Alternative Methods of Controlling Wildlife
Populations
Assisting Bear Smart Legislation and Creating Awareness about a
Non-Violent Program of Black Bear Control in New Jersey
Tag Words: black bears; bears; NJ bear hunt; non-violent; black bear control; Bear
Smart Bill; Animal Protection League of New Jersey; Lesniak; S2369; bear baiting; bear
proof
Authors: Lindsay Aspin, Chantel McDowell, Rebecca Rocha with Julie M. Fagan, Ph.D
Summary: The NJ Bear Hunt is an unethical and distasteful way to manage the black
bear population in New Jersey. Many people have signified support for a non-violent
program of bear control, and recently legislation, bill S2369, has been introduced in order
to alter human-bear interactions and reduce the number of bears killed during the hunt
each year.
Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpmWRzk5N5M
Introduction
Every year New Jersey sets aside several days for a state-sponsored black bear
hunt. We feel that this hunt is unnecessary, and that proper human behaviors will change
black bear behavior, and ultimately decrease human-bear interactions. This way, humans
are at peace, and bears are at peace, and we will no longer need to host an annual black
bear hunt in the state of New Jersey. In 2012, 228 bears were killed, in 2011 469 bears,
and in 2010 there were 592 bears killed. N.J. wildlife officials would like to bring the
bear population down to 1,200-1,500 bears. Currently the Animal Protection League of
New Jersey is supporting a bill by State Sen. Raymond Lesniak that would ban baiting
bears with food and require certain residences in core bear habitat to use bear-resistant
garbage containers.. There are no other current solutions to the bear control problem
other than hosting an annual bear hunt. Some groups have proposed a non-violent
program of bear control works better than violence and hunting. We intend to raise
awareness in the Rutgers community to know how to respond to a bear sighting or
prepare their homes in bear territory. This is to help keep bear complaints down in
communities and promote a non-violent program of bear control. We hope to work with
the Animal Protection League of New Jersey to help pass legislation, and to raise
awareness in the Rutgers community.
We plan distributing informational post card with information about Senator
Lesniak’s Bear Smart Bill. This will help us to collect signatures and send a bulk
package to Senator Bob Smith, the senator of this district, who opposes this bill. He is
the Chair of Environment and Energy, and this makes him a big player when opposing
this bill. We want him to feel some pressure from his constituents, and know that people
are interested in a non-violent program of bear control.
Video Link
Problems with the New Jersey Bear Hunt
Bear Baiting (Rebecca Rocha)
This report is an examination of bear and whitetail deer baiting in New Jersey and how
it ties in to New Jersey’s black bear management program. Baiting for these animals
causes them to change their behavior and they learn where food is kept and they become
more used to human interaction. This has a large number of impacts on the size and
population of the bears (increase of both). Numerous studies throughout the scientific
literature clearly implicate baiting, supplemental feeding, dumps, and other human
derived food sources in higher reproductive success. This is because female bears cannot
become pregnant until they reach a specific weight. It is much easier to reach this weight
class when there is free food available consistently to the bear. It also contributes to
forest degeneration and the spread of disease and invasive plants (seed travel through fur
and feces). In 18 of the 28 states that allow bear hunting, bear baiting is banned. Nearby
in New York, they have banned bear baiting to reduce the number of conflicts between
humans and bears. We also know that baiting is illegal in nearby Pennsylvania, a state
where hunting is very popular. Surveys have shown a strong public disapproval of bear
baiting, even including a majority of hunters. Though in many states that allow bear
hunting, hunters participate in bear baiting.
Studies showed that bears that were baited and killed, versus trapped after a nuisance
call had very different profiles. Younger bears were killed when baited, along with a
lower proportion of males. This is probably because young bears or mothers looking for
food are much more likely to approach the bait. Bears that were live trapped near the
nuisance area were older males. This shows that the hunt really is not doing anything to
reduce nuisance complaints, because nuisance bears are not the ones being killed.
