WNJ Opinion: Unchecked suburban sprawl to blame for bear encounters
Photo credit: scienceray.com
By Heidi Echternacht
Anthony P. Mauro’s Pro Bear Hunt Opinion piece should be re-titled, “We Took Our Inch, Now We Want Our Mile.” His argument is simply, “We took the land, now people and bears encounter one another, so we must kill them to help them live within their boundaries.” The major short-sightedness in Mauro’s logic is, of course, that to continue along his path, the boundaries of the wild bear soon shrink to a cage in the zoo and the natural population of the New Jersey wild bear destroyed in order to make room for more swimming pools and garbage cans.
Mauro suggests that people are “unlikely to raze homes” to make room for the bears, so we must kill them to make them fit into their allotted size, as he puts it, a “static and dwindling habitat.” Except overbuilding continues and will continue to dwindle that wildlife habitat to the point of non-existence. Mauro’s argument only furthers egocentric thinking that it is bears in human territory that is the problem and not humans that must begin to control themselves and learn to live within their own boundaries as well. This is not education, but eradication.
Looking at the hard data, we can see how human growth in New Jersey has spun out of control over the last 20 years. Sadly, it appears as if people and politicians are neither capable nor qualified to be “stewards of the land.” The wild lands of New Jersey are repeatedly violated and humans allowed to continually move unchecked into wooded and wildlife areas. There they proceed to cut down the trees, build fences to “improve their property” and advocate for the killing of bears and other creatures surrounding their newly pesiticided lawn.
Yes, it is possible you might see a bear if you buy a house in bear territory. I would think that’s a reason why you bought it? Otherwise, I’m unclear as to your logic. And I’m not sure taxpayer money should have the police running around after creatures that go rummaging through your oversized garbage cans.
Lastly, Mauro’s main point is that this unchecked suburban growth has led to an “increase in human/bear encounters.” As if the two should never meet. Let’s continue to perpetuate medieval fears fanning the human manifest destiny over the land instead of trying to learn, live and wonder alongside of nature.
There used to be buffalos in Buffalo. Costa Rica and Africa are not the only two places in the world with wildlife. New Jersey is one, but for how much longer?
Heidi Echternacht is a resident of Somerset County who has spent years enjoying the Sourland Mountains.
Posted by WILDNEWJERSEY at 9/23/2010 10:00 AM 
Categories: WNJ Opinion
Tags: wildlife new jersey sprawl bear hunt black bears
Categories: WNJ Opinion
Tags: wildlife new jersey sprawl bear hunt black bears
Amen Ms. Echternacht! If you can't appreciate "wildlife," don't move to the woods. Pretty simple. If you do choose to move to the woods, figure out how to live harmoniously and responsibly with your surroundings.
People scare me, always wanting to destroy things they don't understand. We got ourselves in to quite a pickle with this attitude, many, many times over in this country. And still it goes on. When will we learn?
Reply to this
great, except there were never Bison/buffaloes in Buffalo, NY...
Reply to this
I don't think Mauro was trying to say that bears are in human territory, I believe he was trying to say that bears and humans are both part of nature and have to coexist in the same territory and that the territory must be managed for each, especially in high density areas.
The writer is as much of the problem (she, too, has taken bear habitat so that she can live. She too depends on using nature for housing, food and all of the earth's ingredients that are used to make modern conveniences) as she is a potential solution.
I think it was also Mauro's point to learn to live with nature and attempt to manage man's domain. It was to recognize that for every action by humans on the environment is an equal and opposite reaction that humans must take into consideration. So, if humans expand their territory they also have a responsibility to ensure public health and safety of both people and wildlife. People must recognize the direct consequences on habitat that affects the health all of wildlife, not just humans or bears.
Increasing development must be weighed against environmental impacts and public safety. NJ citizens have advocated for sprawl with their purchases of homes and support of businesses, etc.(the writer also has endorsed sprawl by residing in a dwelling that was once habitat). When a society supports sprawl we must recognize that there are a myriad of environmental consequences and responsibilities - including the management of wildlife, safeguarding the environment and public safety.
Maybe if the writer read Mauro's article again and kept an open mind she would she view things differently. Blaming Mauro for the current state of affairs is misplaced frustration and offers no solution to public and environmental health, which is now the problem that faces many who live in bear country.
In fact, even mother nature knows that it is not a good thing to have too many of a population of a particular animal or animals, in response she will kill overpopulation with starvation and disease. This will eventually bring the population back into check, just like the use of hunting is designed to do.
Reply to this
good
Reply to this