Wildlife Policy: Set by Gov. Scientists or Rights Activists?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Science Takes A Hit In Jersey
By canceling the state`s bear hunt, the New Jersey Supreme Court has placed residents at risk as bear numbers continue to grow.

by Pete Angle, Assistant Editor

In a shocking and controversial judgment, the New Jersey State Supreme Court unanimously ruled in December to annul the state`s black bear hunt.

Two weeks prior, a lower court had ordered the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to issue permits for the hunt. According to the Appellate Court, Bradley M. Cambell, the present commissioner for the DEP, overstepped his bounds when he ordered the Division of Fish and Wildlife to not issue permits and to close all wildlife management land to bear hunting. Campbell`s impudent policy fueled lawsuits from hunting groups, sportsmen`s organizations and individuals who supported the bear hunt.

With the recent demands of the state Supreme Court, a black bear hunt cannot take place in any way until the state ratifies a bear management strategy that is equally acceptable to both the Fish and Game Council and the state Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the Division of Fish and Wildlife. The Fish and Game Council is an independent unit empowered by the legislature to set hunting and fishing guidelines.

The New Jersey Fish and Wildlife Commission had based its scientific approach to bear management on a 1997 plan. This plan created a successful bear season a year ago--a bear management proposal to which Campbell had agreed.

Just one year later, Campbell changed his tune and decided that politics trumps science. Campbell began challenging the scientific effort of his own biologists only after animal "rights" groups opposed last year`s hunt. Instead of hunting as a management tool, Campbell now supports a costly and unsound contraceptive method in tandem with a "public awareness" campaign.

The Fish and Game Council views Campbell`s philosophy as reckless and purely political. W. Scott Ellis, chairman of the Fish and Game Council, insists that Campbell`s resistance is irresponsible, and, "If there is any damage or injury caused by black bears in the state, Mr. Campbell is the sole person who should shoulder the responsibility, because he is the reason bears will be around.

"You`ve taken 50 years of very successful wildlife management and turned it upside down, subjected it to the whims of one political appointee," Ellis said. "It`s obvious that this commissioner is beholden to the whacko animal `rights` crowd."

According to Campbell, the bear population stands around 1,600 animals, but other reports within state government show almost twice that many. Last year, New Jersey hunters harvested 328 bears out of nearly 4,000 permits issued.

Ellis said authorization of the bear hunt was based on the scientific bear management plan adopted in 1997, which was updated yearly with population reports from DEP biologists. These state biologists, working under Campbell`s control, concluded that as many as 3,200 bears roamed the state last year.

"Hunts are only approved if they are supported by such biological research," Ellis reiterated.

In a similar situation, the state of Maryland held its first bear hunt in more than 50 years, despite pressure from many of the same animal "rights" groups that were involved in the New Jersey situation. Maryland is the latest East Coast "blue" state to grapple with the growing number of black bears, whose return was deemed an "environmental success" by animal "rights" supporters until the emerging bears became a nuisance. Animal-protection advocates, who lobbied against a bear hunt for years in the legislature, lost in the courts. Still, with protests and a noticeable population of anti-hunting residents, Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich trusted the opinion of state scientists and allowed the hunt to proceed.

Maryland fashioned its hunt with conservative numbers and a lottery drawing for permits. It was a resounding success, even though officials closed the season after just one day. Twenty bears were killed in the one-day hunt, the Department of Natural Resources confirmed. Originally, the state had scheduled the bear hunt for six days, but dnr officials halted the hunt to avoid possibly exceeding the quota.

Paul Peditto, director of the Maryland Department of Wildlife and Heritage Service, said of the Maryland hunt, "We stood by our promise to keep this conservative, even more so than the biological limits allowed. I consider it an unqualified success."

