Hunter kills bear weighing nearly 700 pounds during first day of N.J. bear hunt

[kibs]

Killing an animal is always a good thread in the Wildlife forum. NOT.

I agree Tipi. We should rename this site as Field and Stream!

[tdoczi]

Yes.
It is common to see black bears in NJ with 3 or even 4 cubs.
In the past, 1 or 2 cubs were common, but now with more food available(garbage) 2 or 3 is common.

if thats so, then prior to the hunts beginning in 2010, why wasnt there a massive explosion in the bear population? i mean if theyre reproducing at a rate of 300 or 400 new cubs a year and they hadnt been hunted in decades, how was there only 3600 of them?

[Roche]

Can't we all get along, coexist, and celebrate diversity?

May I suggest people do their own research, perhaps at the New Jersey Dept of Fish & Wildlife website?

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bearfacts.htm

But then again, facts can be inconvenient to one's "feelings".

[tdoczi]

Can't we all get along, coexist, and celebrate diversity?

May I suggest people do their own research, perhaps at the New Jersey Dept of Fish & Wildlife website?

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bearfacts.htm

But then again, facts can be inconvenient to one's "feelings".

right from the start theres ample reason to question anything this webpage says, i dont care who it is from and how reputable they should be. why do you ask? i direct you to this statement-

"black bears are thriving and there are now confirmed bear sightings in all 21 of New Jersey's counties."

have you ever been to hudson county, nj? i want to know when a bear was sighted there (maybe theyre referencing the now defunct minor league baseball team, the newark bears? or perhaps there is historical record of a sighting back in 1896?) saying a bear was sighted in hudson county is very much akin to saying a bear was sighted in manhattan somewhere. if this had occurred anytime in the past 10 years it would have been a major news item.

[jersey joe]

if thats so, then prior to the hunts beginning in 2010, why wasnt there a massive explosion in the bear population? i mean if theyre reproducing at a rate of 300 or 400 new cubs a year and they hadnt been hunted in decades, how was there only 3600 of them?

In the mid 1900's the NJ bear population was only estimated at 100 bears.
This is a really good article on this subject, a good read.

https://njaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/e345/

[Roche]

Yes I've been to Hudson County NJ and can report I did not see any black bears. I didn't know you wanted me to keep an eye out for them.

OK, so you trust the State of NJ's website - I can only assume you're the anti-government type.. Silly me, and here I thought website's such as "killbears.org" or "savebears.org" would be bias.

What neutral website do you suggest?

[tdoczi]

What neutral website do you suggest?

i suggest that that term is an oxymoron.

[tdoczi]

In the mid 1900's the NJ bear population was only estimated at 100 bears.

agreed. the question is, what was the population in say, 2005, how much did it change from 2006 to 2010 when the hunt was initiated, and how does that compare to how much it has changed since? 1900, while an interesting historical context, is not relevant.

[Roche]

i suggest that that term is an oxymoron.

Very thought provoking. Thank you for adding to this conversation, you have helped many others create informed and educated opinions.

Have you ever been to the Great Smoky Mountains? I now live in the area and spend at least one three day trip there or nearby once a month. Haven't seen a bear in about three years, in an area where hunting of any kind is prohibited.

Next time I bump into Tipi at Slickrock I'll tell him you say hello.

[jersey joe]

agreed. the question is, what was the population in say, 2005, how much did it change from 2006 to 2010 when the hunt was initiated, and how does that compare to how much it has changed since? 1900, while an interesting historical context, is not relevant.

I was responding to your comment that they hadn't been hunted in decades.
Mid 1900's, 1953 to be exact, legal protections were established.
Starting with a population of 100, it could take decades to get to 3600 bears. The population wasn't always growing at 300-400 bears per year.

Take a look at this video, from Butler NJ where I grew up. 20 years ago it was rare indeed to see any bear in this area. Now there is an obviously well fed mama running around with FIVE cubs...it hasn't always been like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0wTiCcXJu4

Yes the human population has grown some in northern NJ, but the bear population is growing too and they are moving further south and east.

[Pedaling Fool]

Here's some good info on NJ bear population. Seems like the increased habitat (food sources) and reduced hunting allowed them to make a comeback from years ago. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bearfacts_history.htm

And now that there is controlled hunting allowed, it seems like hunting is not as popular as it once was... http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/index.ssf/2014/12/hunters_set_to_add_to_1600_bears_killed_over_past_ 4_years_as_hunt_begins_monday.html

http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/inde...ve_season.html

[tdoczi]

I was responding to your comment that they hadn't been hunted in decades.
Mid 1900's, 1953 to be exact, legal protections were established.
Starting with a population of 100, it could take decades to get to 3600 bears. The population wasn't always growing at 300-400 bears per year.

