By Dr. Dave Samuel, Conservation Editor

HUNT BEARS, DON’T HUNT BEARS
Over the last couple of years, reducing bear numbers in New Jersey has been an up-and-down situation. Biologists and lots of citizens requested and received a limited 2003 hunt because of safety issues and damage complaints. That hunt didn’t come easy, and when those issues continued, a second hunt was proposed for 2004. The Game Commissioners supported the hunt, but a political battle ensued and Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley Campbell canceled the hunt, indicating that he wanted to see more data.

Biologists were puzzled. The Commissioner had data from a core bear area showing 2.7 bears per square mile. He also had data on the number of negative bear/human interactions. With that many bears in a state where human populations run over 1,000 people per square mile, the need for some control was obvious. But the Commissioner still canceled the 2004 hunt. Complaints continued, human/bear encounters escalated, and on June 15, 2005, Campbell reversed his decision on the bear hunt and indicated that he supported a controlled hunt for the fall of 2005. His reason? Campbell stated that “public safety” and “sound wildlife principles” called for consideration of a hunt. What is interesting about this flip-flop is the fact that in 2004, “sound wildlife principles” and “public safety” were ignored by Campbell.

It’s doubtful that Campbell has seen any new biological data to change his mind. Another puzzle is the state Sierra Club’s criticism of the hunt. Their solution to control bear numbers? Don’t build homes in forested areas and keep your garbage away from bears. The second idea is a good one, because garbage does encourage bears. However, how to prevent the building of homes on private, forested land is a mystery to all.

Meanwhile, in Ontario, where spring bear hunting over bait was halted several years ago, Natural Resources Minister David Ramsay says that statistics show there is no need to bring back the spring hunt. Hmmm. The statistics used to stop that hunt were mystical at best, citing the myth that many sows with cubs were harvested at bait sites. There were no data to support this idea, but the hunt was stopped anyway.

All of this activity makes one wonder what has happened to “sound management principles” when it comes to bear management.

Continued — click on page link below.

CRITICAL WILDLIFE FUNDING IN COLORADO
In May, Colorado Governor Bill Owens signed a bill that will tremendously impact the future of hunting. Broad support of the bill by sportsmen, outdoors enthusiasts, and environmentalists led to its passage.

The bill has three components: license increases, a Habitat Stamp, and a 75-cent surcharge. Beginning in 2006, there will be increases in hunting and fishing license costs. For example, residents fishing licenses went from $15 to $25 and deer licenses from $20 to $30. Most nonresident license fees remain the same, but both residents and nonresidents will have to purchase a $10 Habitat Stamp.

While those needed revenues will help the state wildlife agency, it is the third component of the bill that’s so intriguing. The bill created a 75-cent surcharge on all licenses to fund the Colorado Wildlife Management Public Education Advisory Fund, administered by a Council. That Council was created in 1998 with the mandate to implement a media education program on the importance of our system of wildlife management. Needless to say, our urbanized society doesn’t know that hunting is a major contributor to all wildlife management. Nor do they understand that license revenues, combined with the federal excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment, pays for much of wildlife and fisheries management, education, and enforcement.

Creating a “Drink Milk” media approach to hunting, whereby public service announcements on wildlife management will be developed and used on television, was tested in Colorado and proved effective in changing public opinion on hunting-related issues. Unfortunately, the program lacked funding, but now that funding problem has been solved.

As this media campaign develops, other states may wish to “copy” the Colorado model to educate all citizens on the value of hunting. In fact, a group of pro-wildlife folks, led by Alan Taylor of Michigan, created The Nimrod Society, which works to generate self-funding state and national education programs aimed at educating the pubic about the important role that hunters and anglers play in society. For more information, go to www.nimrodsociety.org.

For further information on the issues discussed, go to www.knowhunting.com.