Maryland`s bear hunt success in the field and in the courts, however, did not prove to be a model for New Jersey, as it should have been. New Jersey bear hunt supporters were optimistic due to Maryland`s court decisions, as well as some pressure from the federal government. During the New Jersey court proceedings, the hunter-friendly u.s. Department of Interior threatened to pull nearly $2 million in federal aid to the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife if the hunt was stopped.

After the public announcement of the New Jersey Supreme Court`s decision, however, the Department of Interior rescinded its warning. Now New Jersey will still get its share of taxpayer and hunter dollars. The verdict is still out concerning whether that money will be used for sound wildlife management practices, or if one man`s (Campbell`s) personal opinion and catering to anti-hunters will dictate just how the money will be distributed.

The prevalent concern of Garden State hunters and wildlife management officials is that animal "rights" groups will push for legislation placing a moratorium on bear hunting in New Jersey so that they will not have to review the situation every year. That could bring an end to bear hunting in New Jersey--possibly forever.

Quote

When anti-hunters take wildlife management away from trained professionals, what we`re left with is an illusion.

by David Hart

Things didn`t look good for Ohio`s dove hunters back in 1997.

The anti-hunting forces were on a mission to put the state`s dove season up for a popular vote. It was a season that went through some major battles in the past, but one that appeared to be headed for defeat at the hands of the animal "rights" forces. Within months, the Save the Doves Committee, a coalition of national and local anti-hunting groups, gathered 340,000 signatures from registered voters, nearly one-third more than was required by state law to put the issue on the next ballot.

"The poll we took prior to our campaign to fight this ballot initiative came to something like 56-to-23 in favor of eliminating the existing dove season. We were way down in the polls and it looked pretty discouraging on the surface," said Rob Sexton, vice president of government affairs for the United States Sportsmen`s Alliance (USSA).

Virtually every issue that puts hunting or wildlife management issues in the hands of the public starts out with hunters up against the ropes. NRA`s Institute For Legislative Action has spent millions of dollars over the years to make sure voters are aware of exactly what is at stake when they go to polls. Maine bear hunters were down 30 points only months prior to an election last year that would have eliminated bear trapping and hunting with hounds and bait. George Smith, executive director of Sportsman`s Alliance of Maine, says the groups attempting to ban current bear management practices grossly underestimated the strength of the state`s sportsmen.

Management by popular vote has not only turned into an effective way for anti-hunting organizations to eliminate specific types of hunting--bears over bait, for instance--or a broad-brush management practice like trapping, it has become a standard part of their arsenal. The trouble with ballot initiatives, says Susan Recce, is that it takes management decisions out of the hands of trained wildlife professionals and places them at the will of the general public.

"Ballot box biology, as I call it, is not the best way to manage wildlife. It should be left up to professional biologists," says Recce, director of NRA-ILA`s Conservation, Wildlife and Natural Resources Division. "The antis are running a campaign based entirely on the emotions of people who may be smart but aren`t necessarily informed about the science of a particular issue."

She points to a ban on leg-hold and body-gripping traps in Massachusetts as a perfect example. The 1996 initiative, called Question One, passed by a 64-to-36 margin, a pretty resounding defeat for biology. Within a few years, many of the same people who voted to ban trapping saw the direct results of their decision in the form of flooded basements, washed out roads and other problems associated with an explosion in the statewide beaver population.

In 1996, the number of beavers in Massachusetts was estimated at about 24,000 animals; today, it is triple that amount, and complaints have gone up in equal numbers, says Tom O`Shea, assistant director of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.

"There have been several attempts to overturn the ban in the state legislature, but so far, none have gone anywhere. But the bill was amended to allow the use of prohibited devices through an emergency permit process for public health and safety issues," he says.

The problem with the trapping ban, adds O`Shea, is that it robs the agency of important data that helped biologists understand the impact of trapping on the population as a whole. Now they can only guess.

An Effective Method Ballot initiatives to overturn specific hunting seasons or to ban specific types of traps aren`t a new phenomenon. The first one, a 1977 effort by animal "rights" groups to ban trapping in Ohio, was defeated handily by voters by a 26 percent margin. The next attempt to manage wildlife by popular vote was also rejected when Oregon voters said "no" to a ballot initiative that would have also banned trapping.

