BEAR Advocates Ask NJ-DEP Commissioner To Stop Bear Hunt, Recount Public Comments, and Oversee Biased Hunter-stacked NJ Fish & Game Council.

 The New Jersey Fish and Game Council (FGC) voted unanimously on August 11, 2015 to adopt the highly controversial 2015 Comprehensive Black Bear Management Plan.

 At the Tuesday meeting, FGC released the tally of the 60‐day comment period, which didn’t add up. There is a thirty‐one percent gap between the four percent who support the policy and sixty‐five percent who oppose it.

 BEAR is demanding a recount and asks the Commissioner of Department of Environmental Protection for oversight and not to sign off on a plan that expands the hunt in every conceivable way, which shouts out more about the Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) providing targets for its hunter‐clients than addressing bear complaints and incidences.

 The same agency that tabulates all the complaints, also promotes the hunt. DFW’s dangerously clueless approach to black bears is owed, in large part, to who is running it. The Fish and Game Council, six of whose eleven members must represent hunting clubs, “oversees” the DFW and nominates its director.

 “With only 390 public comments in favor of the plan and 6,635 against, it’s clear that FGC’s unanimous vote was biased, ignoring the vast majority of public comments,” added Angi Metler, director Bear Education And Resource Program. “Even without the missing thirty‐one percent, the public is clearly against the plan. The vote should have reflected that sentiment. This is why DEP oversight and a recount is necessary”

 The Bear Education and Resource Program, a project of the Animal Protection League of New Jersey, has been educating residents about black bears since 1992, and finds the DFW methods crude, cruel, and ineffective. Studies back up this position.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/studies‐hunting‐won‐t‐stop‐nuisance‐bears/article_b4a768e8‐756d‐11e1‐9b98‐0019bb2963f4.html

Under the headline: “Hunting won’t stop nuisance bears,” Ontario, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin report that there is “no evidence that hunting helps reduce conflicts.” In fact, officials say, it increases complaints. In Pennsylvania, hunting bears near homes, as proposed by New Jersey hunt managers, backfired: “When we’d reached a 50 percent reduction in the population, the public started telling us that’s far enough. And the number of complaints (about bear break‐ins) didn’t correlate to anything. When the population dropped 50 percent, the complaints actually rose.” The “use of phone calls to gauge bear trouble was a lousy measuring stick.” Ontario reports that complaint trends do not reflect actual bear activity and numbers.

 http://aplnj.org/WCS_WorkingPaper33.pdf The Wildlife Conservation Society cautions that although black bears pose little threat to human safety, fear can lead to “extreme management reactions. Focusing on bears as a public safety threat is largely counterproductive. To solve these problems, the central focus needs to be on human behavior.”

Nonlethal solutions are superior. In response to intensive food containment programs at Yosemite National Park, bears have reduced their intake of human food by 63 percent, leading to reduced conflicts. “The key to managing bear problems,” said researchers, “is to prevent bears from becoming conditioned to eat human food in the first place." New Jersey must join other bear regions and enact meaningful programs to restrict bear access to trash, deer/bear bait, and foods brought to campgrounds. Bear Smart public safety legislation (S687/A4017) awaits action in New Jersey. It is opposed by the same hunting groups who say that baiting and killing bears is all about “public safety.”

 http://www.savenjbears.com/