| Author |
Message |
    
catmanjac
Citizen
Username: Catmanjac
Post Number: 294
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 2:57 pm: | 
|
 |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14776
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 7:56 am: |
|
The situation "ended the best it could."
Except that this bear knows where to go back to get a snack without any harrassment.
|
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 688
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 1:58 pm: |
|
That's right...so lets just go out and get the beast.
How dare they walk into our environment and create havoc. They come here and endanger our children, mess with our food, with our homes and our basic sanity. Frankly it scares the beejesus out of me to come across one of them but it seems that lately they are everywhere.. I say lets get them...better safe then sorry.
Now you figure out who has more right to say this...the human...or the bear!
|
Dorothy Spornack
Citizen
Username: Mattfoley
Post Number: 694
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:02 pm: |
|
We're here, we're queer, we don't want any more bears! |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3405
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Bajou, humans can say that, not bears. Bears can't talk.
Besides, we have the guns, so we get to make the rules. This is Amer'ca, after all. |
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 689
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:14 pm: |
|
AAHHHH now I understand the whole thing:
My melon eating, seed suckling new friend is a hetro-ursus-phobe...
LOL |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4412
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 8:22 pm: |
|
If not a single new home was built in New Jersey and not an additional square foot of open space developed, there would still be a bear problem because the bear population is increasing.
The bear population has to be managed. The most cost-effective way is hunting. Sterilization and birth control is not cost-effective. Given the extent of human needs in New Jersey, I am not going to spend any unnecessary money on animal control.
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2805
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 8:28 pm: |
|
Sterilization and birth control is not cost-effective.
Yeah, and how are you going to teach a bear to put on a condom anyhow? |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4413
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 8:45 pm: |
|
Indeed, you can barely train men to use condoms. |
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 699
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 9:37 pm: |
|
Geez put your weapons down. I just find it incredible that a bear recently managed to walk into Newark from Livingston and they were unable to locate a tranquilizer gun during the whole THREE day hunt. Besides you do realize that the bear was 7 months old! The chances that a bear will hurt you, especially here in NJ, are slimmer then that last cheeseburger giving you a heart attack.
Life is a life and frankly I find it horrifying that it was not even considered to capture and relocate. I guess this society has become comfortable with wiping out inconvenient life. One of these days in the not so far future inconvenient life will not only apply to non-human life. I guess it will just depend on if your life is considered inconvenient to somebody else.
We are already doing it now and this disregard for life will one day come and haunt us...I think it already has started..... |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4414
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 10:05 pm: |
|
Capture/relocate is fine if there is bear habitat with a shortage of bears. Otherwise, capture/relocate is a program of denial for those who can't come to terms with the sometimes unavoidable collision of humans and wild animals.
In general, our treatment of wildlife is much better than it was in the past when we annihilated inconvenient species. So, your slippery slope argument about wiping out inconvenient life is pure hyperbole.
Also, in case you missed the 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st Century, there has apparently been a whole lot of inconvenient human life, so that is nothing new. |
combustion
Citizen
Username: Spontaneous
Post Number: 137
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:34 pm: |
|
I agree that bear/human encounters are a real problem. These encounters are becoming more and more frequent and are bound to end in disaster. Unfortunately, the only viable solution is a zero tolerance policy, to destroy the offending creature. Shoot the humans. |
combustion
Citizen
Username: Spontaneous
Post Number: 140
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 9:47 am: |
|
 |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3481
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 9:57 am: |
|
 |
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 713
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Hey TJohn:
You wrote:
Capture/relocate is fine if there is bear habitat with a shortage of bears. Otherwise, capture/relocate is a program of denial for those who can't come to terms with the sometimes unavoidable collision of humans and wild animals.
Did anybody check if a zoo or sanctuary was looking for a young bear? Did you? These animals are sold for a pretty penny and there are plenty of organizations who are willing and able to jump in to help and supervise transportation and vetting:
http://www.americanbear.org/
http://islandviewresort.com/vince_shute_bear_sanctuary.html
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/mcneil/index.cfm
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=refuge.pack_ck
I don't know who you are but your so "unslippery" statements are frankly a little lame. I am not sure how involved you are in rescue and relocation but I know I am ...very involved. It is not that hard and there are plenty of rescue organizations that could and should have been contacted. I never said a bear should never be shot, or that wildlife should never be weeded out. Re-read my post.
To your "hyperbole" statement: Spend a weekend with me at the four major shelters and I show you what I am talking about. Make sure you bring tissues.
And to your statement:
Also, in case you missed the 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st Century, there has apparently been a whole lot of inconvenient human life, so that is nothing new.
One would hope that the human race has a propensity to grow and change for the better especially in the beginning of the 21st century.
I can tell you this though ...don't think of yourself as too superior...I was in New Orleans and I saw with my own eyes how people were treated. Worse then any animal would ever be allowed to be treated.... As I said before it is just a matter of which side of the fence you are on.
