What ever happened to common sense (CS) when dealing with the natural environment and its "wild" residents? Has CS been napping? Has he died? Was he outsourced to China, Mexico or South America? His disappearance is certainly becoming increasingly evident with each recently passing year.
That grand state of New Jersey is rapidly becoming the poster boy for CS's vacancy, and good old New York isn't too far behind. Earlier this month a one-year-old male black bear cub was shot and killed by police a hundred yards from an elementary school where the students were enjoying a picnic. Previously the young boar had cooled off in a backyard wading pool before chewing the plastic pool to shreds and then heading for the school yard, following the scent of food.
Now, mind you, New Jersey's fickle politicians and bureaucrats have historically exhibited bone-headed approaches to managing wildlife for the benefit of both wildlife and residents, as well as the environment. When deer became so plentiful they were hazards to road traffic and destroying not only domestic growth but also the natural growth in the state's ecosystem, thereby impacting many other wildlife species, officials dragged their collective feet in allowing effective but controlled hunting to cull the herds and keep them within densities the habitat would support. Then along comes an explosion in the state's black bear population and density.
Now, northern Jersey is far from wilderness ... it's a checkerboard of cluster developments with a healthy population of residents. In other words, an abundance of dinner bells to mooching bruins. As bear-people incidents sky-rocketed, and bears began to lose their natural fear of people, demands by many residents to "do something" steadily grew from a whisper to a roar. But with animal rights proponents firmly entrenched in the state, opening a hunting season for bear was, to say the least, an unpopular solution. Alternative methods were tried and failed, and the bear problems there are only worsening.
Last year, a N.J. state appeals court ruled against the state's 2005 bear management plan, which included bear hunting to help control overpopulation. In June of that year, the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee passed A3275, which would remove sportsmen from the Fish & Game Council and eliminate any reference to use and development of game for public recreation and food supply. Hmm ... coincidence? I seem to detect a trend in the Garden State - taking environmental management out of the hands of the professionals and placing it in the grip of politicians and hand-picked bureaucrats.
As has been written in this column before, in heavily populated areas of the Northeast many urban and suburban residents have increasingly lost touch with the goings on in the natural environment. As such, their perceived view of "wilderness" is unrealistic. So when "wilderness wildlife" like deer, bear and coyote begin to showing up in their backyards and on their paved roads and streets, they become confused. Why aren't these animals out in the "wilderness" where they belong? Simply put, the habitat provided by us – lawns, gardens, cover, shrubs, garbage, etc. – is vastly superior to that found in the "wilds."
In recent decades New York State has purchased substantial chunks of land to add to the large acreage that constitutes the Adirondack Park, which already contained more total acreage than Yellowstone National Park. The Adirondack Park is basically under the control of an affluent group of bureaucrats known as the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The majority of the group comes from urban and large suburban areas of the state and have their own unique perception of what "wilderness" should be. As such, they have increasingly pushed for expanded protection and preservation of "their wilderness" in the classic "forever wild" mindset.
Now if good old CS were still around, he'd probably ask why so many millions of acres needed such radical protection when so few people ever penetrate the Park's "wilderness" beyond a mile off the nearest road or groomed hiking trail? He'd also point out that, thanks to the APA, residents and businesses within the park are already economically stressed because of all the codes and ordinances enacted by the APA and DEC there.
In the APA and DEC's mind, apparently the emerging key to protecting these millions of acres is to force everyone to visit it only on foot, no motorized travel allowed. A fine dream indeed. But in reality, even the DEC can't properly manage the natural resources there without the aid of motorized travel to reach the more remote areas. Now the APA wants to go one step further to ban the use of motors on watercraft on several waters there to preserve the "wilderness atmosphere."
Okay, I can see their reasoning, at least partially, but we're talking about water expanses of many miles that would only be transversed by paddling or rowing. Not everyone is capable of paddling a canoe or kayak 12 miles or more, and what about safety should the water and weather get rough? Wouldn't placing a limit on the motors used make more sense? How would a dinky 2-hsp motor destroy the "wilderness atmosphere." especially when that watercraft is apt to be the lone one on that particular water?
The Park already prohibits motorized travel, including snowmobiles and ATVs, except on approved trails and roads. Now it wants to do the same with aquatic travel via an APA-suggested "Quiet Waters" regulation which would prohibit motors, both gas and electric on many lakes. Noble vision - a canoeist or boater paddling or rowing in a "wilderness" setting, but rather unrealistic when you consider these waters aren't for the novice or once-a-year visitor and things could turn pretty nasty in a hurry. Obviously no one is going to attempt getting a large boat and big outboard into these isolated waters, and they already are in use on the larger Park lakes with ready access. So why force those willing to walk, portage and carry equipment into the "Quiet Waters" to also leave a petite outboard behind. Obviously such small motors create minimal wakes which would bother nesting waterfowl such as loons, and the noise and pollution levels of the newer models are likewise minimal. The vast majority of the waters are underutilized despite being stocked by air by DEC. Adding more restrictions will only deter visitors, especially senior citizens, families with small children, and physically handicapped, from even considering visiting them.
The Adirondack Park was bought and is managed with taxpayers' money, and while it needs some common sense safeguards to protect its environment, continually adding more and more restrictions on how it can be enjoyed, where, and by whom is defeating the purpose of why the Park was formed in the first place. If this continues, we may as well build a high fence around it and post signs saying "By Invitation Only."