New Jersey's Black Bear Hunt Leads to Conflicts Between State Officials |
 |
March 10, 2004
New Jersey claimed that conflicts between humans and black bears required a sport hunt in December, a
six-day slaughter that eventually took more than 300 animals. Now the state is having internal conflicts over the black bear hunt itself.
On March 9, the New Jersey Fish and Game Council, which sets the rules for hunting, proposed another bear hunt for this December, despite the recommendation of state Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell to remove black bears from the game code entirely. Governor James E. McGreevey also wants to cancel all future black bear hunts, although his motivation may be more political: He told The Trenton Times that he has received more letters protesting the hunt than any other issue.
Campbell, however, had more forceful arguments against the hunt: revised population data. In a letter to the state Fish and Game Council, Campbell referred to the most recent population study, conducted at the time of the December hunt. It estimated the number of black bears at less than 1,500, or less than half the 3,200 figure that the state had publicized prior to the December 2003 hunt.
These new data, concluded Campbell, do not show an "expanding population," an assertion that was used to justify last year's hunt. He went on to note the December hunt's negative side effects on other black blear management tools:
"Administration of the hunt in the context of substantial public controversy severely limits the staff time and resources available for public education, bear feeding-ban enforcement, and development of immunocontraceptive alternatives," Campbell wrote in the letter. "Our efforts in these latter areas were curtailed during the pendency of the hunt. I believe we need to show substantial additional progress in each of these areas before considering another black bear hunt."
Falling on Deaf Ears
On the day of the March 9 vote, Campbell appeared before the council to plead his case for employing other management tools. He told council members that it is "important to demonstrate to the public that we are continuing with other methods. We made the commitment to explore other methods, and the reality is we haven't made much progress with them."
If that weren't enough, the December 2003 hunt—the first in the state in more than 30 years—generated enormous opposition. A number of lawsuits have been filed against the killing, bills have been introduced in the state capitol to halt the hunt, and letters of protest have been pouring into the governor. The governor's office announced that McGreevey had received about 14,500 letters against the hunt, while only about 2,000 letters came in support of the practice.
Despite all this, the council still voted 8 to 3 in favor of a hunt this December. The council based its decision, it said, on public safety and state liability. Council chairman W. Scott Ellis told The Trenton Times, "One of our big concerns is liability…the feeling is we might be liable if we don't [hold a hunt]."
Ellis also insisted, "The council members did what they did based on science and the safety of the citizens…If we don't continue with the hunt, the bear population will get larger, and we will have more problems."
But here's the problem: Ellis's statements are broad, and do not appear to reflect the state's latest data. Not only is the black bear population apparently a lot smaller than previously thought, but the state's own "black bear complaints" have dropped by more than 100 between 2002 and 2003—and by more than 300 between 1999 and 2003.
What's more, the state's statistics (taken from "Black Bear in New Jersey Status Report 2004") show only four reported attacks on humans in five years—hardly the justification for killing hundreds of black bears at random, and likely not enough evidence of widespread danger for the state to worry about liability. These problem bears could be dealt with on an individual basis without killing hundreds of their brethren.
So why does the New Jersey Fish and Game Council move ahead with the hunt? Wayne Pacelle, a senior vice president for The HSUS, noted that the council is a semi-autonomous body dominated by hunters, thanks to an archaic law that stipulates that a majority of the council must be hunters and farmers.
A council comprised mostly of hunters and farmers, Pacelle added, would naturally enough think a hunt is the most obvious solution. However, when Pacelle wrote to the state earlier in March, he specifically told the body that the only meaningful solution to bear-human conflicts is to teach people not to make food available—and to teach bears through aversive conditioning practices that it is not in their interest to encounter people.
These kinds of non-lethal methods, as well as others like electric fencing to protect crops and apiaries and motion-activated frightening devices, have proven to be effective in solving conflicts, Pacelle wrote.
More to Come
The good news, if it can be called that, is that the council's decision is not yet final. The council will convene again for final adoption of the game code, following public hearings this summer. Governor McGreevey has indicated to the press that he will stop the hunt if the council proceeds with it. Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Campbell has the power to withhold bear-hunting permits, which would effectively curtail the hunt.
State legislators could also have a say in how black bears are treated in New Jersey. The state General Assembly and Senate have yet to vote on two bills.
General Assembly bill A2452, primarily sponsored by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, would appropriate $95,000 to fund research into the state's bear situation by Rutgers University, and ban any hunt until that research is completed.
Senate bill S700, with Senator Joseph F. Vitale as the primary co-sponsor, would prohibit black bear hunting for five years, develop a plan for bear population control, and appropriate $95,000 ""to develop, in conjunction with The Humane Society of the United States and other appropriate animal protection organizations, a program for bear management other than hunting,…"
Interestingly, the discord between the council and the commission of the Department of Environmental Protection could trigger the start of a pilot bear contraception project that the state of New Jersey and The HSUS had agreed to investigate in 2002. The HSUS is in talks with Six Flags Great Adventure's Wildlife Safari in Jackson Township about using immunocontraception on the park's captive bear population.
Not that immunocontraception is the answer to all the state's human-bear conflicts, Pacelle told the Star-Ledger. "Immunocontraception is no panacea," he said. "It's a potential piece in a larger non-lethal solution, such as teaching people how to live with bears and properly store garbage so bears stay away."
The HSUS will continue to work to create lasting solutions to the occasional conflicts that occur between people and bears. HSUS members in New Jersey should continue to write to Governor McGreevey and the state legislators in Trenton and encourage them to put a stop to the needless sport hunting of this small and recovering bear population.
Contact Information
New Jersey residents should call or write (calls and letters are more effective than e-mails) Governor McGreevey at:
Governor James E. McGreevey
The State House
P.O. Box 001
Trenton, N.J. 08625
Phone: 609-292-6000
To contact up your New Jersey state lawmakers, use the state's legislative directory to find the correct name and phone number/address.
See the Video
Bear Hounding
Bear Baiting
Money and Myths
Related Links
LCV Ads Pulled Down in New Mexico
Black Bears
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
Immunocontraception
Model Guidelines for Nuisance Wildlife Control
Solving Problems with Black Bears
Black Bears and People in New Jersey
Wayne Pacelle's Letter to the New Jersey DEP Commissioner
State Wildlife Management: The Pervasive Influence of Hunters, Hunting, Culture, and Money
