New Jersey Hunters banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
B

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Channel 12 news just reported that a lawsuite was filed today to stop the bear hunt. The party sueing, claims the bear managment plan isn't good enough. So why didn't they sue back when it first came out, it was public informantion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,283 Posts
I think I heard there are 2 or 3 groups together on the suit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,010 Posts
There is not as much press on this then last year. I don't think it will be stopped. The difference between this year and last is that Campbell is for it. He asked for revision, some were met, some not and it was approved. Case closed.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
65 Posts
11/28/2005, 9:18 p.m. ET
By ANGELA DELLI SANTI
The Associated Press


TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Bear hunting opponents on Monday filed a lawsuit to try to stop New Jersey's second bear hunt in 35 years from taking place.

Two animal rights groups filed suit in the Appellate Division of Superior Court to ax the six-day hunt, which is scheduled to begin Dec. 5. A hearing was scheduled for Friday morning.

State officials approved the hunt earlier this month as part of a bear management strategy that advocates say is needed to curb the increasing bear population. A 2003 hunt killed 328 of the animals.

"Our state has a moral and ethical responsibility to properly protect and humanely coexist with the wildlife and animals of New Jersey," said Kevin Barber a lawyer for the groups, the Animal Rights Alliance and the Bear Education and Resource Group.

The state's bears have made a remarkable rebound since the 1970s, when fewer than 100 remained after nearly being eradicated by 19th century hunters who considered bears vermin. The animals now number in the thousands and have been spotted in all 21 counties, but are mainly concentrated in the state's northwestern areas.

The Department of Environmental Protection had no immediate comment on the suit, which names Environmental chief Bradley Campbell, who authorized the hunt, and the Division of Fish and Game, among others.

The suit maintains that the state's black bear management plan is flawed and should be invalidated. It contends the state overestimated its number of black bears and their impact on people and property, and that it failed to explore other alternatives to manage bear-human contact.

"Our state's black bear population should not be viciously hunted next week simply to support the position of a dozen individuals," said Angi Metler, executive director of the state's Animal Rights Alliance chapter.

The state's plan includes a hunt, public awareness campaign and creating bear-free zones near heavily populated areas. The bear exclusion zones encomp [no swearing please] Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Union, Middlesex and northern Monmouth counties; the state's midsection in Somerset and Mercer counties; along the western border and the Jersey Shore. Bears wandering into those zones would be relocated or killed if necessary.

The New Jersey Sierra Club, while not part of the suit, has been pressuring acting Gov. Richard J. Codey to halt the hunt. Gov.-elect Jon Corzine said during the campaign for governor that he opposes a bear hunt.

"Codey should stay the execution until the next governor," said Jeff Tittel, executive director of the New Jersey Sierra Club.

Tittel also criticized the bear management plan, saying there is no money in the state budget to implement it.

If the six-day hunt goes forward as scheduled, hunting would be permitted in the area north of Interstate 78 and west of Interstate 287. New York and Pennsylvania have similar hunts to help keep their bear populations in check.

While the state does not know how many bears there are, it uses a research area in northern New Jersey to extrapolate data about the population. The bear management plan aims to reduce the number in that area over five years from about 1,600 animals now to the estimated 2002 level — 1,317 animals.

Animal activists and environmentalists fought unsuccessfully to stop the 2003 hunt, arguing that overbuilding was to blame for increasing bear-human contact and that no impact study had been done.

Last year, the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance sued when Campbell opposed a hunt after the state's Fish and Game Council had approved one. The state Supreme Court canceled the hunt four days before it was to begin, saying that a bear management program was needed first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,947 Posts
I do not understand why there is no deadline to filing a lawsuit. Why is it allowed to be filed just (3 1/2) business days before the hunt starts! Just as in 2003 when it ended up in the courts and the hunt prevailed, it was still postponed the first two days which would have been the most productive days. Just like anything else there should be a deadline to file and it should be well in advance of the anticipated hunt. Miss it and too bad. [mad]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
I am sure the timing of the Lawsuit is on purpose for a couple of reasons. One, it does not give the sportsman much time for a counter suit. It also forces the hand so to speak. When people are rushed to make a decision, they typically make the "choiceless" decision, which is to not change the past, or in this case, not have a hunt. Plus any hold or delay put on the hunt helps the ARAs. Currently the season is set to co-incide with shotgun, or 6 day firearm season, which means there is not as big of need for additional staff. If the hunt is postponed for a week or two, they can then argue "who is paying for the additional staff".

I agree there should have been an earlier deadline on any lawsuits filed, but this is what we are dealing with.

-dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Think they need to wait for a court opening before it can be heard just like the rest of America has to!
I think the should be told by the judge: "I think we can get to that case about this time next year. Have all your information in order by then with PROOF of what you have done to improve the situation and PROOF of the results. Now stop wasting the courts time!"
LOL they need a pro active hunting judge to preside over this case. Wouldn't that just burn their hides.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
137 Posts
Hey DiverDan....that is something I was curious about. Say if the court orders a temporary injunction and postpones the hunt, right? Then it decides in favor of a hunt. Can they simply change the hunt to another week? Or do they have to go thru all the steps like when they first set the seasons? They of course being F&G. Thanks.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,011 Posts
Then that would mean we would start hunting ASAP then come next Thanksgiving that Saturday we can BowHUnt for Bears... THanks for pointing that out NBK. You'r alright...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
Not sure NBK, my guess would be they would just change the week because of the need for the population reduction.

Personally, I think if that were to happen, there should be a lawsuit by the sporting public against the ARA groups and the state for lost time etc that is already set aside for next week. For example, say I live in California, and plan to hunt bear in NJ this year, I buy my lisence, air ticket, take the time off work and travel here to only find out that the Friday before, because of the ARAs the hunt has been cancled. I have now suffered a finacial loss, which is grounds for a civil suit.

-dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,211 Posts
It's a libaral state anything can happen!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,256 Posts
I'm not sure how that would work, Dan.
It would work the same way if you drove down to Dan's favorite parking spot while he was getting ready and yelled out stuff like hey man stop messing with those bears. Dan's concentration would be blown and he would experience a sense of menace which would cause him to abandon the hunt. Now you would be liable for his airfare, licensee fees, guide fees, and any special costs associated with that hunt. That's codified, so the burden of proof wouldn't be all that hard to meet.

If Dan wants to do the same to the ARA, since they weren't there physically to menace him personally, the burden of proof would be for Dan to show that the ARA engages in a serial and disruptive activity for the purpose of causing distress to hunters and screwing them up, and not because they care so much about the animals. This is a bit harder to do than with the former case, but facts are always only fifty percent. The right mix of lawyers, friendly judges, and blind appeals courts and you can do anything.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top