This is horrible - 22 yr old killed by bear in West Milford

Originally Posted by EJS

Dakota, there is Bear Spray, however NJ weapons laws prevent people from any real defence based on the regulations in 2C:39-6i.

The problem is for the quantity needed in bear spray, recommended minimum 6 seconds @ 2%-concentration in a 30' fog pattern, you need a minimum od 10oz canister! Thanks NJ for making worthless laws that only handicap the law abiding citizen!

I have seen Grizzly and black bear in the wild while hiking and fishing. its a scarey proposition. But these Students shouldn't have been in the woods that day! Carrying snacks, then running from a bear.... it takes a special kind of stupid!

Killing on mass as a by product of an industries fishing practices is not the same as killing 1 bear in self defense. How you came up with that comparrison I don't know!

Effective game managment is the answer to the problem. All these "save the bear" protests only bring us closer to bear mauling or killing #2. NJ needs to open up new hunting grounds, trap & relocate bears to less dense geographic areas, and increase tag #'s for the season.

EJS.

My response regarding what happened to the shark population was in response to Bunker Dunker's post "Where are the tree huggers now!!!!! I want one of them to go to that poor guys family and explain how cute and lovable bears are." You can see what is implied by that post and where it's headed which is kill them all. The stereotype sharks received after jaws was the only good shark is a dead shark and anyone who disagrees with that has spent no time on the water. Granted there is a world wide demand harvesting them for food BUT how many shark tournaments after Jaws was released were any species goes and every shark that was caught was dragged back to the scales, weighed and then dragged back out to sea, stomach slit and dumped. Can't tell you how many 700 - 800 lb tiger sharks in the 70's and 80's I've seen killed for the possibility of a tournament check or even worse just bragging rights back at the docks only to have the fish dumped afterwards and be completely wasted. It was an absolute disgrace what was being done to such a great resource. It's horrible what happened and it's taken probably 25 years for conservation and public opinion to change. And that's with a tremendous amount of effort by conservation minded organizations trying to save another species from making it's way onto the endangered species list. My comparison to Jaws is the stereotype the movie created and the pressure it put on all shark species is what will happen with one person tragically being killed. Last night on the news they reported the last time someone was killed in New Jersey by a bear was I believe 1850 so the fact that someone was killed over a period exceeding 150 years I guess that means that the state needs to have a massive bear hunt to reduce the resource. As a blanket statement, that's absolutely idiotic! Never proclaimed to be a bear expert and know very little about them so whoever accused me of taking that position not sure where you're getting your facts from. I've seen too many instances where the answer is always just kill the wildlife. The report last night also mentioned there were over 400 fatalities stemming from automobile accidents in New Jersey last year so I guess we need to eliminate cars in the state as well. And someone from DMV should go to every person's funeral and explain to the family how safe automobile's are!

I'm not against management programs to address situations that warrant management. When any animal poses a specific threat to people I agree they unfortunately need to be removed whatever way necessary. My point is "Where are all the tree huggers now, why doesn't one of them go to the funeral of this guy!" Wtf is the point of that comment! It makes absolutely no sense but implies we should just kill all the bears in the state and people who care about the natural resources are at fault for this guys death. Same stereotype the movie Jaws created. A person is killed by a shark, a movie in this case, and before you know it public sentiment is kill ALL sharks. That's an absolutely moronic statement to make or conclusion to draw. One person is killed in a matter of 150 years by walking into the woods with food and we should have an open season on the entire bear population or it's the tree hugger's fault.....please refrain from talking as you might continue embarrassing yourself Absolutely idiotic comment to make! That's the equivalent of saying if a person gets murdered in Newark, we should eradicate all residents of Newark because they're all dangerous. One person is killed in 150 years and the answer is to obliterate the resource.......that is a very logical perspective!!! As I said, I guess the same is true for auto accidents. We should ban all cars from driving on Rt 80 because it's simply not safe.

Broad generalizations directed towards specific problems very rarely work and they are a sign off a person with a limited IQ. Go ahead and take your shots, I actually take pride being insulted or challenged by someone who hasn't a clue. It actually reaffirms my beliefs.

Dakota

[bunker dunker]

I'm not embarrassed at all dakota560.i could care less about what you think
or anyone else on this site thinks about me or what I do.so you did some reading before you made this last statement,good for you.you left out the part about the stat offering 2bucks for a set of bear ears in the early 1900's in nj. or about what a problem they were then.i think you made a good point about
how no one died in 150 years but I guess someone or some thing has to dye before laws are made.

[buzzbaiter]

Originally Posted by dakota560

Eskimo,

Your post hits home. I started fishing the area you mentioned this year after many years of being away from the river. Last week I noticed droppings on the river which had to be a bear, all berries and too large to be anything else. When I fish that stretch, I fish along the rivers edge but on the way back I typically will walk up to the path which parallels the road to walk back to my car which is parked next to the three minute light. Every time I walk that path I think nothing other than this must be prime bear territory which I know it is. As I said in my earlier post, it's a risk I take fishing that stretch. i wouldn't suggest all bears in the Water Gap area be hunted down because as I said I'm infringing on their domain and it is what it is. If there's any area where bears have moved into a populated area I would take a different position but when people decide to spend their leisure time in the wilderness there are risks associated with that choice. I don't agree that killing every bear that calls the woods it's home is the solution.