Black bear hunting is also poor for the black bear population, it reduces the genetic
pool. This could be a problem when most of the largest bears are killed off, and
immigration from other populations may not be possible. This is a problem that I fear
most about, and is the reason I dislike the hunt. I am afraid that we will deplete the bear
population to the point where bears become endangered in New Jersey. Unfortunately,
we ruin many things and only regret it when it has become too late, and I hope we can
prevent things from becoming so grave. I also think we could have a negative impact on
the bears by killing off the cubs and mothers that come to bait stations. There are no
regulations in New Jersey on the age of the bears that can be killed, so killing off cubs
and mothers could have a harsh impact on the bear population.
Baiting white-tailed deer and black bears entail the same type of food (corn or apples,
etc.) and can attract both species to the food. This can present chance for illegal activity
if baiting one species or the other is banned. The animals will still come to eat the food,
and hunters may be tempted to shoot, even if baiting was illegal for that animal. In New
Jersey it is illegal to shoot a bear from a deer station in a tree, but it is assumed that any
hunter would not pass up the opportunity if he/she possesses a valid bear tag. It is
unknown how many illegal bear kills are made in New Jersey every year. If only bear
baiting was banned, it would not remove the problems associated with bear baiting, only
the fact that it would be illegal to kill them over a bait station. Bears would still be
getting larger and have more reproductive success. They would still become more
acclimated to humans, thus never reducing human-bear interaction.
In conclusion, bear baiting (and deer baiting) is very detrimental along with the
hunt. It causes more problems than people may realize. Both New York and
Pennsylvania are very successful states for hunting, and baiting is illegal there. The point
is, removing baiting is not going to hurt the industry. It is a very unfair and
unsportsmanlike way to kill an animal, while it is unsuspectingly eating from your trap.
Through this practice of bear population control through the hunt while allowing baiting,
the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife is actually contradicting themselves.
Baiting bears makes it easier for them to get bigger and reproduce more than usual. We
also know that it creates more problems for neighborhoods and campsites, because bears
are more used to humans. It changes their behavior when the bears know they have easy
access to a food supply. This is the problem we have in New Jersey, and eliminating it
could help to return a balance to nature and potentially save the lives of many bears.
References:
http://bearsmartnj.org/images/BaitingReport2012.pdf
Client Retention and Recruitment (Black Bear Lottery) Chantel McDowell
Baiting isn’t the only problem preventing a solution to human-bear interactions.
There are many organizations that are deeply invested in increasing the amount of
hunters, so ending the bear hunt would not help their cause. It’s more about money to
them than the “issues” attributed with bears and their presence in neighboring territories.
The main goal of organizations like The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
(AFWA) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is to increase the number
of hunters. With organizations like these striving to increase the revenue accumulated
from hunting licenses, it is believable that the population of black bears might not
actually be as high as recorded and that these hunts are created solely to bring in money.
For example, the Hunting Heritage Partnership is a program designed to build a strong
partnership between the NSSF, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation and the state
wildlife agencies by providing funding to the state wildlife agencies to create greater
hunting opportunities and put more hunters in the field.
The goal of NSSF is to increase:
1. Hunter access to public and private lands
2. Incentives to keep current hunters hunting
3. Recruitment of next generation hunters
4. Programs that create more opportunities to hunt
5. Communications programs geared toward recruiting and retaining hunters.
These goals are geared entirely to supporting the stream of revenue associated
with hunting. The Industry/Agency Coalition (also known as AFWA) launched the
Council to Advance Hunting & Shooting Sports in 2010. In September of that same year,
the council held it inaugural meeting and seated a 23-member Board of Directors from
top hunting and shooting –related National Game Organizations, trade organizations, and
conservation leaders from state and federal agencies to formulate a national recruitment
and retention strategy and methods of acquiring funding to drive this strategy. So there is
definitely a big movement directed towards increasing hunters and retaining those that do
hunt. This movement is so large that the NSSF initiated the program called hunter
recruitment and retention (R&R). In order to achieve this goal, such organizations have to
develop a marketing plan in order to appeal to the population and convince them that
hunting is a positive activity.
