NY Times Hears From The Experts, Not Ignorant Animal Rights Lobby

New Jersey Bear Hunt
New Jersey Bear Hunting
New Jersey Outdoor Alliance
New Jersey Outdoor Alliance

TRENTON, NJ –-(Ammoland.com)- It is all-too-common in today’s media to contrast opinions of those in special interest groups with those of experts, and portray the two as equally valid.

This not only confuses the public but also fosters ignorance, which prevents an honest examination of important issues needing resolution.

For example, it is everyday practice for reporters to interview people who are part of the animal rights lobby on issues of wildlife/game management – even though they have no professional or biological credentials, no education in wildlife management, and no practical experience. Then, should a reporter decide to include the advice of a wildlife expert, they are quick to contrast the comments between the lobbyist and scientist as if they have equal weight — even though one is driven by agenda and the other by best available science.

Sadly, a casualty of such recklessness can be public safety.

As an example, a few years back, there was a debate as to whether Canada geese numbers should be lowered because of US Airways Flight 1549 having struck a flock during its initial climb, lost engine power, and ditched in the Hudson River. Even though 155 people narrowly escaped death, and it being commonly accepted that Canada goose populations were too large in parts of the Atlantic flyway – animal rights propaganda was contrasted with science-based expert testimony — and the two presented as equally validity.

For those of us who monitor various reporting media we can see how the same approach is being used in some media coverage of the recent New Jersey black bear related fatality. The very same people having a history of promoting the notion that black bears will not attack humans and ignoring 60 fatalities on record are still interviewed and their comments contrasted with the knowledge of experts…?

However, NJOA applauds the New York Times for the integrity of their article, “Trying to lure hunters as bears get too close.” We do this in part due to their reliance on experts and not special interest agendas.

So, whether you choose to “Like” or “Dislike” the article the comments are those of experts.

Here’s the link to the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/13/nyregion/trying-to-lure-hunters-as-bears-get-too-close.html?_r=0

Anthony P. Mauro
Sr. Chairman,
New Jersey Outdoor Alliance: “We’ve got your back!”

JOIN NJOA: http://www.njoutdooralliance.org/support/njoa.html

About:
NJOA – The mission of New Jersey Outdoor Alliance is to serve as a grassroots coalition of outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen dedicated to environmental stewardship. We will champion the intrinsic value of natural resource conservation – including fishing, hunting and trapping, among opinion leaders and policy makers. We will support legislation, and those sponsoring legislation, that provides lasting ecological and social enrichment through sustainable use of the earths resources. Visit: www.njoutdooralliance.org

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Phoebe S.
Phoebe S.
7 years ago

Right, experts. Lobbyists would be a better term. BTW, for most of us in the U.S. these animals have intrinsic value, but I guess the likes of you would never understand that.

Nina
Nina
7 years ago

The Times article states “It was the first fatal bear mauling ever recorded in New Jersey,” yet you mention 60 recorded bear attacks with no reference or context. This is extremely misleading.

Chuck
Chuck
7 years ago

The best thing to say to these animal rights freaks is to say nothing and keep on doing what we are doing. Some idiots don’t deserve an answer. They will go away if you pay them no attention and keep doing what you want.

Herb Skovronek, Ph. D.
Herb Skovronek, Ph. D.
7 years ago

But what hunters and DEP refuse to recognize is that there just might be non-lethal means of moderating population IF an adjustment is needed. By the way, I do have the credentials to assess data and I found that complaint records for 2008 to 2010 contained many duplicates and triplicates. Removing the false entries, there was NO increase in complaints.
Further, I have repeatedly asked DEP for independent peer review of studies and data. There has never been any!