Jump to content
IGNORED

Sen . Lesniak what an ASS


MRMCR

Recommended Posts

Just saw the NJ.com article in which he proposes to cancel the bear hunt in the future and have other means of bear population control( I guess he personally will be placing condoms on the male bears).........and also for the NJ F &W  to consult with animal protection groups....... yes we need population control but only for the Liberal Democrat population as that cant come soon enough..........

ESTATESALESBYOLGA.COM    ALWAYS BUYING ANTIQUE AND VINTAGE ITEMS  CALL 908 868 8236 MIKE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ironic thing is that what he's proposing was already done.  There was a court case, political restrictions placed on the department, and studies done for five years.  Those conclusions still stand true.  So he's proposing doing the same thing again to see if it has a different result?  Yeah, that's the definition of insanity.

 

Since he wants to have a fight, this is how the fight goes.  Every time anyone brings his plan up, always point back to show that it's already been done, and the conclusions are there.  If they want to do this again, point to the rise in bear complaints that occurred during this time.  Point to the studies that show that birth control in a wild population is delusional.  Point to the $0.23 gas tax and ask them how much more are we going to pay in taxes to support their plan.

 

They may think the bear hunt isn't popular, but their plan and the cost to support their plan, and the subsequent increase in the bear population as they carry out their unscientific and failed plan, will make them that more unpopular and "unelectable".

 

We've already had one unprovoked bear death in NJ.  I can only assume that these people are content with another one as long as the bear population isn't controlled with hunting.

Sapere aude.

Audeamus.

When you cannot measure, your knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They may think the bear hunt isn't popular, but their plan and the cost to support their plan, and the subsequent increase in the bear population as they carry out their unscientific and failed plan, will make them that more unpopular and "unelectable".

 

 

Tell that to the fine citizens of Detroit...who continually suffer in abject poverty and keep electing the party that put them in that condition......Lezniak is in a safe seat.....His local electorate love him.....so he'll never go away absent term limits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From wild animal birth control.....to not standing for the National Anthem......to banning animal acts ( circus ) and also handsome cabs ( horses are work animals ..duh ) .....its time to push back against this Liberal BS.........

ESTATESALESBYOLGA.COM    ALWAYS BUYING ANTIQUE AND VINTAGE ITEMS  CALL 908 868 8236 MIKE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ironic thing is that what he's proposing was already done.  There was a court case, political restrictions placed on the department, and studies done for five years.  Those conclusions still stand true.  So he's proposing doing the same thing again to see if it has a different result?  Yeah, that's the definition of insanity.

 

Since he wants to have a fight, this is how the fight goes.  Every time anyone brings his plan up, always point back to show that it's already been done, and the conclusions are there.  If they want to do this again, point to the rise in bear complaints that occurred during this time.  Point to the studies that show that birth control in a wild population is delusional.  Point to the $0.23 gas tax and ask them how much more are we going to pay in taxes to support their plan.

 

They may think the bear hunt isn't popular, but their plan and the cost to support their plan, and the subsequent increase in the bear population as they carry out their unscientific and failed plan, will make them that more unpopular and "unelectable".

 

We've already had one unprovoked bear death in NJ.  I can only assume that these people are content with another one as long as the bear population isn't controlled with hunting.

Haskell, can you post some links on this?  I'm relatively new to hunting and would like to have a link to the prior study or summary or whatever to respond to my idiotic "friends" and family....  thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a good place to start with a wealth of "lay-man's" information.  Very consumable for common folks.

 

http://www.njfishandwildlife.com/bearfacts.htm

 

Nerd link for the bear management policy:  http://www.njfishandwildlife.com/bearpolicy15.htm

 

The policy is a scientific, peer-reviewed document that most people can get lost reading.  It is foot-noted with links to the studies (or at least a reference to the studies) used to justify certain aspects of the policy.  It's a very comprehensive page that details (and there are a lot of details) the history of the policy to today's hunt.  Most people do not realize how much research, data, and analysis goes into this policy.  It's not just one document or study, it is the culmination of dozens of studies and documents.  Check out the link and you'll see.

 

The link to the bear policy of 2010:  http://www.njfishandwildlife.com/pdf/bear/policy_lit/cbbmp7-10.pdf

 

Important things to note that are in the first couple of pages of the document:

 

"On February 28, 2005, the NJ Supreme Court issued an opinion that comprehensive policies for black bear management should include the broad preservation goals of the Council, the tools at the Council’s disposal to accomplish those goals, and most importantly, the factors that should be considered when determining which tools will be utilized. The Court also said the Council may include consideration, among other things, of the absolute size of the bear population, the number of harmful bear-human interactions and the fiscal and human resources available to carry out the stated goals.

 

"...

 

"The Council also finds that DFW should reduce and stabilize the bear population at a level commensurate with available habitat and consistent with reducing risk to public safety and property. Although fertility control and sterilization have been studied, these methods of population control are not effective, evaluated either by an efficacy or cost metric. Regulated hunting seasons in 2003 and 2005 demonstrated bears could be harvested safely, and harvests could be accurately predicted. Regulated hunting should remain a safe and effective management tool to provide recreation and control NJ’s black bear population.

 

"Council has determined that NJDFW is using all the tools available, as resources allow, to properly manage the black bear resource and further recommends a regulated bear hunting season, both to provide mandated recreational opportunity and to control the population in the most cost effective manner. The proposed Policy continues the commitment to a multi-faceted bear management strategy and is guided by the latest science and data on the New Jersey black bear population."
 