According to the industry/agency coalition, big game (like the black bear) hunting
lotteries are often used as a marketing tool for the crucial recruitment of new hunters.
Officials from the AFWA say that hunter numbers are shrinking dramatically in most
states. Big game opportunities, especially in lottery form, can excite current hunters and
draw new recruits. Bear permits are popular even though the sales of general licenses are
declining, which is why the black bear hunt is key in these organizations’ marketing
strategies. Some agencies have decided to try and keep key information in the pursuit of
non-lethal methods of black bear control from the public. Even though the Division of
Fish and Wildlife printed tons of educational flyers on non-lethal population control, they
rejected the basic requisites of any bear-smart program. These requisites include very
important steps in the control of the bear population including uniform local ordinances
requiring bear-resistant garbage containers and dumpster, requiring that trash cans be set
out in the morning and enforcement. It seems as though the main goal of these
organizations is to make sure hunting is seen as the primary option of population control,
even though there are clearly more effective and non-lethal ways of handling the
situation. Alaska bear expert Stephen. F Stringham, Ph.D was asked if he thought
recreational hunting was the best way to minimize nuisance behavior. He felt that it was
unnecessary and 4 reasons are listed below:
1.
Killing bears should be a last resort, and it should target only those nuisance bears
that cannot be cured, even after people have quit luring bears into misbehaving. Once
attractants are eliminated and intrusions into human habitats are punished, virtually every
bear will quit raiding. Bears don’t deserve capital punishment for problems people create.
2.
Recreational hunting seldom identifies or eliminates problem bears.
3.
All too often, recreational hunting is both inefficient and counterproductive.
4.
Killing bears treats only the symptoms, not the causes of misbehavior.
These reasons provided from an expert on the bear population, gives people an insight
into the real problems associated with overpopulation and explains why hunting is
actually ineffective. Agencies targeting the decline in the amount of hunters don’t care
about these reasons, and want to portray the opposite as the truth. Seeing as how there is
a decline in hunting, the people in these bear “infested” communities must agree with
bear experts on the situation and don’t see hunting as an option.
A large percent of state populations don’t agree with hunting as a means of
controlling the bear population, which is why it is so confusing when these organizations
push the importance of hunting these animals. Some don’t think that there is a problem
with bears at all and a decent amount agree that the many alternative options to hunting
will and do work. According to a 2010 statewide survey conducted by Mason-Dixon
Polling & Research, Inc. for the Humane Society of the United Sates, 74% of New Jersey
registered voters prefer that the state prioritize non-lethal methods of solving conflicts
between humans and bears. In Alaska, 88% of residents agree that most problems with
bears in the Anchorage area can be prevented by taking a few simple precautions, such as
using bear-proof garbage containers. With the overwhelming majority of residents in
these two states agreeing that non-lethal alternatives to hunting would work, it’s pretty
safe to say that other states would probably agree that there shouldn’t be a need for
hunting these animals.
We can conclude that for obvious reasons, there might not be a need for bear
hunts and that the numbers of bears might not actually be what exists. There are many
organizations out there whose main focus is to recruit and retain hunters. In order to do
this, they must somehow appeal to those who are interested in hunting. By introducing
hunts and lotteries on big game, and by eliminating information on other means of
population control, it is easy to draw in hunters to their cause. Their marketing strategy is
working and that is something that needs to change. Hunting seems to be implemented
solely for the means of making money, otherwise there are plenty of alternatives that
work and that people would rather implement.
Reference: http://www.savenjbears.com/pdf/UrbanWildlifeSeries-Bears2.pdf
Nuisance and Incident Reports
Tavvs’ Report (Rebecca Rocha)
The New Jersey Fish and Game Council wants to use approaches that will reduce
human-bear conflicts and nuisance complaints. Several approaches include: hunting, a
non-violent program, aversive conditioning and possible future contraception. The
Council wanted solid scientific evidence from other states, on these methods before
making a decision on how to reduce human bear-conflicts. Dr. Tavvs, a professor here at
Rutgers University New Brunswick, looked at data to present to the council based on
other states (Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota and even Ontario, Canada).