Maine sportsmen won a victory in 1980 when a proposal to ban moose hunting was rejected by voters. Then, Proposition 117, an outright ban on all types of mountain lion hunting, was passed by California voters. With that victory came a new breath of life for the ballot initiative process. It also served as a wake-up call for sportsmen. All told, there have been 28 ballot initiatives that would have affected wildlife management in one way or another. Hunters prevailed in 13 of the initiatives, or 46 percent.

Few professional wildlife biologists would argue that ballot initiatives that hand management decisions over to the whims of the voting public are good. California has seen a steady increase in the number of human/lion encounters, including three fatalities, since the ban. According to California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) data, there were 674 reported incidents involving lions in 2004, up from 456 in 2001. An average of nine mountain lions has been killed each of the last four years by CDFG personnel for public safety reasons. Even more telling, 105 cats have been killed on depredation permits since the ban was instituted in 1991.

An effort to overturn Proposition 117 and reinstitute a regulated hunting season failed in 1996 by a 42-to-58 margin. Ironically, there were four lion attacks in the two years prior to that election--two of them fatal. Sexton says sportsmen failed to win that proposition only because they couldn`t unify and raise enough funds necessary to stave off attacks by the antis.

Recce and Sexton agree that managing hunting by popular vote is a trend that will likely continue as anti-hunting advocates see it as an effective way to eliminate various forms of wildlife management. Recce, however, wonders if the anti-hunters will move away from the ballot box and focus more on the courtroom. Although animal "rightists" won some pretty major victories in the 2000 elections--one would have banned all wildlife issues from popular vote in Alaska--they lost the last two, both bear hunting issues. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Fund For Animals spent a combined $1 million in their attempt to eliminate bear management practices in Maine.

"They are very expensive to run for both sides," Reece said. "Although they have a large sum of money at their disposal, they might be more willing to put their money into litigation."

Some states have made the ballot initiative process a little tougher, not just for issues related to wildlife, but for all types of legislation by popular vote. Oregon, Florida and Idaho have tightened conditions for placing an issue on the ballot. Still, some attempts to either increase requirements for ballot initiatives pertaining to wildlife management, or to ban them completely, have failed in Arizona and Alaska.

The Ballot Process Ohio dove hunting came to a popular vote after a measure introduced by a state legislator to overturn the season failed. The antis wouldn`t take no for an answer, so they went on the offensive and started gathering signatures.

Sexton says the Ohio dove issue, along with many other signature-gathering campaigns, are aided by professional companies that use cheap labor to canvass neighborhoods. In order for an issue to be placed on a ballot, most states require a minimum number of signatures, often a percentage of registered voters. But instead of targeting liberal strongholds like urban and suburban neighborhoods, they typically have to gather a percentage of their numbers from, at least in Ohio`s case, half the counties in the state.

"Once they get an issue on the ballot, they then target urban and suburban voters who just don`t know anything about wildlife management or the real agendas of these groups," explained Sexton.

Smith, a former political consultant and lobbyist, says anti-hunters used a single video of a bear in a trap in virtually every commercial they aired in an attempt to appeal to those with no understanding of the natural world.

"They might have won if they just went after trapping, but they lumped hunting methods into their ballot initiative," he adds.

The Road To Victory Hunters win at the polls through a combination of several ingredients. The most important is money, agree Recce and Sexton. It takes a large war chest to fund advertisements in newspapers and on television, two of the most important media for getting a message out. That money, however, has to come from the grassroots level, although many national groups do contribute as much as they can.