A very scientific study on NJ non-lethal population control:  http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/bear/bearreport.pdf
 
Antis will never mention this part of the study:
 
"For males there are 2 options available for sterilization: Neutersol®, a chemical sterilant, and vasectomy. Neutersol® is approved for use in dogs and is being tested presently on captive bears (G. Stull, pers. comm.). If injected at an appropriate dose, this will undoubtedly result in sterilization. However, the resulting damage to the testes and lowered testosterone production will almost certainly relegate treated animals to subordinate social status. Male sterilization cannot be effective on a population level unless nearly all males are treated. Vasectomy will sterilize males with no adverse effects on testosterone levels, although the procedure involves a risk of infection and few veterinarians have the required experience on bears to perform the surgery. (Castration might also be used, but this would render the animals completely asexual.)
 
"Approaches for females include vaccine-based and chemical-based contraceptives. Long-lasting hormone contraceptive implants, such as etonorgestrel are soon to be approved in the USA for women and would surely be effective in any mammal including bears. However, there are concerns about the use of synthetic hormones, which do not degrade readily and can be transferred through the food chain. Until a biodegradable hormone contraceptive devoid of significant side effects is developed, the use of hormone implants is unlikely to be approved by wildlife management authorities.
 
"Another chemical-based approach is Lutalyse®, a contragestational preparation which works well on bears and has regulatory approval. Unfortunately, Lutlyse® would have to be administered annually after the breeding season, either just before or during denning. The required timing of the administration of Lutalyse® would increase both the technical difficulties and cost.
 
"Currently, contraceptive vaccines are generally recognized as the only effective and practical non-lethal means for controlling wildlife fertility, although none has regulatory approval. For applications to wildlife population management, the need is for a long-lasting, single-dose vaccine. Immunocontraceptives that may be effective in bears are currently limited to those based on GnRH and pZP antigens.
 
"GnRH is the only hormone that can be used safely in a vaccine and is effective in the short term with a minimum of one dose. GnRH vaccines can be applied to both males and females, but it will be most effective in population control if used in females. The ability to synthesize GnRH chemically would facilitate the manufacture and regulatory acceptance of this antigen. The use of GnRH in a single-dose regime may be effective in some species, but the current literature suggests that the efficacy period may be as short as 3-6 months post- vaccination. A strategy of immunizing animals 3 months before the start of a breeding season may effectively reduce the fertility of the animals until the following breeding season, but an annual vaccination program would be necessary.
 
"GonaConTM, a GnRH vaccine developed by the USDA-National Wildlife Research Center, is a safe GnRH formulation that shows short-term efficacy with a single dose in male cats (Levy et al. 2004). Published data on GonaConTM and other GnRH-based vaccines, however, suggest that a single-dose long-lasting (multi-year) efficacy is unlikely to be achieved with the current design of GnRH vaccines. The basic problem is that the immune response to the GnRH-KLH conjugate is largely due to the more antigenic KLH component, which is irrelevant to the reproductive system. Over time and with repeated boosters, carrier- mediated suppression occurs whereby anti-KLH antibody levels are maintained but fewer antibodies that recognize GnRH are produced. This is quite acceptable where the need is short term, as it is for pigs and cattle, but not for wildlife. GonaConTM is presently being tested in deer and horses, and no results are yet available in the peer-reviewed literature. However, Ragonese (2006) reported preliminary results about performance in deer that were not encouraging. In a 1-year study in New Jersey, the failure rate was 30 %, while in a Maryland study, there was a 12 percent failure rate in year 1, increasing to 53 % in year 2.
 
"Of the existing FC agents, pZP vaccines are the most promising. The extensive experience in deer, horses, and other species indicates that they are effective without having significant adverse effects on behavior and social structure. Most pZP vaccines require booster immunizations to be effective, but a single dose of SpayVac® has proven effective over several years in many species including deer, seals, and horses.
 
"A possible concern with pZP-based vaccines is their potential to induce irreversible infertility, although the general health of pZP-sterilized females is not affected. Current knowledge suggests that the degree of ovarian dysfunction is species-specific, and the reversibility of a long-lasting pZP vaccine in bears would have to be determined. The single- dose pZP vaccine, SpayVac®, caused long-term infertility in seals (longer than 10 years), most likely a result of long-lasting antibody responses rather than damage to the ovaries. Histological examination of ovaries from seals 5 years following vaccination with SpayVac® showed no ovarian abnormalities (R. Brown, pers. comm.)."

 

That last part is the most important piece to remember:  If you sterilize the population well enough, it won't reproduce.  If do not know for sure whether or not one animal was vaccinated over another, you run the risk of vaccinating too many.  And if you don't know for certain if the animal has been permanently sterilized or not, you could over-reduce the breeding population to a point where it can no longer sustain the population.  With a managed hunt this is never the case.

 

Start there.  There's a ton of information out there, but I would start with the state stuff because that's what's used to create the policy behind the hunt.  It's a lot of reading, and most antis won't take the time to look at any of it.  They have a small, hand-picked group of anti-hunting authors and studies that have widely been dismissed, but that's what they come toting out.

 

Good luck, I hope you like reading.  :)

Sapere aude.

Audeamus.

When you cannot measure, your knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory.

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...