In Virginia, there has been a bear hunt every year with an increasing number of bears
killed each year, along with an increase in complaints annually. This is also the case in
the regions of Pennsylvania collecting data. This was also the results in New York state,
as well as Canada.
The research done with a non-violent program in Yellowstone, Yosemite, Great
Smoky Mountain National Parks, Juneau, Alaska, Elliot Lake, Ontario, Nevada, and New
Jersey. In Yellowstone before a non-violent program was enacted, there were 48 visitors
injured by bears and 138 cases of property damage caused by bears. When all garbage
cans were made bear-proof, there was less than one bear inflicted injury per year, and
only 12 cases of property damage by bears. Before bear proof cans were installed in
Great Smoky National Park, 32 nuisance bears were removed, after the cans were
installed no nuisance bears were removed from the park. In Ontario and Nevada the
implementation of bear proof dumpsters and public education has shown a drop in
nuisance bear complaints.
We can conclude that a hunting only program, or hunting at all is not reducing
complaints about bears. This is because bears are after food and is one of the main
reasons they venture into human territory. Killing hundreds of bears each year reduces
the actual number of bears, but does not reduce the number of nuisance complaints,
because killing the bears does not stop them from trying to eat out of a dumpster. This is
why it would be better to implement a non-violent program of black bear management.
We intend to educate more people on proper black bear management, to prevent more
bears from being killed for the excuse of population control.
Reference: http://www.bearsmartnj.org/images/Nonlethal%20Report%20%202005%20Tavss.pdf
Misleading Statistics on Human-Bear Interactions (Lindsay Aspin)
Dr. Edward Tavvs of Rutgers University analyzed the data detailing an apparent
increase in black bear incidents in New Jersey from 2007-2009. He determined that the
data was collected under very different circumstances when compared to previous years.
Reports were not only taken from more sources than in prior surveys, but there was also
a significant number of duplicate records. Others were miscategorized, i.e., listing
sighting of non-aggressive bears in the woods as a higher risk category than it should
have been based on listed criteria. Still more were faxed copies of police department
records that were already in the collection of data.
These are the same reports that influenced the decision to implement the bear
hunt. Scientifically the results are already tainted because 2007 considered data from
only one government agency, whereas the year 2009 took records from two agencies.
This is comparing apples and oranges. But to also contain duplicates and falsely
categorized reports is even more unacceptable. When attempts were made to correct the
data, the number of bear incidents had actually decreased between 2007 and 2009.
The reported surge of incidents makes little sense because there was no
correlating surge in the black bear population. Data shows that the population has
continued to increase at the same rate for the past two decades. This indicates there must
be some other reason for the extreme amount of incident reports. And yet the
Department of Fish and Wildlife and the New Jersey Game Council have both asserted
that the increased bear population coincides with an increase in serious bear incidents in
the state. This is a clever way of skewing the data (which is flawed anyway) to make the
bear population sound like it is more out of control than it actually is. In reality, there is
no correlation between the increase in population and the number of incidents.
The debate over the bear hunt in New Jersey is not only based on personal ideals
regarding hunting. There is a clear problem with the numbers the government portrays as
legitimate statistics. Perhaps the errors were an accident. But the sheer number and
variety of mistakes makes the data look likes a means to generate state income via
licenses fees, and to pay back pro-hunting lobbyists who supported NJ government
officials during their election campaigns.
Reference: http://www.aplnj.org/EdTavss2010Study.pdf
Current Solutions:
The only real, active and ongoing solution to human-bear interaction right now is the
annual bear hunt. And that is the problem. None of the currently suggested solutions
have been adopted and implemented in the state of New Jersey. The state’s only solution
to human-bear interactions is to relocate bears all over the state, and the host a six day
bear hunt to kill off as many bears as possible. We hope that our service project will
draw more attention to these attainable solutions. Though having bear resistant trash cans
seems like a “no brainer” or common sense to most, but surprisingly enough, these are
not required in black bear territory. We want to see this change, as it can make humans
feel safer and can save the lives of New Jersey’s black bears.