Smith says his group received money from 14,000 different donors, 65 percent from within the state. The NRA also contributed through the Ballot Issues Coalition, a compendium of national conservation and shooting groups bonded to defeat these threats to our hunting heritage. Ohio dove hunters not only rallied their own troops, they had the financial and moral support of sportsmen from numerous other states. Fresh from their own victory over a ballot initiative to ban certain types of bear hunting in their state, the Michigan Bear Hunters Association kicked in $10,000 to help defeat the campaign to ban dove hunting. At the peak of the fundraising effort, sportsmen were hand-delivering paper bags with large sums of cash and checks to USSA`s home office, recalls Sexton.

"We were really humming along. This was one of the best-run campaigns I`ve ever seen," says Sexton. "We had over 300,000 contributions from individuals and all kinds of support from various sportsmen`s groups. We held raffles, and there were fundraising banquets all over the state. One banquet was attended by 1,500 people. We even got a lot of support from Ohio`s Amish community. It was really impressive."

He figured pro-hunting groups needed to raise $2.3 million to successfully defeat the ballot initiative; they raised $2.6 million. The money was doled out in such a way that it affected the largest number of voters who generally didn`t know the first thing about hunting, the anti-hunting movement or the ultimate goal of such groups as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (peta), HSUS and Fund For Animals. Sportsmen won through a campaign that exposed the underlying motives of these groups.

"Doves don`t eat people and they don`t spread disease. We didn`t focus so much on defending dove hunting as much as we shed light on what these groups think about farming, medical research and how all these issues were connected," Sexton said.

The television ads in Ohio`s dove hunting campaign targeted major cities and the surrounding suburbs--the very places where most voters live and, by far, where the highest percentage of people unfamiliar with the anti-hunting movement live. Sportsman`s Alliance of Maine followed a similar path to defeat the bear hunting ban. The entire $1.5 million raised was put into television ads that appealed to voters on a common-sense level. The commercials offered some insight into the effect of bear hunting on the state`s economy--$30 million and rising--but they also used professionals intimately familiar with Maine`s bears.

"Many of our ads featured the state`s top bear biologist who explained in very specific terms why bear hunting was an essential management tool. Fortunately, our governor was opposed to the ballot measure, and he made sure our wildlife department was directly involved in the campaign to defeat it," says Smith. "We also had very wide-spread support from all types of sportsmen`s groups, even fishing organizations. Everyone involved saw it as a threat not just to our bear hunting heritage, but to hunting and fishing in general."

In the weeks leading up to the election, NRA sent notices to members about the bear issue, urging them to vote. Although bear hunters--and all Maine sportsmen--won by a 3 percent margin, Smith says they got trounced in the suburban and urban regions, a strong indication of how rural hunters heeded the call of the NRA and other groups to go to the polls.

Smith adds that the ballot initiative in Maine not only served as a wake-up call to all hunters and anglers, it helped unify individual groups and the state`s sportsmen as a whole. That broad-based support was vital for a win and it will be required wherever the next attempt to outlaw hunting by popular vote takes place. It could be your state.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,148]

What do you expect when the bad example comes right from the top

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BikerBabe 0]

I voted for "let the government scientists do their job". Unfortunately, what's happening right now is that the government is not letting the government scientists do their jobs.

Activists and lobbyists aren't the problem here. It the Adminstration.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[Tink1717 2]

Tom, babe, you're slipping. This isn't about guns or Second Amendment. What's up? You tie one one last night?

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I voted for "let the government scientists do their job". Unfortunately, what's happening right now is that the government is not letting the government scientists do their jobs.

Activists and lobbyists aren't the problem here. It the Adminstration.

If you read the articles I posted, you'd see that activists and lobbyists are the problem and the bureaucrats who bow to them. This is a state issue. It doesn't even relate to the federal government (except that federal money should be withheld until things are set right).

We can debate Bush policis and turn this into another useless "Bush is evil vs. Bush is the savior" thread, but I don't want to go there.

At least the presidency comes up for re-eleciton every four years. The situation I brought up with this thread is bureaucrats changing the rules when science suddenly doesn't support their stance. GD paper pushers think they run the world.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*