So before you make those grand old statements think about the fact that you obviously wouldn't want to spend any time to see if there is an alternative solution because to you it is an inconvenient life and therefor you can morally condon the killing.
I am questioning why none of these steps were taken and why the proper professionals were not involved so even if the only option is to shoot the poor thing that a pro does it and does it clean and quick.
But maybe you are one of these people who love the outdoors as long as there are no animals in it.
Judgemental .... yes....but no more then you. |
catmanjac
Citizen
Username: Catmanjac
Post Number: 302
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Regarding the bear caught in Short Hills a few weeks ago, I called the Fish and Wildlife Bureau, spoke to one of the people who was on the scene of the capture, and suggested the bear be trucked up to a state forest in Sussex or Warren County. When told no, I offered for them to drop off the tranquilized bear outside my front door. I figured once it came to, it would wonder off into the woods and at least be safe until the next hunt. DENIED! |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 5464
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 3:04 pm: |
|
At least the bear didn't end up like this one
recently killed in Millburn... |
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 766
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 3:34 pm: |
|
and again a youngster... I think they deserve one shot a relocation. They are just trying to find territory of their own after leaving mom. At that age they have no desire to return home cause they are trying to find a new one. But alas we have deceided that it's all ours..... |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 5466
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Bajou
I'm with you. How sad that beautiful bear Millburn / Short Hills Bear was destroyed. What makes it even worse, first they tranquilized it, then they killed it. |
ess
Citizen
Username: Ess
Post Number: 2399
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 4:16 pm: |
|
And then you posted it. |
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 770
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Hey ess...nice to have met you again....I live in constant fear of seeing the party pics of yesterday posted...LOL |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 1507
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Come on, post them - I want to see what I missed!!!!!!!! |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 1509
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 4:40 pm: |
|
That was a thread drift...back on subject.
This is unfortunately going to become more and more common with all the land that is being taken up by "us"... I was heartbroken about the bears particularly when I heard that the Millburn one was tranq'd, I think a tooth pulled, blood taken and then after all that euthanised (killed). There must have been a State Park, or a wildlife preserve or something that they could have taken the bear to. I know at Turtle Back last year, they had two bear cubs and the Mummy had been taken to some other place - they gave me the name and I forget it.
If it is a life threatening scenario I know that the decision has to be made there and then, but if they are able to sedate, as they did with the Millburn bear, then surely, surely, it could have been taken somewhere "bear safe"
I know that I would be shaking in my boots if I came face to face with one of these, but a kill shot wasn't taken, so why end up killing it when it was no danger to anyone?
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11938
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 4:40 pm: |
|
I am not any happier about destroying bears than anyone else. However, I don't think it is realistic to expect a sanctuary in Minnesota or Alaska to take an eastern black bear and pay to transport it to their sanctuary.
While I admire Catmanjac's willingness to have a bear deposited in his yard and Bajou's passion for animals and animal rescue, there just aren't all that many places that will take a very common eastern black bear. It isn't like they can adopt it out, except maybe to some roadside attraction. |
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 773
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 5:59 pm: |
|
Dear Bob:
There are plenty of areas without having to go to Minnesota or Alaska. There are plenty of areas here in New Jersey. Go up to North New Jersey. Black Bears are a integral part if the environment and very non aggressive. How many people have you heard of that were mauled by a black bear? I just don't feel that we as humans have a right to claim it all and not only do we not have the right..we are distroying our very earth by it. You live in the suburbs you will have to expect wildlife. In reality the human race has found every animal inconvenient unless it could tame it and make it serve a purpose. If we do not find it in us to respect life we will by default end up killing ourselves.
We have to weed out in our wildlife because we have destroyed the balance. I do understand that. We have to keep numbers down because we have destroyed the natural food chain and taken away the land. However I think that a young animal that has not threatened anybody and was able to be tranquilized should be given a chance.
Here is a link on Brown Bear reintroduction and management in Europe. Brown Bears are grisly bears and alot larger and much more aggressive then black bears.
http://www.ursusjournal.com/volumes/Zedrosser%20et%20al%202001.pdf
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4431
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 6:41 pm: |
|
In those European countries where the brown bear population is determined to be at the carrying limit of the environment, the population is managed through hunting.
If there are nearby areas with below-capacity bear populations, relocation would not be illogical. However, I suspect that the bear populations of the East Coast are at or close to the carrying capacity of the environment. Assuming this is the case, then relocation is not logical. |
ess
Citizen
Username: Ess
Post Number: 2401
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Bajou - it was nice seeing you again, too!
Those pictures are going to appear somewhere....the trick is figuring out where. Somehow, the thought of that scares me more than any bear. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 5471
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 7:05 pm: |
|
ess,
Yes I did post the picture because 1) this thread is/ was about the unnecessary killing of the bears and 2) I thought maybe seeing this beautiful bear would make people think twice about having them killed. At first, when I saw the picture I thought they were getting the bear ready to transport somewhere for release. I was sadden to learn differently.