Community Action: Assisting the Animal Protection League of New Jersey to pass
S2369 the Bear Smart Bill, by promoting the bill in the community
How can humans and predators live together? (Chantel McDowell)
The number one question on people’s minds is “How can we possibly live in bear
territory without having to deal with these animals being a constant nuisance?” The
answer is fairly simple. There are more than a few options that can be implemented to
decrease the number of human-bear interactions and education is the most important one.
Educating the public on ways to prevent human-bear interactions is possibly the most
effective way of creating a peaceful and suitable environment for both humans and bears.
It is a known fact that bears are attracted to open food containers and trash cans in
local neighborhoods close to their habitat. This causes these animals to roam onto public
and personal property looking for an easy meal. By implementing a bear-resistant trash
program in campgrounds, closed communities and municipalities located in bear habitat,
bears will no longer be attracted to these areas where food would be readily available in
peoples’ garbage. These animals would not be able to rummage through trash cans, cause
numerous disturbances and destroy public and personal property. These trash programs
will not only require the use of bear-resistant garbage containers but will also call for the
enforcement of these receptacles by issuance of fines to those who don’t adhere to the
regulations. This is really the most important aspect of reducing human-bear interactions.
Without an easily obtainable food source, bears will be less likely to wander into towns
disturbing the population.
In addition to trash programs, general information on knowing how to handle
these bear sightings can also reduce them. In making sure people know the proper ways
of keeping themselves safe in the presence of a bear, humans and bears would be able to
amicably coexist and control the amount of dangerous incidents that occur. Therefore,
there are definitely ways for humans and predators to live together.
Part of the Solution: Bear Smart Legislation (Rebecca Rocha)
Case studies have shown that when food was removed from access to bears, the
bears were able to live in close proximity to humans without any conflict. This is good,
because it has been shown that 74% of New Jersey Voters prefer to solve conflicts
between bears and humans in non-lethal ways. Voters also opposed hunting of bear cubs
under one year old and mothers with visible cubs. Voters were also against using bait to
lure the bears into hunting locations while they are feeding. While voters are against this,
the N.J. Division of Fish and Wildlife encourages all of these behaviors.
Legislation has been introduced by Senator Raymond Lesniak to represent the
non-lethal solutions that are preferred by New Jersey voters. New Jersey Bear Smart
Legislation would require: 1) campgrounds, closed communities and municipalities in
bear habitat must have bear resistant trash cans and dumpsters, 2) the State must provide
a list of municipalities located in bear territory, 3) the State must amend the State
Sanitary Code to set standards appropriate for bear-resistant garbage cans and dumpsters,
4) Addresses baiting of bear and deer that leads to food conditioning and human-bear
conflicts.
It is known that baiting for bear and deer changes the animals behavior and leads
to food conditioning and acclimates bears to human interaction. This artificial feeding of
bears for the sake of hunting contributes to potential conflicts and property damage.
Feeding them can also change their foraging habits (bringing them closer to
neighborhoods or restaurants), increase their reproductive rate, increase physical size of
the bears, distribution, and population size. The 2002 Bear Feeding Law is loosely
enforced by the Division of Fish and Wildlife, many campgrounds have open dumpsters
in plain sight. Many parks and communities only use black trash bags without a can at all
to contain the bag. This legislation calls for a change to this behavior to reduce humanbear interactions.
Currently, the Senator for our district, Sen. Bob Smith, was supportive of the bill
until he understood that it would ban both deer and bear baiting. As part of our service
project we are collecting signatures on postcards, from people in the area. They will then
be sent to Sen. Bob Smith in bulk. This will be to put some pressure on him, so he will
know that his constituents are interested in a non-violent program of bear control, and
that banning bear baiting is an issue that the public is interested in. In addition, we have
sent out some lengthy Op-Ed pieces in support of our issue to newspapers ranging all
over New Jersey in attempt to spread the word. We even submitted a piece to the Daily
Targum, to try to publicize our cause to the Rutgers community.