Just for what it's worth which is what actually got me started thinking about bears along that stretch was when I started fishing there around June, there were hundreds if not thousands of dead shad on the river bank from the shad run. The stench was very strong and if there were any bears in the area I assume they would be down at the river after dark for a free meal. I'm sure they are. Absolutely something to think about after reading this thread. Probably won't be fishing into dark there anymore. Walleyes and small mouths just aren't worth the risk!

Dakota

Raspberries along Old Mine Rd this year were all over the place. I'm sure they were chomping away on them. I sure was. Blueberries along the shorelines of our higher elevation lakes(sunfish pond/blue mt lake/stokes st fst and high pt st pk lakes and ponds) were also quite abundant. Hickory trees are full of nuts. They've had plenty to eat so far this year. Low water in rivers, swamps, ponds also means fish and frogs r easy prey. Not sure why they are chasing people for Granola bars.

[baetis]

Why does anything need to change based upon a single rare occurrence?

What I see are groups of people, using an extremely rare tragedy, going half-cocked to try to support their own agenda.

Hunters who want earlier/bow/muzzy seasons for bear are standing on their soap box. People who want less stringent gun regs will argue this is proof you need to be armed in the woods. Anti's will claim the bear was pushed out of its range by early season scouting and accustomed to human handouts from bait piles. Tree huggers will claim over development.... You get the point.

Take a deep breath, enjoy the outdoors and if you see a bear - don't panic, use common sense and enjoy the moment.

Originally Posted by bunker dunker

I'm not embarrassed at all dakota560.i could care less about what you think
or anyone else on this site thinks about me or what I do.so you did some reading before you made this last statement,good for you.you left out the part about the stat offering 2bucks for a set of bear ears in the early 1900's in nj. or about what a problem they were then.i think you made a good point about
how no one died in 150 years but I guess someone or some thing has to dye before laws are made.

My point is no matter what is done there's a balance between populated areas and the wild that will always create issues....it's just a fact of life. There could have been 10 additional laws on the books last week and it's very possible not one of them would have changed the fate of the man who was attacked. The point I was making on both my posts is there shouldn't be an over reaction to the extent that we eradicate a resource, don't believe that is the answer under any scenario. If people walk into the wilderness there are inherent risks, and legislation isn't going to change that one bit. I don't necessarily agree that wiping out the bear population or the deer population or whatever animal we're talking about is the answer.

Does anyone other then me find it slightly hypocritical that bears are hunted every year. I can assure you as well since I know a fair amount of hunters that illegal baiting takes place more than anyone is willing to admit. It's supposedly part of the SPORT....don't quite understand that either. But we kill a fair number of bears I would venture to say more for the sport of it than for bears culinary benefits. It's the hunt, the challenge and the beautiful bear skin rug on the floor or wall. I accept that. Yet when the tables are turned and a bear, in this instance one in over 150 years, decides to attack a person probably as a defensive measure or maybe for food, the typical reaction is we need to kill all bears! We're flabbergasted when a bear shows aggression but we hunt them as a sport, not for food, every year and expect there to be no instinctive aggression in return from a completely wild animal. I just struggle understanding people's perspectives when it comes to that point of view. I would suggest not going for a hike with food in your backpack in their domain and that will probably resolve all potential conflicts without the need for a state wide hunt or new legislation.

Or maybe the answer some people propose is just kill them all to eliminate the risk. No management programs, no education to heighten public awareness, nothing just wipe them out. Don't agree with those opinions any more than I agree with what has happened to the shark populations world wide over the last 30 years. You would think we'd learn from our past mistakes.

Baetis, completely agree with your post!

Dakota

[flatcreek]

Originally Posted by baetis

Why does anything need to change based upon a single rare occurrence?

What I see are groups of people, using an extremely rare tragedy, going half-cocked to try to support their own agenda.

Hunters who want earlier/bow/muzzy seasons for bear are standing on their soap box. People who want less stringent gun regs will argue this is proof you need to be armed in the woods. Anti's will claim the bear was pushed out of its range by early season scouting and accustomed to human handouts from bait piles. Tree huggers will claim over development.... You get the point.

Take a deep breath, enjoy the outdoors and if you see a bear - don't panic, use common sense and enjoy the moment.

X2

Thoughts and prayers for the boy and his family.

[UglyStick]

Originally Posted by dakota560

The point I was making on both my posts is there shouldn't be an over reaction to the extent that we eradicate a resource

Dakota

X3 with baetis

No one in this discussion suggested eradicating or further regulating bears so lets drop this one...