Take a look at this video, from Butler NJ where I grew up. 20 years ago it was rare indeed to see any bear in this area. Now there is an obviously well fed mama running around with FIVE cubs...it hasn't always been like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0wTiCcXJu4

Yes the human population has grown some in northern NJ, but the bear population is growing too and they are moving further south and east.

again, the change from 1953 until whenever is not what i am interested in. i am skeptical of this notion that the bear hunts of the past several years have not had an impact on the growing bear population. to prove or disprove that notion, the years immediately before and immediately after the start of the bear hunt are all that matter.

[tdoczi]

Next time I bump into Tipi at Slickrock I'll tell him you say hello.

i've never met him but sure, go ahead.

[Roche]

i've never met him but sure, go ahead.

Sorry, I made the assumption you met him while you were conducting your research on black bears.

[jersey joe]

again, the change from 1953 until whenever is not what i am interested in. i am skeptical of this notion that the bear hunts of the past several years have not had an impact on the growing bear population. to prove or disprove that notion, the years immediately before and immediately after the start of the bear hunt are all that matter.

I have no reason to doubt the biologists who say that the bear population is growing despite the hunts.
Logic even dictates that what they are saying is true.

The past few years the number of bears killed have been in the 200's.
That isn't going to lower the population when mamma bears are having up to 5 cubs who can reproduce themselves in only 2-3 years.
I'm not sure where your skepticism comes from after considering this.

[peakbagger]

By the way NH is struggling with bear population. The population is quite robust and the states biologists are recommending upping the bag limits substantially. The management goal is sustain a healthy population while trying to minimize interactions between bears and humans. That is tough as there are plenty of uneducated folks that like to feed bears and interact with them to some extent which essentially trains to bear to become problem bears in the future. There are just as many folks who inadvertently train the bears by leaving easy food sources out like pet food, bird feeders and dumpsters to train the bears. Trap and truck doesn't work as there is a resident population of bears all over the state that will drive any introduced bear out of their territory. The introduced bear will be on the run and eventually most likely end up near a town or back in their old haunts. Truck and trap is still used as from a PR basis its a lot easier to give the general public the idea that the trapped bear will live its life out in the wild versus the finality of shooting the bear.

[Tipi Walter]

By the way NH is struggling with bear population. The population is quite robust and the states biologists are recommending upping the bag limits substantially. The management goal is sustain a healthy population while trying to minimize interactions between bears and humans.

I'd say the human mammal population in NJ is also quite robust as I cited the numbers earlier: 9 million humans vs at best 3,500 black bears. It seems like the Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy needs to become the Comprehensive Human Management Policy. But no we like to play God and cull any creature which interferes with our activities. The best way to minimize interactions between bears and humans would be to lower human population numbers and stop habitat loss, i.e. sprawl and development.

Once we reach a sustainable number of humans (done by lowering birthrates over time, no culling needed), then we can talk about bears.

[Pedaling Fool]

I'd say the human mammal population in NJ is also quite robust as I cited the numbers earlier: 9 million humans vs at best 3,500 black bears. It seems like the Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy needs to become the Comprehensive Human Management Policy. But no we like to play God and cull any creature which interferes with our activities. The best way to minimize interactions between bears and humans would be to lower human population numbers and stop habitat loss, i.e. sprawl and development.

Once we reach a sustainable number of humans (done by lowering birthrates over time, no culling needed), then we can talk about bears.

If you want to talk about human population then it's not really an issue of birthrates. Most developed countries, including the US, show reduced birthrates. http://www.livescience.com/48995-us-...-time-low.html

The issue is immigration (legal immigration). The U.S. is the number one destination for international immigration. http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...rlds-migrants/

That is why we are ranked so high in most populated countries in the world, not because of birthrates. Look at California, it has a higher population than the entire country of Canada.

[rocketsocks]

Someone's gonna hit the reset button on the north east and then all this will be mute. But until then, bear hunts is what gonna happen.

[Tipi Walter]

Someone's gonna hit the reset button on the north east and then all this will be mute. But until then, bear hunts is what gonna happen.

Needing "catastrophe" to solve a human or wildlife problem is in my opinion the plea of acquiescence at best (get along to go along---"it's gonna happen"), or a gleeful need to kill black bears. Actually, humans created this problem and humans can solve it with no need to rely on an act of god-reset.

If you want to talk about human population then it's not really an issue of birthrates. Most developed countries, including the US, show reduced birthrates. http://www.livescience.com/48995-us-...-time-low.html

The issue is immigration (legal immigration). The U.S. is the number one destination for international immigration. http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...rlds-migrants/

That is why we are ranked so high in most populated countries in the world, not because of birthrates. Look at California, it has a higher population than the entire country of Canada.

If immigration increases our population beyond sustainable levels then immigration in itself a form of increased birthrates. Citing reduced birthrates while we allow a hundred million more immigrants into the country is futile. See this---

http://cis.org/impact_on_population.html