References:
http://bearsmartnj.org/images/BaitingReport2012.pdf
http://www.savenjbears.com/pdf/UrbanWildlifeSeries-Bears2.pdf
http://www.bearsmartnj.org/images/Nonlethal%20Report%20-%202005%20Tavss.pdf
http://www.aplnj.org/EdTavss2010Study.pdf
http://www.bearsmartnj.org/images/Urban%20Wildlife%20Series%20-%20Bears1.pdf
http://savenjbears.com/pdf/Bear_Smart_Bill_S2369.pdf
Appendices
Rebecca Rocha to The Press ([email protected])
Black bears, Ursus americanus, are native to New Jersey, and have been spotted in
every part of the state. As a group of students from Rutgers University, New Brunswick,
NJ, it has come to our attention that many black bears are being killed irresponsibly under
the pretense of population control, when many people would rather that black bears be
dealt with in non-violent and more humane ways.
Every year our state hosts the NJ Bear Hunt, which lasts for six days. During the
hunt, hundreds of bears are killed. In 2012, 228 bears were killed, in 2011 469 bears, and
in 2010 there were 592 bears killed. The hunt’s main intention is to reduce human-bear
complaints, ultimately by reducing the black bear population. It turns out, that most
bears killed during this hunt, are females and young bears and cubs, excluding the larger,
more aggressive male bears, which could be more of a threat. A black bear of any age or
sex is able to be killed legally during the hunt. Black bears that are involved in
complaints are relocated to different parts of the state, which plays a role in why we are
seeing black bears in North and South Jersey, and potentially increasing the chance for
complaint. This is because NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife want to establish a larger
bear population in these areas in order to increase hunting opportunities. This also
creates more opportunity for human-bear interaction. When human-bear interaction
numbers are high, this gives the state more of an excuse to hold a black bear hunt.
Bear baiting is a practice used by hunters in New Jersey, to lure the bears close to
the hunter so they can be killed. This is seen as unsportsmanlike, and is actually causing
more problems with bears. Food like corn and apples, can be used to attract bears and
deer, essentially making deer and black bear baiting stations the same. Baiting presents a
few problems for the general public, despite hunters thinking they are doing us some sort
of favor. Voluntarily feeding bears makes them healthier, larger and heavier, and able to
reproduce more. Female black bears cannot become pregnant until they reach a certain
weight, which is much easier to do when there is food laying around. Black bear baiting
also becomes a problem because it acclimates a bear to human interaction. Most people
are familiar with the concept of animals being rewarded by food. When a bear associates
free food with humans, the bear will become used to this and become less afraid of
humans, which increases human bear interaction, by fault of the hunter. Bears are also
more willing to explore human areas and begin to eat human garbage.
You may think that bears are someone else’s problem. In fact, many people have
never even seen a bear. But everyone can help to become more educated and reduce the
number of black bear complaints in New Jersey. Especially reducing the amount of
human trash available to bears will help. It is important to know if you live in bear
territory or not, and the steps you can take at that point. Even though bears have been
spotted everywhere in the state (technically making all of New Jersey bear territory),
different areas have a higher population of black bears. It is important to educate
yourself on what to do when encountering a black bear. A reasonable solution is to
purchase and use bear resistant trash cans, reducing the chance of a nuisance bear near
your house or neighborhood.
A bill has been introduced by Senator Lesniak looking to mandate a bear proof
trash program for campgrounds and municipalities. It will also ban bear and deer baiting,
which will solve a lot of problems surrounding the hunt. If you want to help, please send
your support in favor of the Bear Smart Bill to your local legislator, and check out some
resources and more information at http://savenjbears.com/.
