Re: NJ Bear Hunt

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:41:42 GMT, "Outdoors Magazine"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>NEW JERSEY BEAR HUNT . . . The Fund for Animals is threatening to file a
>lawsuit today to halt New Jersey's planned bear hunt beginning December 8 in
>the state's most rugged counties near Pennsylvania in the Delaware Water
>Gap. The hunt, the first in thirty years, is designed to control a
>population estimated to exceed 3,000 bears that has been determined to
>constitute a danger to the human residents in the area. A spokesman for the
>animal group is suggesting contraception as a better means of controlling
>the bear population.
>
>
>source: NSSF


Let the ones who want to control animal populations by contraceptives
be the ones required to apply those contraceptives.  The immediate
image is rather amusing, but even the chemical methods need someone to
apply them.  And, more to the point it generally gets down to, someone
to pay for the things.  Costly.

We won't go into the arguements about what chemical contraceptives
could do to the health of the animals, as it's doubtful that any of
them have any idea of it.  Even if tried in zoos (animal
experimentation?  Oh, my!), social interactions in the wild might be
affected as well as reproductive rates and health.  
-- 

http://www.visi.com/~cyli