previous wildlife opinions               subsequent wildlife opinions                 home                       

June 2, 2003    email communication
Letter to Passaic County freeholders re proposed bear hunting season
One of the most important aspects of the proposed hunt is the objectivity, or lack thereof, from the 'biologists' claiming it is necessary. Employees of the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, including biologists, profit from the sales of hunting licenses. This alone creates a serious conflict of interest, but it goes much deeper than this.

Project leader for the Division's bear program, Patrick Carr, was interviewed in the February 2001 issue of "Field and Stream" magazine. The interview took place shortly after the bear hunt in 2000 was canceled.
"Part of $2 million appropriation from the state's legislature is earmarked for bear research, and Carr believes that it will allow him and his colleagues to make an even better case for bear hunting."

This is an astounding admission that the Division's bear research, which should have had open and objective goals, was in fact being manipulated and predestined for one desired outcome - to produce a bear hunt.

While their motives and methods for pushing for a bear hunt are clear, the evidence for the actual execution of this scientific crime comes from Bradley Campbell, Commissioner of the NJ Department of Environmental Protection. On March 6, 2003, he wrote the following in a letter to the NJ Fish and Game Council:

"One consistent and striking public concern voiced at our public meetings was a high level of skepticism and distrust of the population data our Fish and Wildlife Division has used to make bear management decisions in the past. Responding to this concern, I convened an independent review panel of outside experts - including sportsmen, animal protection advocates, and scientists and statisticians from across the region - to consider the data and methodology currently used by the Division to project black bear populations. I was especially concerned about this because the Division's internal projection of the current population has increased by more than 70 percent over the past several months.

The independent panel identified several weaknesses in the Division's past analytical approach, as well as a number of areas where further work is needed. For purposes of the Council's meeting this week, the important point is that the population numbers are clearly uncertain. While the Division has most recently projected a population of 3278, the panel concluded that the population may be as low as 1350."

In the year 2001, the Division's lead bear researcher promised hunters that he would use his authority to make the case for a bear hunt. In 2003, as a decision was being made to have a hunt, the Division's bear population numbers suddenly increased by 70 percent.

Commissioner Campbell was right to be concerned about the work of the Division, but it is outrage that he and all of us should feel by this betrayal of the public's trust.
But our outrage should not be limited to just that. There is the matter of the NJ Fish and Game Council, the hunter controlled state board that cares nothing about science or what the public wants, and only acts to enable the recreational desires of it's constituents. It is they who, after the people of this state rose and stopped the bear hunt three years ago, are forcing the issue again.

In order to obtain their trophy hunt, it is vital to the Council and Division that bears be perceived as a threat. In fact, if bears were viewed positively, especially as an economic boon to local and county governments, it would seriously undermine the possibility of a hunt. This is why they never speak of eco-tourism, and the great financial benefit it could have for the County of Passaic.

There are 8,500,000 people who reside in New Jersey, the majority of whom have never seen a bear, and would gladly pay to do so. Your county is primed to take advantage of this opportunity, but of course you will never hear the Division or Council tell you this for, though it is in your interest, it is not in theirs.

As long as our wildlife is controlled by those who wish to exploit them for recreation and profit, we will never have a fair and honest debate over how to manage wild animal populations.

I and all other NJ black bear proponents hope that you will continue your strong stand against the proposed bear hunt. -Stuart Chaifetz    http://www.HonorAndNonViolence.com 

February 1, 2003
Accepted by the Auburn NY Citizen and Hornell NY Spectator

Whenever humans have a problem with wild animals, people who consider it sport to kill them generously offer their services as a solution. Randomly killing some of the animals, crows in the case of Auburn (as reported in The Spectator, January 26), can temporarily reduce their numbers but is rarely a lasting solution because killing large numbers of any wild species tends to accelerate breeding

Getting back to crows, Henry Ward Beecher once said: "If men had wings and bore black feathers, few of them would be clever enough to be crows." Be that as it may, it seems that with all the modern technology available to us, we ought to be clever enough to persuade troublesome crows to move without maiming and killing them and distressing resident humans with gunfire and violence.

The Cooperative Extension Service at Kansas State University advises that it is most effective to be ready to scare crows away in the fall before they settle in for a winter of roosting. Their report suggests using a variety of deterrents especially amplified hawk screams and crow distress calls. They also suggest pyrotechnics fired from handguns and 12-gauge shotguns as well as agricultural explosive devices (fire crackers) and LP gas exploders, "whirling novelties" and flashing lights, tethered balloons and hawk silhouettes as part of an integrated program. "The more diverse the techniques, timing and mobility of the operation, the more effective it will be,"

It is important to begin the scaring operation when the first birds are seen returning because it is more difficult to move them after they have settled in for the night. Deterrence measures should be discontinued once the birds have settled in because they are more likely to stay put and become accustomed to the deterrents.

The report estimates that dispersal can be achieved in four to five days of concerted
effort which seems much better than killing a relatively small number of crows, wounding many others and subjecting citizens to an extended shooting season.

Bina Robinson

Buffalo News January 22, 2003
DEC lacks consistent policy on wildlife

I have studied the issue of chronic wasting disease and agree with the Department of Environmental Conservation that it is not in the best interest of the deer to be fed by humans.

However, although the DEC has known for some time that people have been feeding deer at Stiglmeier Park in Cheektowaga, it waited until winter to take action. The no-feeding regulation should have been enforced earlier in the year so that deer could have found another source of nourishment before the cold weather set in. To withdraw their habitual food source at this time is inhumane. The deer will now have to resort to roaming the nearby neighborhoods for food, crossing busy roads in the process.

I can't help but wonder if this is an attempt to put the deer in a position where they will be deemed a nuisance and a hazard, giving the DEC an excuse to promote deer-killing opportunities.

The DEC's deer feeding ban conveniently exempts "nuisance" deer-killing programs and captive deer farms. In Clarence, bowhunters are still allowed to put piles of food out so they can sit in tree stands and shoot deer as they feed. The food will draw deer into those areas. Some deer will, of course, be killed, but many won't. It is curious that the DEC considers deer in Clarence less a threat than in Cheektowaga. In addition, captive deer have been reported to have spread chronic wasting disease to wild deer. If the threat of the spread of disease is serious enough that the DEC feels that it must pursue and punish individuals who feed deer in Stiglmeier Park, then it should put an end to deer farms.

The DEC seems to provide and enforce regulations at its convenience, rather than with consistency and sound wildlife management.       Frank Goettelman       

Previous wildlife/hunting opinions                subsequent  opinions