Skip navigation.
Home » A3275

Hunters, Trappers, Anglers Up In Arms Over 'Devastating' Bills

A3275 | 1 year 10 weeks ago | Comments 5

By Susan Avedissian

TRENTON — Hunters and anglers across the state are up in arms over a proposal in the legislature they say will stack the state Fish and Game Council with anti-hunting and anti-fishing activists.

The proposal, they say, would make a profound shift in state law with devastating impact on hunters, trappers and fresh water anglers and the businesses that they support.

Assembly Bill A-3275 was released from the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee on June 14. Along with its companion Senate bill, S-2041, it would change the composition of the council to seven members appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, without regard to geographic representation.

In addition to changing the composition of the Council, the bills substitute “wildlife” for existing references to “game” in state codes, and eliminate any reference to the use and development of fish and game resources for public recreation and food supply.

“Anywhere where the word ‘game’ appears it is replaced with ‘wildlife.’ Why the change?” said New Jersey Outdoor Alliance Chairman Anthony Mauro. “I’m not an attorney, but something that is ‘game’ can be hunted; something that is ‘wildlife,’ cannot.”

“It’s a sneaky way of getting rid of hunting, fishing and trapping,” he said.

The bills, according to the Alliance, a non-profit organization of hunters, anglers and trappers, would also change game conservation in New Jersey by focusing on “expensive and unproven non-lethal alternatives” of wildlife management.

“Animal rights activists testifying in support of A-3275 derided hunting as a ‘15th-century’ means to wildlife management,” according to an Alliance press release, “and proclaimed the bill, which relies heavily on non-lethal alternatives, as legislation for 21st century wildlife management.”

Currently, the Fish and Game Council consists of 11 members who are chosen from those with knowledge of and interest in the conservation of fish and game, as follows: three farmers recommended by the state agricultural convention to the governor for appointment; six sportsmen, recommended by the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs to the governor for appointment; one public member knowledgeable in land use management and soil conservation practices; and the chairperson of the Endangered and Nongame Species Advisory Committee.

The present farmer and sportsmen appointments are chosen with regard to geographic considerations: one farmer representative and two sportsmen representatives chosen from the northern, central and southern regions of the state.

Mauro said the changes in composition and in how appointments would be made makes them more political and would permit the council to be stacked with those with an anti-hunting bias.

Mauro said his membership and other outdoor recreational associations in New Jersey are still analyzing the bills for their full effect; his membership has serious concerns about the negative impact on hunters, trappers and freshwater fishermen and women, and the businesses they support.

He also points to the track record of the bills’ sponsors, Assemblyman Michael J. Panter (D-12th) and Senator Ellen Karcher (D-12th), as leaning heavily toward animal rights causes.

Voting “yes” on A3275’s release from the Assembly committee were: John F. McKeon (D-27th), chairman, Charles T. Epps, Jr. (D-31st), Robert M. Gordon (D-38th), vice chairman, Louis M. Manzo (D-31st), and Panter.

Voting “no” were Larry Chatzidakis (R-8th) and John E. Rooney (R-39th).

“Do I think the purpose is to get animal activists on it (the council)? Yes I do. Because it’s also changing the statute which confines the people who would be on the Fish and Game Council to consider only contraceptive means,” he said.

Contact Avedissian at (609) 886-8600 Ext 27 or at: savedissian@cmcherald.com.

Print | Email Updated 1 year 10 weeks ago
Post a comment on this article

Comments (5)

We welcome your thoughts, stories and information related to this article.

»

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 5:48pm

The comment posted on Wed, 10/03/2007 - 2:50pm "they would much rather kill a human being than a little fuzzy bunny" is assumptive and has no scientific basis. Extremists exist in all groups, no matter anti or non-anti. We have people who break the law in order to demonstrate a point. We also have people who torture animals purely for entertainment (rather than for food & supplementary income). Most incidents of injured trappers are results of accidental or improper triggering of powerful traps meant for fur-bearing animals. Most hunters who get injured or killed are shot by fellow hunters by accident.

And I agree that if hunters call themselves 'sportsmen' and the act of hunting 'conservation', then I fail to see why animals should not be referred to as 'wildlife'.

»

Wed, 10/03/2007 - 2:50pm

you wanna know what really is funny about the anti's?..is that most of them are pro-choice, but anti- hunting...so they would much rather kill a human being than a little fuzzy bunny...Maybe we should have a "Peta Hunting Season" with a unlimited bag limit....I can dream can't I?

»

Wed, 10/03/2007 - 12:24pm

In the comment posted on Mon, 10/01/2007 - 10:22am, the individual states, "I feel the letter was insulting with a condescening overtone that sportsmen are a bunch of 'redneck' morons that belong in the backwoods...This is CRITICAL, unless you like having a bunch of wacko animal rights activists as nextdoor neighbors" Has this person ever stopped to think if you are offended because someone called you a redneck moron, wouldn't the animal lovers be even more insulted when you call them "wacko animal rights activists"? It is apparent that this individual takes neither the animals' suffering nor respect for other people into consideration when he/she composed the comment.

In my opinion, if the hunters can call themselves 'sportsmen', then the animals (game or non-game) can be referred to as wildlife.

»

Wed, 10/03/2007 - 12:13pm

The current composition of the Fish and Game Council is biased towards trapping and hunting, with only 1 person who might possibly have our beautiful wildlife's interest in mind. Let's take a look - the 11 members include 3 farmers, 6 sportsmen (i.e. hunters), 1 public member knowledgeable in land use, and the chairperson of the Endangered and Nongame Species Advisory Committee. Is it just me or everyone can see that 6 out of 11 members of the council (majority) are hunters who call themselves sportsmen as if there is sportsmanship in killing our beautiful wildlife. Let's take a further look. Farmers seek resolution that will protect their land and/or livestocks, including the trapping and hunting of the so-called nuisance animals or predators. Hunters... well we all know what they want. The public member may be knowledgeable in land use, but what about our wildlife? This leaves us only the chairperson of the Endangered and Nongame Species Advisory Committee who at times may disagree with the 6 hunters on the committee, but 1 vote against 6? Needless to say that this council's decisions have always been biased towards hunting/trapping rather than protecting our wildlife. It is definitely time to change the composition of the council so that the animals' voice could be heard.

»

Mon, 10/01/2007 - 10:22am

I recently wrote about the concerns I have over this bill to my assemblymen and got a less then explicative response back. Assemblymen Gordon (whom happens to be the chairmen of the enviornemntal and solid waste committee board) Responded by stating he ddoesn't believe ANY special interest group, whether they are farmers, sportsmen, or animal rights activists, should be a majority of any board. WHAT?!?!?!?!? The vocabulary of the bill specifically states " the removal of coinsideration for use and developement of fish and game for publi recreation and food supply." If that doesn't have specific agenda overtones then I do not know what does. I feel the letter was insulting with a condescening overtone that sportsmen are a bunch of "redneck" morons that belong in the backwoods. I urge all of you to contact your assemblymen and find out thier position. This is CRITICAL, unless you like having a bunch of wacko animal rights activists as nextdoor neighbors

more spoutsMOST RECENT SPOUT OFFS

more homes TOP HOMES


more classifieds TOP CLASSIFIEDS

Property Transfer Chart