Sorry if I upset you ess. |
las
Citizen
Username: Las
Post Number: 1939
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 7:26 pm: |
|
JTA, I know you have a big heart and mean no harm, but this photo is really disturbing. If I had any idea there would be a photo of that dead bear I would have backed out of this thread before I got to it.
I think posting a link to the photo would have been more appropriate. The people who have to think twice about having bears killed aren't posting here. |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 1298
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 7:42 pm: |
|
I wish they'd kill the voracious deer that gobble up my garden, instead of the occasional bear. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4435
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 7:47 pm: |
|
Lizziecat,
The South Mountain Conservancy, having recognized the damage caused by deer, has endorsed controlled hunts in the Reservation, but I doubt that they will start any time soon.
In the meantime, I have been totally satisfied with TreeGuard. It protects tulips and hostas as well as the less favorite foods of deer. The only downside is that you cannot use it on vegetables as it will make the taste very bitter.
http://www.bugpage.com/deer-repellent.php |
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 779
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 10:48 pm: |
|
Dear TJohn:
Millburn has hired professional hunters several times over the past five years. As I said in my previous post I do understand the need to weed out through hunting but a good hunter doesn't shoot a young animal but weeds out by reducing the ageing population, the injured or ill not the new generation. I used to go hunting with my grandfather all the time. Him and his fellow hunters knew the animals in their revier (hunting territory) and they would look for specific animals and weed out that way.
May I ask if you are professionally involved to make such definite statements? |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4439
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 11:31 pm: |
|
The controlled hunts of deer in Watchung Reservation target healthy animals - the best case being a pregnant female. When the purpose is population control of deer, that is how you achieve the greatest effect.
When hunting for food, given a choice, a hunter will always kill the healthiest animal. The quality of the meat will be better. But, I can believe that European practices vary from ours.
The only people I could imagine targeting the older and less healthy animals would be wildlife management professionals trying to maintain a healthy population of predator animals like wolves or lions or tigers.
Am I professionally involved? No, I am not a bounty hunter. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 5477
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 12:51 am: |
|
I'm sorry if the bear upset people. I will email Dave and ask him to remove the post. I couldn't post a link to it because the picture is on my hard drive. Again, I'm sorry. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11939
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 4:24 am: |
|
Bajou, unfortunately as Tjohn indicates the bear population in western New Jersey is already at and over the saturation point.
The two bears that ended up in Essex County were yearlings. Sows drive off last years cubs before they give birth in the spring. The young male bears have to find a territory which, from memory, is around thirty square miles. They are driven away by mature males and keep moving until they can establish a territory. This is what the Short Hills and Livingston bears were doing.
When Millburn culled the deer herd they did so on Township property. The county didn't allow them to do this in the Reservation.
I scanned a story in the NY Times a week or so ago about a black bear on the Austria/Italy border that has been causing a lot of problems. Apparently the situation gets regular news coverage in the European press. Teams are hunting it down to kill it.
|
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 783
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Dear Bob K:
Yes the bears name is Bruno. He is a Grisly and has been literally wandering around towns for months now. They have hired a specialized team from Finland with Karelian Bear Dogs. Unfortunately Bruno has made a joke out of them. He has recently been found sitting on the steps of a poice station on a small Bavarian Town but the hunters seem to have a problem with catching up to him. They have secured a large piece of property at a sanctuary for him but they need to catch him soon. Now I have said it again I do understand the need to cull since we are overpopulated but as you stated these are yearlings and they are just looking for some territory. They have not shown aggression ... they just don't know where to go. When you cull you cull the old males that tend to get either overly aggressive about their territory or they get sick. No decent Hunter culls a yearling... |
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 784
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Dear Bob:
Bruno is dead. He was shot today: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/06/26/germany.bear.reut/index.html
Humans don't have any natural enemies but nature will take care of that. |
combustion
Citizen
Username: Spontaneous
Post Number: 152
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 4:42 am: |
|
Humans don't have any natural enemies? Though it's not likely that we'll encounter one around here, polar bears do see humans as prey. Other animals might kill humans out of desperation (illness, starvation, fear, etc..) polar bears have a reputation as the only animal that will actively hunts humans as they assume anything they encounter is food. |
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 820
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 10:50 am: |
|
That is correct combustions, but we do not have any natural enemies as this means that we would have to be a part of their regular diet and part of their food chain. Polar Bears are known to hunt humans but this is due to a lack of understanding what we are. Polar Bears also do not have any natural enemy and therefor find themselves to be superior to any "new animal species" they don't know. When you are the king you can hunt anything...and you don't fear anything.
This mentality is also present in Aligators, Lions, Tigers, Sharks, and Humans...all animals who have no true natural animal once fully grown...
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page