Official NRA Bio
American Rifleman Profile
Hear Scott on NRA News!
Star-Ledger Blog
Media Appearances
NJ Bear Hunt
Quotes
Jersey City Gun Ban Defeated!
Lawsuit to Stop Arrests of Armed Travellers
Legal Win
Stings Anti-gun Schools
NH CCW Expanded
MN CCW Restored
Re-Election
Flyer
Home
|
This picture of a sow
and three of her five cubs was taken from Scott Bach’s home in rural Newfoundland
NJ. as the
bears prowled through his driveway. After a confrontation with a black bear while
out hiking nearby, he became a leading advocate for reinstatement of a limited
hunt.
There is a very real
and extremely dangerous black bear overpopulation problem occurring in
New Jersey, and the State has neither timely nor appropriately addressed
it to date. In the absence of immediate bear population reduction
measures, fatal or near-fatal bear attacks are inevitable. There is also
a state liability concern in addition to the public safety aspect of the
issue, as state liability in bear attacks is a new area of litigation
that could subject New Jersey to significant liability if the State
fails to effectively or timely address the problem.
Contrary to popular belief, black bear are not always benevolent. They
can exhibit predatory behavior, and they have been attacking humans and
domesticated animals in North America with increasing and alarming
frequency. There is a documented and growing trend of aggressive,
unprovoked and predatory behavior by black bear toward humans. According
to one well known and respected bear authority in the United States,
Stephen Herrero, two-thirds of all fatal black bear attacks occurring
during the last 100 years occurred within approximately the past 30
years (see article, “Fatal Injuries Inflicted to People by Black
Bear”, proceedings of the Fifth Western Black Bear Workshop, p. 75).
This trend is the result of increasing human encroachment into and
development of bear habitat, in combination with increasingly mild
winters which no longer check population growth. As a result, there has
been a dramatic increase in the frequency of contact between humans and
bear.
Within the past two years, there have been several fatal or near-fatal
black bear attacks in relatively close proximity to New Jersey. In 2002,
a black bear snatched an infant from its carriage in New York’s
Catskill’s region, apparently as intended food. The infant was
horribly mauled and died. On July
2, 2000, a 24-year old female biathlete was attacked and killed by a
black bear while training on a course near Quebec City, Canada (see
International Bear News, 08/00, at p. 23). On May 22, 2000, an
experienced hiker was mauled and killed by a black bear in Tennessee
while waiting for her husband to return from a 1-hour side trip to go
fishing. The husband returned to find the bear and its cub feeding at
her body (International Bear News, 08/00, at p. 24). The bear had
previously been tagged by the applicable division of fish and wildlife.
On June 4, 2001, a black bear chased down, killed, and ate an 18-year
old high school student in Canada. On August 28, 2001, an 81-year old
woman was mauled by a black bear in her home in the Adirondack Mountains
Closer to home, there have been numerous black bear attacks throughout
Northern New Jersey over the past several years, some of them serious.
On June 29 2001, a young boy was mauled by a black bear while hiking
with his family near the Delaware Water Gap. The bear had stalked the
group for several hours before attacking. On August 28, 2001, a 500-lb.
black bear chased an 8-year old boy near his home in West Milford and
was deterred only by an intervening police officer whose 3 shots fired
into the animal did not stop it but rather caused it to retreat into the
woods. And on May 18, 2002, a hiker was attacked by a black bear in
pursuit of food near the Delaware Water Gap.
A recent case in Arizona should serve as the ultimate warning,
especially to states such as New Jersey that have had the opportunity to
address their bear overpopulation problems but have not done so
adequately or timely. In 1996, a 16-year old girl was mauled by a black
bear while on a 4H outing near Tucson, Arizona. The bear had
previously been tagged and relocated by the state fish and game division
-- both of which procedures are key components of New Jersey’s current
bear management plan. The relocated bear returned to its place of origin
many miles away, mauling and disfiguring the teenage girl for life. The
State of Arizona settled a 15 million dollar lawsuit by the girl for
$2.5 million.
In the victim’s lawsuit against the state, bear expert Herrero gave a
deposition in which he recanted a conclusion stated in his seminal 1985
book to the effect that black bear were essentially benevolent. Stated
Herrero under oath:
I do think that there is more danger than I realized from food
conditioned, habituated, and aggressive bears, the combination of the
three. And if I were rewriting that chapter, I would emphasize that
there are three ingredients, habituations, the food conditioning, and
rewarding aggressive behavior over time that increased the chances of
injury... . I have learned since the publication of the book that there
is more involvement in serious injuries by black bears than I knew of at
the time that I wrote the book. (Knochel v. State, Arizona Superior
Court, Civ. No. 98-09396, Deposition of Stephen Herrero, January 6,
1999, at pp. 218-219)
This lawsuit established a precedent for individuals to bring suit
against a state in bear attacks where the state has not appropriately or
timely addressed a known problem. In this Arizona case, the tagging and
relocation of a bear by the state was insufficient to bar the lawsuit.
If tagging and relocation are to be the heart of New Jersey’s bear
management program, then the State is setting itself up for significant
liability the next time a bear attacks here. Tagging does not reduce
bear population, and relocation just moves the problem, and in many
instances the bear return to their origin even over great distances.
Sterilization programs, which have been discussed but not implemented,
are expensive and take many years to impact an overpopulation problem. A
limited hunt designed to achieve specific conservation goals, unlike
tagging, relocation and sterilization, would have an immediate and
lasting impact on the overpopulation problem. Also, not only would it
not tap the State’s limited financial resources, but it actually would
generate revenue for the State from increased hunting license fees.
In 2000, a limited bear hunt scheduled by the New Jersey Division of
Fish & Wildlife was cancelled when then-Governor Whitman bowed to
pressure from a small but vocal minority of animal activists and in turn
pressured the Division into canceling the hunt. In so doing, New Jersey
essentially indicated that it was willing to risk the lives and safety
of its citizens while it experimented with a program of tagging and
relocation – a program that has already been demonstrated ineffective
elsewhere. The potential liability to the State for blocking a limited
hunt is enormous. Limited hunting is a proven and cost-effective method
for wildlife population control, and is used by the State regularly as
part of its conservation management program for other, apparently less
valued, forms of wildlife. The deliberate blocking of a scheduled hunt
in light of the documented and growing risk to public safety could be
cast as gross negligence, or perhaps even recklessness, should the first
bear attack lawsuit presents itself in New Jersey.
The prompt reinstitution of a limited bear hunt would provide a
cost-effective, revenue-generating method of immediately addressing
public safety risks while reducing the State’s potential liability to
victims of attacks.
—Scott L. Bach
|
