Jump to content
IGNORED

2021 BLACK BEAR SEASON CLOSED


FeniQuest217

Recommended Posts

On 7/22/2021 at 8:07 AM, Bucksnbows said:

Uh, the Council did its job. The Governor killed the hunt. What exactly can Fish & Wildlife do?  We went through this under McGreevy as many here will recall. We have to get past this administration, it’s that simple. 

How did the council do it's job if the bear hunt is nonexistent?  If, the council approves the plan and sets the season for the hunt, how can the governor cancel the hunt.  If your premise is correct then he can cancel hunting altogether because he would have supreme power over any agency of the state.  What you're saying doesn't make sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stratocaster said:

When you say "we" are you saying state employees or private sector?

State employees...my gripe is when public employees were hired prior to Gov Christie, your salary was set and you were told that Healthcare was included in the package. Along comes Christie and BAM, I am now paying 12k a year for Healthcare. So essentially, a 12k loss in pay. Not crying, just a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nmc02 said:

my gripe is when public employees were hired prior to Gov Christie, your salary was set and you were told that Healthcare was included in the package. Along comes Christie and BAM, I am now paying 12k a year for Healthcare. So essentially, a 12k loss in pay. Not crying, just a fact.

I try to stay out of these discussions but... this is still not much different than private sector. When I got hired (private sector), I was told "We will pay for most of your health care, but we do ask that you pay X dollars towards it." (X was not 0, but I was told X when I was hired).

And every year since then - and when I say every year, I mean EVERY ... YEAR - we are asked to pay more. Now instead of paying X, I'm paying X+Y (with Y increasing every year). So essentially, a Y loss in pay.

As John McClane would say, "Welcome to the party, pal!" :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

I try to stay out of these discussions but... this is still not much different than private sector. When I got hired (private sector), I was told "We will pay for most of your health care, but we do ask that you pay X dollars towards it." (X was not 0, but I was told X when I was hired).

And every year since then - and when I say every year, I mean EVERY ... YEAR - we are asked to pay more. Now instead of paying X, I'm paying X+Y (with Y increasing every year). So essentially, a Y loss in pay.

As John McClane would say, "Welcome to the party, pal!" :wink:

Same shit, different diaper

There is nothing more intolerant than a liberal preaching tolerance 

God gives the toughest battles to his strongest soldiers

"Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stratocaster said:

If your premise is correct then he can cancel hunting altogether because he would have supreme power over any agency of the state. 

That is the scariest thing about this whole affair. What the governor did at first was deny bear hunting on state property, and he did this via governor "fiat". Executive order. Assembly and Senate had no say. One man shut down the entirety of state land for bear hunting. IIRC even the courts confirmed he did so legally.

Now - ask yourself - if he can, by decree, say no BEAR hunting on public lands, then there is nothing stopping him from going further and saying "no DEER hunting on public lands" ... "no PREDATOR hunting on public lands" ... "no HUNTING AT ALL on public lands."

Right? What is stopping him?

Can you imagine if a left-of-Murphy ultra-liberal gets into office? Whose to say they won't do that? In the future, we might get such a rabid anti-hunter governor that they will say their anti-hunting agenda is worth the negative economic impact - and the assembly and senate can't do anything about it (unless they pass a law circumventing the executive order, but then the governor will just veto it). Can anyone deny this as a possibility in this state? Our assembly and senate did absolutely nothing about this current action of the governor (and many agreed with it) - I don't see them doing anything in the future to stop this kind of thing from happening.

We need a hunting constitutional amendment in this state like other states have. Unfortunately, I believe it is too late for that to pass now, given the liberal makeup of the state voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

That is the scariest thing about this whole affair. What the governor did at first was deny bear hunting on state property, and he did this via governor "fiat". Executive order. Assembly and Senate had no say. One man shut down the entirety of state land for bear hunting. IIRC even the courts confirmed he did so legally.

Now - ask yourself - if he can, by decree, say no BEAR hunting on public lands, then there is nothing stopping him from going further and saying "no DEER hunting on public lands" ... "no PREDATOR hunting on public lands" ... "no HUNTING AT ALL on public lands."

Right? What is stopping him?

Can you imagine if a left-of-Murphy ultra-liberal gets into office? Whose to say they won't do that? In the future, we might get such a rabid anti-hunter governor that they will say their anti-hunting agenda is worth the negative economic impact - and the assembly and senate can't do anything about it (unless they pass a law circumventing the executive order, but then the governor will just veto it). Can anyone deny this as a possibility in this state? Our assembly and senate did absolutely nothing about this current action of the governor (and many agreed with it) - I don't see them doing anything in the future to stop this kind of thing from happening.

We need a hunting constitutional amendment in this state like other states have. Unfortunately, I believe it is too late for that to pass now, given the liberal makeup of the state voters.

 

23 minutes ago, nickmarch said:

He can cancel hunting and fishing but he won't.  The State gets a whole lot of sales tax from sales of hunting and fishing products.

By that premise then the state should allow as many people as possible to own firearms since they are taxed as well but obviously that is not the case.  The tax revenue from those products is tiny compared to the amount raised from income and corporate taxes.  I believe it's only a matter of time and all hunting on public lands will be cancelled and he will attempt to do it on private land as well until someone decides to take it to SCOTUS.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stratocaster said:

How did the council do it's job if the bear hunt is nonexistent?  If, the council approves the plan and sets the season for the hunt, how can the governor cancel the hunt.  If your premise is correct then he can cancel hunting altogether because he would have supreme power over any agency of the state.  What you're saying doesn't make sense. 

The new Comprehensive Black Bear Management Plan created by Division biologists and staff, firmly based in science, was approved by the independent Fish & Game Council.  Hunting was one of the many strategies to limit bear to human contact. To make it official, it must be signed by the DEP Commissioner. That is per NJ Supreme Court rulings about the hunt in the somewhat recent past. Being a political appointee for a Governor against the hunt, our Commissioner simply has refused to sign it.  That’s how Murphy did this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...