DEP is also making changes in who collects the data. The source said calls will soon be directed to headquarters in Trenton.
One of the complaints leveled against Jackson's position is that science has been replaced by politics. Should the method of collecting information be put in the hands of politicians, the source said, "we won't know just how many calls are received and if they are being classified properly."
There is also some disagreement in the documents over what conclusions can be drawn from the numbers that are available.
The council policy document noted "over time, serious incidences have increased dramatically with the increase in the bear population," and added: "Of particular concern to the council are significant increases in Category One incidences as the bear population expanded."
The council said the bear population, which was in the low hundreds three decades ago, is now about 1,700 in Sussex and parts of Warren and Passaic counties. The northwestern corner of the state contains ideal bear habitat, so has been studied extensively.
While there are reports of bears in every county in the state, population estimates in those other areas can't be made because there have been no studies done there.
Both the council and commissioner are looking to set up a third research area.
While much of the two documents mirror each other, both being based on the 2005 policy, the major differences are on the political question of whether to have a hunt.
Nobody was available on Saturday at DEP to talk about whether there are meetings scheduled between the council and commissioner.
While there is the political battle over the black bears, there is also Legislation pending before the state Assembly that revamps the council.
The 11 members of the council are governor appointees, but the names, by law, are provided to the governor by outside groups. Three members are farmers, chosen by the Agricultural Convention, while six are selected by the sportsmen's federation. One is a citizen knowledgeable in land use management and soil conservation practices while the last is the chairperson of the Endangered and Nongame Advisory Committee.
The proposed Legislation would eliminate that line-up in favor of a smaller board made up exclusively of governor appointees.
It adds "a prolonged period of evaluation of the effectiveness of non-lethal methods, many of which have been employed for many years, is not an appropriate public policy given the resultant threats to public safety and the burden of property damage currently endured by New Jersey citizens."
The proposed policy was posted on the Division of Fish and Wildlife Web site on Friday, although there was no press release from DEP saying it had been posted.
Two weeks ago, the department posted Commissioner Lisa Jackson's recommendations to the council, although the document was written as if it came from the council.
Among her suggestions is that non-lethal methods of controlling bears be given more time to work.
Under state law, the Fish and Game Council sets hunting and fishing seasons as well as bag limits and where hunting and fishing is permitted. The law requires a public hearing on the council's proposed policy that must also be approved by the DEP commissioner.
The DEP is also under a court order to come up with an agreed-upon policy and set a deadline of Friday or the court will mandate a policy.
The state is the defendant in two lawsuits pending in the court system over the 2005 black bear management policy. One of the suits was filed by anti-hunting groups while sportsmen's associations filed the other suit.
In releasing the recommendations in late July, the department also scheduled a public meeting for Wednesday evening at the State Museum in Trenton. Much of the problems with bears, however, are occurring in the northwestern part of the state, especially Sussex County, more than 50 miles away from the site of the hearing.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine has been publicly against a bear hunt and last fall, Jackson, a political appointee, rescinded the 2005 black bear policy which had been approved by the previous commissioner. That policy set up a black bear hunt, to go along with the annual six-day shotgun deer season. A hunt was held in 2005.
In withdrawing approval of the policy last year, Jackson said non-lethal parts of the policy, such as education, garbage control and even birth-control, had not been given a chance to work.
In her recommendations, she wrote: "Council recommends that DFW (Division of Fish and Wildlife) should continue to focus on an integrated strategy for black bear management that includes continuing the educational campaign, pursuing legislative initiatives, conducting research and population monitoring, continuing appropriate control measures, (and) investigating alternate population control methods."
The council's proposed policy sets benchmarks of a 30 percent reduction in Category One incidents for 2008 and another 30 percent reduction in 2009. If the numbers aren't met, a hunt will be held.
Category One bears are those animals which have broken into a house, caused considerable property damage or attacked humans, pets or livestock. Traditionally, the Division of Fish and Wildlife has been the collection point for complaints and has issued a monthly report to the council.
But those reports will no longer be given to the council, a source said, and the DEP is also making changes in who collects the data. The source said calls will soon be directed to headquarters in Trenton.
One of the complaints leveled against Jackson's position is that science has been replaced by politics. Should the method of collecting information be put in the hands of politicians, the source said, "we won't know just how many calls are received and if they are being classified properly."
There is also some disagreement in the documents over what conclusions can be drawn from the numbers that are available.
The council policy document noted "over time, serious incidences have increased dramatically with the increase in the bear population," and added: "Of particular concern to the council are significant increases in Category One incidences as the bear population expanded."
The council said the bear population, which was in the low hundreds three decades ago, is now about 1,700 in Sussex and parts of Warren and Passaic counties. The northwestern corner of the state contains ideal bear habitat, so has been studied extensively.
While there are reports of bears in every county in the state, population estimates in those other areas can't be made because there have been no studies done there.
Both the council and commissioner are looking to set up a third research area.
While much of the two documents mirror each other, both being based on the 2005 policy, the major differences are on the political question of whether to have a hunt.
Nobody was available on Saturday at DEP to talk about whether there are meetings scheduled between the council and commissioner.
While there is the political battle over the black bears, there is also Legislation pending before the state Assembly that revamps the council.
The 11 members of the council are governor appointees, but the names, by law, are provided to the governor by outside groups. Three members are farmers, chosen by the Agricultural Convention, while six are selected by the sportsmen's federation. One is a citizen knowledgeable in land use management and soil conservation practices while the last is the chairperson of the Endangered and Nongame Advisory Committee.
The proposed Legislation would eliminate that line-up in favor of a smaller board made up exclusively of governor appointees.