Thank you,
Rebecca Rocha
Chantel McDowell to The Daily Targum ([email protected])
I would like to bring to your attention a very important issue that I support
passionately. The issue at hand is the wrongful killings of the American Black Bear due to
the annual NJ Black Bear Hunt. The act of hunting is used a means of population control for
certain species of animals and is usually a necessary evil. But this is not the case when it
comes to the black bear for reasons unknown to most of the general public. The reasons
behind the NJ black bear hunt, as stated by the NJ Department of Fish and Wildlife, are to
control the overpopulation of black bears and decrease the number of human-bear
interactions that result in property damage. These reasons are not necessarily true though.
There is significant evidence, acquired through research done by organizations created to
protect black bears, that there is not an overpopulation of bears and that the numbers are
skewed in the favor of groups in favor of hunting. There is also evidence that the number of
nuisance calls associated with bears are either made by the same couple of people or that the
incident is simply a bear sighting and nothing more. Another “issue” responsible for the bear
hunt is that the population is expanding into other areas of the state, but this is actually due to
relocation programs that move them in hopes of them populating that area which would
support reasons for the hunt. And sure there are problem bears (typically large males) that
end up mauling someone or their pets, but the hunt doesn’t actually take care of that problem.
Each hunter is allowed to shoot only one animal and encouraged to kill the first one they see.
These usually end up being the mothers and their cubs, which are not the nuisance bears in
most cases.
Surprisingly, the largest problem is baiting during the hunt which actually increases
the number of human-bear interactions. Baiting is the act of placing food in an area in order
to lure an animal to that specific place. Bear baiting causes them to change their behavior and
learn where food is kept and easily accessible. This causes the bears to become used to
human interaction and associate humans with a food source. Baiting also increases the size
and population of the bears. Numerous studies throughout scientific literature clearly attribute
baiting, supplemental feeding, dumps, and/or other anthropogenic food sources in higher
reproductive success.
As an Animal Science major at Rutgers University, this issue is extremely important
due to my love for all animals. Learning that the reasons for the bear hunt are not attributed
to the actual problems makes me wonder why this hunt still takes place. This is why I would
like to educate the public on ways to help stop the hunt and cease the killing of animals
which do not actually pose a threat to us. There are plenty of ways to decrease the biggest
problem associated with the bear population, which are human-bear interactions. I am
currently taking a class called Issues in Animals and Agriculture, in which groups were
assigned, and we are charged with finding a solution to a problem of our own interest. Due to
this class our group has done plenty of research on the topic and there are a few ways to fix
this problem, most of which involve simply educating yourself on how to decrease
interactions with these animals. The most important way to take action would be to sign a
petition in support of The Bear Smart Bill by Sen. Raymond Lesniak which requires
campgrounds, close communities and municipalities located in bear habitat to institute and
enforce bear resistant trash programs. The bill would also restrict baiting of bear and deer in
bear habitat. Deer bait would attract bears due to the common food groups these animal
share. Therefore, deer baiting would also have to be banned in order to deter bears from this
association with food and humans. Log onto http://savenjbears.com/take-action.php to take
action and support the bill. More information on the Bear Smart Bill itself can also be found
at the above website in the form of a pdf document.
Yours Sincerely,
Chantel McDowell
Lindsay Aspin to Star Ledger - [email protected]
The annual bear hunt is a new tradition for our state, and one that evoked strong
responses from New Jersey residents even before the first hunt started. To some the
black bear was a welcome addition to the state’s menu of game. To others, it was a
surprising and cruel stance to take on the problem of population control. Research has
determined that state departments have provided misleading information to the public
about the nature of these animals and the effectiveness of the hunting program. In reality,
the program has failed to reduce the number of interactions between humans and black
bears. This issue can, however, be remedied by introducing bearproof garbage cans to
problem areas and suspending the use of baiting techniques during hunts.
A total of 1,346 black bears have been killed over three hunts since the six-day
event was introduced to New Jersey in 2010. Incident reports have not decreased. The
baiting techniques used to lure bears towards hunters can be credited with that problem;
the free food merely helps more bears survive and reproduce. It also makes them more
likely to approach humans and unsealed garbage cans for free handouts. Without
addressing these problems, culling a few hundred bears annually out of a much larger
population will not help keep black bears out of residential areas.
Lindsay Aspin
Rutgers University