DJH
03-24-2005, 08:29 PM
03/24/05 –
Posted from the Daily Record newsroom
IN BEAR FRACAS, NEITHER SIDE HAS A PATENT ON PARANOIA
By Abbott Koloff, Daily Record
The conspiracy theorists had it all figured out. They were saying that a miniature horse wasn't actually killed and partially eaten by a bear last week, as authorities said. They were saying that maybe coyotes were the culprits. Or maybe it was a mountain lion. Or maybe another miniature horse, a mare, the one carrying the dead horse's foal, had something to do it.
Maybe, they seemed to be saying, the bear was framed.
OK, so that sounds a little crazy. But apparently this is what some people want to believe. When it comes to bears, and the prospect of a bear hunt, people on both sides of the issue have been known to lose perspective.
Some people who want a bear hunt say bears are a danger to our children and a hunt is needed to reduce their numbers. Some go so far as to say that those who oppose a hunt are un-American and want to overturn the Second Amendment. They say anti-hunters want to take away their guns. They say some of the same things about people who simply question whether a bear hunt is necessary.
On the other paw, some people who oppose a hunt say bears are vilified unfairly by hunters and by some biologists who work for the state Division of Fish and Wildlife. Bears, they sometimes seem to be saying, would never harm so much as a fly. So when a young woman claimed a couple of years ago that a bear ran after her and knocked her down in a state park in Vernon, some people suggested that she made up the story. Because her identity was not released by state officials, some people suggested that she did not even exist.
So it was not surprising that some who oppose a bear hunt were coming up with theories this week to explain what happened to a miniature horse in Andover Township last week. It didn't matter that bear tracks were found in the horse's paddock, or that a trail of blood led from the paddock into the woods. Some anti-hunt people suggested that the horse might have escaped from the paddock and might have been attacked by coyotes. They suggested that the horse might have been killed or injured in a fight with another horse. They suggested that the bear might have stumbled onto the body in the woods.
"I'm calling it a phony pony story," said Susan Kehoe of Vernon.
"This is only the beginning of the slander (against bears) that's going to happen this season," said Angi Metler, also of Vernon.
Before you judge them too harshly, you should know that their zeal, while off the mark in this case, has at least some foundation. Hunters and some state biologists with the Division of Fish and Wildlife who support a bear hunt probably wouldn't mind shining a light on every bear incident in the state. A little public anxiety doesn't hurt the bear-hunting cause.
On the other hand, some state officials who opposed a hunt last year have not always been quick to report bear incidents. Bradley Campbell, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the Division of Fish and Wildlife, went to court to put a stop to the bear hunt. The DEP did not report an encounter between a bear and Boy Scouts last fall until reporters asked about it. And the DEP talked about last week's attack of a miniature horse only after police reported it to the media. Public anxiety hurts the anti-bear hunt cause.
And when it comes to bears, it's all about public perception and politics.
Judy Burns, the owner of the miniature horse, got caught in the middle of that politics when she woke up one morning last week and noticed that her miniature horse, Phantom, was not in its paddock. She called police, put her children on the school bus and went searching for her missing pet. She said she heard something rustling in bushes. That is where she found Phantom, and a lot of fresh blood. She figures that she surprised a bear while it was eating her horse.
Burns said she received some nasty phone calls after the story appeared in newspapers. She was called a "bear killer" because state officials said the bear involved in the attack was dangerous, so they planned to find it and kill it. The callers did not identify themselves. They weren't interested in offering condolences. They were more interested in blaming the victims. Funny thing is, Burns said she had not favored a bear hunt before her horse was attacked. She said she is rethinking her position.
"I was against a hunt but now I'm thinking twice about it," Burns said.
No one interviewed for this story would condone the kind of phone calls that Burns received this past week. But some anti-hunting people were saying that they didn't believe the story being told by officials. They asked how a bear could have crawled under an electrified fence and have entered the paddock without other animals housed there causing a commotion and awakening Burns and her family. Burns said she has wondered the same thing. She suggested that the bear might have been downwind.
She does not have to offer any explanations.
Some people questioning the official version of the attack apparently believe that any bad news about bears is planted by pro-hunting biologists with the Division of Fish and Wildlife. On Wednesday, the Division released a report about the incident that said bear tracks were found in the mud, and that the horse's wounds were "consistent with predatory black bear killings." But some people refuse to believe obvious explanations.
"What you are hearing is a distrust of the Division," said Lynda Smith, of West Milford, director of the Bear Education and Resource (BEAR) Group, which opposes a bear hunt.
"I speak to people who say the Division is planting bears in urban areas; bringing them to Trenton by truck. I don't trust the Division either, although I'm not saying that they're trucking bears around."
Smith said she also has received phone calls from people who favor a bear hunt, some of them more threatening than anything received by Burns. She said someone once told her that her children should be eaten by bears. She said she has been called "anti-human." She characterized some of the calls as threats.
That, too often, has been the nature of the debate. Neither side has a monopoly on being mean-spirited. Neither side has a patent on paranoia, or twisting facts that don't help their cause. So bear tracks and bear bites are replaced by coyotes and mountain lions. They are replaced by conspiracies, cover-ups and theories that come from a lack of trust, and maybe too much politics.
