previous wildlife population page        subsequent population page            home

July 22, 2003
Goose Killing in New Jersey Park
The July 2 article in The Star- Ledger regarding the slaughter of geese was
extremely misleading.

The article starts off with the county stating "we've tried everything."
They have not. I live near Nomahegan Park. The county has never tried
chasing the geese with a border collie or letting the grass grow to a length
that is unacceptable to geese as they do in Europe.

My sister was witness to the slaughter in Nomahegan on that morning. The
geese are literally stuffed into containers so tiny that I'm sure some of
them were dead before the gas was pumped in. They had the entrance to the
park blocked off by the Union County Police who stood watch. Does that sound
to you as if this is a popular decision? If so many people are in favor of
this as stated by the county, than why do you need police to protect the
tormentors?

Would you believe that the few remaining geese stood staring in stunned
silence at the trucks? They were used to nothing but kindness from the
visitors to Nomahegan. My sister said it was eerie and chilling.

In this time of economic problems why is the county paying $20,000 of our
tax dollars for this heinous act?
                                                                            Michele O'Brien, Cranford

July 19, 2003
Response to Wall St Journal Editorial
It is simplistic to blame conflicts between wild animals and humans on the animals as your editorial did on July 11. In actuality, game management policies focused on providing more hunting opportunities often have much to do with problems that arise.

Deer management regulation is notorious for this. Regulations that provide for the killing of more males than females have made hunters happy but boosted deer populations to pest proportions for farmers and and home gardeners.  In many states the goal has often been to kill 80 percent of the males, enabling more females to survive
the winter and produce more fawns to not only restore but to increase the number of deer in the spring.

Goose problems are the direct result of the creation of non-migratory Canada geese by game managers who hatched their eggs in incubators, reared goslings to the point where they could fend for themselves, and turned them loose without parental guidance to teach them to migrate. They have thrived on the expanses of lawn in urban and suburban areas.

As wild habitat has been replaced with human habitation and activities, bears have adapted by taking advantage of discarded human food, tasty barbecue grills and nourishing seeds and suet intended for wild birds. As with other wild animals, killing some of them during hunting season will only reduce their number temporarily because a drop in the number of animals in a population stimulates more breeding and larger litters. Restricting access to human food through a public education program would be more effective.

The New Jersey people who have advocated trying to co-exist with wildlife deserve credit rather than condemnation. They are the ones who realize that it is humans, not wild animals, who have created an imbalance (top heavy with humans) and want to employ realistic scientific methods as opposed to cruel and harmful ones for
dealing with inconvenient wildlife populations.
                                                                         Bina Robinson, CIVITAS, Swain NY
June 19, 2003
Bowhunters take to the forests and the deer suffer
      Bowhunting season brings hell to the deer of Pennsylvania, for shooting an arrow into a living target is so difficult that for every deer a bowhunter kills another is wounded. Such violence, such crippling pain. And for what? Recreation. Sport. Fun.So, when bowhunters take to the field, know that tens of thousands of deer will fall from razor arrow death, and just as many will be shot, wounded, crippled, dying with each step they take.
      Those who kill and profit from killing are so afraid of your emotions that they berate you for having them. Our feelings are our strength and the spirit that guides our conscience. Feel then, for the deer, for their suffering, for the mothers who watch children destroyed, and are only reunited when both hang as trophies on their killer's
wall. Feel for all the deer, the millions of souls already stolen, and for the hundreds of thousands more that shall come to ruination by such an unnatural and unkind death. Feel for those poor creatures, and then with so armed a conscience, act.
      Wildlife biologists working for the state, the so-called experts, tell you that you must allow hunting, though they never mention that their salaries are paid for by the sale of hunting licenses. Remember this: It is for their sake that hunting must be allowed.  Deer are a species that have been and are being bred for the sole purpose of recreational hunting. They have been demonized, vilified, so that good people will say nothing and allow the slaughter to continue. For 100 years the Pennsylvania game agency and their hunter-patrons have succeeded.  Let them succeed no more.
                                                                                Stuart Chaifetz, Cherry Hill, N.J.

Trapping won't curb rabies among raccoons
      As most residents of upstate New York will have heard by now (1992), our area's raccoon population is being affected by rabies currently  spreading throughout the northeaster United States.
      People are intimidated, and in this climate of fear, trapping is being promoted as an answer to this problem. Using trapping to control the spread of a disease is, however, and impractical solution.
       Rabies produces uncharacteristic, unresponsive behavior in infected animals.  Because of this, its victims won't respond well to bait and are often too disoriented to find their way onto the trappers' trap lines, tending instead to remain near their dens. 
      Furthermore, according to some recent studies by experts in veterinary science and disease control, trapping can actually help spread the disease.  The disease is cyclical.  Each outbreak produces a certain proportion of immune individuals in a given wildlife population.  Being an unselective method of control, trapping is as likely to catch the immune members of that population, or those which haven't yet been infected as it is to catch the intended targets.
      And reducing the population to a lower level could increase the number of births, filling in the newly created spaces in that population, thereby providing new, vulnerable individuals.  Therefore, trapping doesn't seem capable of providing a solution.
                                   from a letter in The Buffalo News, Feb. 18, 1992 by David Park Musella
     
New York Times Letter, August 5   Just Saying No to Fish
    "Has the Sea Given Up Its Bounty?" (July 29) highlights many of the problems with commercial fisheries, but proposes few solutions. Most involve technological advancements.
    The simplest solution to the problem of depleting fish is obvious: stop eating them. Cited in the article as one of the reasons for the problem is "booming markets for seafood."
    Adopting a healthy, plant-based vegan diet (without animal products, meat or fish) will help restore the oceans' fish populations and won't cost millions of dollars in technology. Once we stop competing with marine mammals and fish for their natural foods, we will have no need to disrupt the natural process that has kept the ocean ecosystem working for millions of year.         Starre Vartan, Darien, Connecticut

previous wildlife population page       subsequent population page