Posted from the Daily Record newsroom
IN BEAR FRACAS, NEITHER SIDE HAS A PATENT ON PARANOIA
By Abbott Koloff, Daily Record
The conspiracy theorists had it all figured out. They were saying that a miniature horse wasn't actually killed and partially eaten by a bear last week, as authorities said. They were saying that maybe coyotes were the culprits. Or maybe it was a mountain lion. Or maybe another miniature horse, a mare, the one carrying the dead horse's foal, had something to do it.
Maybe, they seemed to be saying, the bear was framed.
OK, so that sounds a little crazy. But apparently this is what some people want to believe. When it comes to bears, and the prospect of a bear hunt, people on both sides of the issue have been known to lose perspective.
Some people who want a bear hunt say bears are a danger to our children and a hunt is needed to reduce their numbers. Some go so far as to say that those who oppose a hunt are un-American and want to overturn the Second Amendment. They say anti-hunters want to take away their guns. They say some of the same things about people who simply question whether a bear hunt is necessary.
On the other paw, some people who oppose a hunt say bears are vilified unfairly by hunters and by some biologists who work for the state Division of Fish and Wildlife. Bears, they sometimes seem to be saying, would never harm so much as a fly. So when a young woman claimed a couple of years ago that a bear ran after her and knocked her down in a state park in Vernon, some people suggested that she made up the story. Because her identity was not released by state officials, some people suggested that she did not even exist.
So it was not surprising that some who oppose a bear hunt were coming up with theories this week to explain what happened to a miniature horse in Andover Township last week. It didn't matter that bear tracks were found in the horse's paddock, or that a trail of blood led from the paddock into the woods. Some anti-hunt people suggested that the horse might have escaped from the paddock and might have been attacked by coyotes. They suggested that the horse might have been killed or injured in a fight with another horse. They suggested that the bear might have stumbled onto the body in the woods.
"I'm calling it a phony pony story," said Susan Kehoe of Vernon.
"This is only the beginning of the slander (against bears) that's going to happen this season," said Angi Metler, also of Vernon.
Before you judge them too harshly, you should know that their zeal, while off the mark in this case, has at least some foundation. Hunters and some state biologists with the Division of Fish and Wildlife who support a bear hunt probably wouldn't mind shining a light on every bear incident in the state. A little public anxiety doesn't hurt the bear-hunting cause.
On the other hand, some state officials who opposed a hunt last year have not always been quick to report bear incidents. Bradley Campbell, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the Division of Fish and Wildlife, went to court to put a stop to the bear hunt. The DEP did not report an encounter between a bear and Boy Scouts last fall until reporters asked about it. And the DEP talked about last week's attack of a miniature horse only after police reported it to the media. Public anxiety hurts the anti-bear hunt cause.
And when it comes to bears, it's all about public perception and politics.
Judy Burns, the owner of the miniature horse, got caught in the middle of that politics when she woke up one morning last week and noticed that her miniature horse, Phantom, was not in its paddock. She called police, put her children on the school bus and went searching for her missing pet. She said she heard something rustling in bushes. That is where she found Phantom, and a lot of fresh blood. She figures that she surprised a bear while it was eating her horse.
Burns said she received some nasty phone calls after the story appeared in newspapers. She was called a "bear killer" because state officials said the bear involved in the attack was dangerous, so they planned to find it and kill it. The callers did not identify themselves. They weren't interested in offering condolences. They were more interested in blaming the victims. Funny thing is, Burns said she had not favored a bear hunt before her horse was attacked. She said she is rethinking her position.
"I was against a hunt but now I'm thinking twice about it," Burns said.
No one interviewed for this story would condone the kind of phone calls that Burns received this past week. But some anti-hunting people were saying that they didn't believe the story being told by officials. They asked how a bear could have crawled under an electrified fence and have entered the paddock without other animals housed there causing a commotion and awakening Burns and her family. Burns said she has wondered the same thing. She suggested that the bear might have been downwind.
She does not have to offer any explanations.
Some people questioning the official version of the attack apparently believe that any bad news about bears is planted by pro-hunting biologists with the Division of Fish and Wildlife. On Wednesday, the Division released a report about the incident that said bear tracks were found in the mud, and that the horse's wounds were "consistent with predatory black bear killings." But some people refuse to believe obvious explanations.
"What you are hearing is a distrust of the Division," said Lynda Smith, of West Milford, director of the Bear Education and Resource (BEAR) Group, which opposes a bear hunt.
"I speak to people who say the Division is planting bears in urban areas; bringing them to Trenton by truck. I don't trust the Division either, although I'm not saying that they're trucking bears around."
Smith said she also has received phone calls from people who favor a bear hunt, some of them more threatening than anything received by Burns. She said someone once told her that her children should be eaten by bears. She said she has been called "anti-human." She characterized some of the calls as threats.
That, too often, has been the nature of the debate. Neither side has a monopoly on being mean-spirited. Neither side has a patent on paranoia, or twisting facts that don't help their cause. So bear tracks and bear bites are replaced by coyotes and mountain lions. They are replaced by conspiracies, cover-ups and theories that come from a lack of trust, and maybe too much politics.