- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,007
Judge Denies Attempt To Block Bear Hunt
October 18, 2004
AP
UPPER MARLBORO, Md. -- A bid by animal protection advocates to block Maryland's first bear hunt in 51 years was denied Monday by a Prince George's County judge just a week before the hunt is scheduled to begin.
In a lawsuit filed last month, three Maryland residents and two animal rights groups sought a court order postponing the hunt, which is set to start Oct. 25 and last for at least one week. They argued the state missed key deadlines while planning the hunt and had miscounted the state's population of black bears.
However, Circuit Court Judge Thomas Smith ruled in favor of the Department of Natural Resources, saying the state followed proper procedure. He also said the residents, including one who worried wounded bears would turn up on her western Maryland property, would not be irreparably harmed if the hunt went forward.
DNR officials welcomed the decision, which threatened to derail the weeklong hunt planned for Garrett and Allegany counties. The state plans mandatory certification classes this weekend for the 200 hunters chosen by lottery to take part.
"The bear hunt will go forward," said Harry Spiker, a DNR bear biologist.
Maryland plans to let hunters kill 30 black bears this year as a way to control a quickly growing population that the DNR says has swelled from a dozen in 1956 to around 500 today. With greater contact with humans, some bears have damaged property in their search for food or been involved in car collisions.
The DNR proposed the hunt in February and the final regulation went into effect Sept. 27. In between, the DNR held public meetings and posted a series of proposals that included the size of the hunt and how long it would last.
But the lawsuit, filed by residents of Prince George's and Baltimore counties along with the Fund for Animals and the Humane Society of the United States, claims DNR rushed the hunt into law, violating its own statutory guidelines along the way.
The lawsuit argued, for example, that the state missed an April 25 deadline to publish the bag limits, or how many bears one hunter can kill. It also claimed the state did not release the dates for the hunt by a required July 1 deadline.
"When you are hunting bears for their heads and hides for the first time in a half century, the agency has a clear duty to follow the law," said Michael Markarian, president of the Fund for Animals, after ruling.
Smith sided with the state, ruling that the dates were not hard deadlines and did not carry any penalties if the state missed them. He said the DNR had done enough to meet the guidelines for imposing a new regulation.
Bears were protected from hunting in Maryland from the 1950s until 1985, when they were reclassified as a game animal. The change let DNR authorize a hunt, but the state tried to control the population with non-lethal methods such as scaring nuisance bears with firecrackers and telling people to keep their trash secured.
DNR approved the hunt in response to two studies that showed the bear population was still growing despite the management plan. The studies estimated there are 400 bears west of Cumberland and 100 to the east of the city.
Based on those numbers, the DNR concludes that a 20 percent annual mortality rate - a figure that includes natural deaths and those killed by hunters - is appropriate to keep the bear population from growing too fast, according to Spiker.
The animal rights groups, however, allege those studies are based on flawed data and do not accurately reflect the true population.
The three state residents who took part in the lawsuit claimed that a hunt would cause bears to become skittish and fearful of humans, ruining any chances of seeing them in the wild. Barbara Dowell of Laurel, who owns land in Washington and Garrett counties, also worried she would see wounded bears stagger on to her property.
But Smith ruled those claims of future harm were not strong enough to derail the hunt.
"Her (Dowell's) future expectations are so speculative," he said.
Markarian said he was unsure whether Smith's decision would be appealed. Because the hunt begins next week, the judge automatically forwarded his decision on to the Court of Special Appeals if the ruling is challenged
October 18, 2004
AP
UPPER MARLBORO, Md. -- A bid by animal protection advocates to block Maryland's first bear hunt in 51 years was denied Monday by a Prince George's County judge just a week before the hunt is scheduled to begin.
In a lawsuit filed last month, three Maryland residents and two animal rights groups sought a court order postponing the hunt, which is set to start Oct. 25 and last for at least one week. They argued the state missed key deadlines while planning the hunt and had miscounted the state's population of black bears.
However, Circuit Court Judge Thomas Smith ruled in favor of the Department of Natural Resources, saying the state followed proper procedure. He also said the residents, including one who worried wounded bears would turn up on her western Maryland property, would not be irreparably harmed if the hunt went forward.
DNR officials welcomed the decision, which threatened to derail the weeklong hunt planned for Garrett and Allegany counties. The state plans mandatory certification classes this weekend for the 200 hunters chosen by lottery to take part.
"The bear hunt will go forward," said Harry Spiker, a DNR bear biologist.
Maryland plans to let hunters kill 30 black bears this year as a way to control a quickly growing population that the DNR says has swelled from a dozen in 1956 to around 500 today. With greater contact with humans, some bears have damaged property in their search for food or been involved in car collisions.
The DNR proposed the hunt in February and the final regulation went into effect Sept. 27. In between, the DNR held public meetings and posted a series of proposals that included the size of the hunt and how long it would last.
But the lawsuit, filed by residents of Prince George's and Baltimore counties along with the Fund for Animals and the Humane Society of the United States, claims DNR rushed the hunt into law, violating its own statutory guidelines along the way.
The lawsuit argued, for example, that the state missed an April 25 deadline to publish the bag limits, or how many bears one hunter can kill. It also claimed the state did not release the dates for the hunt by a required July 1 deadline.
"When you are hunting bears for their heads and hides for the first time in a half century, the agency has a clear duty to follow the law," said Michael Markarian, president of the Fund for Animals, after ruling.
Smith sided with the state, ruling that the dates were not hard deadlines and did not carry any penalties if the state missed them. He said the DNR had done enough to meet the guidelines for imposing a new regulation.
Bears were protected from hunting in Maryland from the 1950s until 1985, when they were reclassified as a game animal. The change let DNR authorize a hunt, but the state tried to control the population with non-lethal methods such as scaring nuisance bears with firecrackers and telling people to keep their trash secured.
DNR approved the hunt in response to two studies that showed the bear population was still growing despite the management plan. The studies estimated there are 400 bears west of Cumberland and 100 to the east of the city.
Based on those numbers, the DNR concludes that a 20 percent annual mortality rate - a figure that includes natural deaths and those killed by hunters - is appropriate to keep the bear population from growing too fast, according to Spiker.
The animal rights groups, however, allege those studies are based on flawed data and do not accurately reflect the true population.
The three state residents who took part in the lawsuit claimed that a hunt would cause bears to become skittish and fearful of humans, ruining any chances of seeing them in the wild. Barbara Dowell of Laurel, who owns land in Washington and Garrett counties, also worried she would see wounded bears stagger on to her property.
But Smith ruled those claims of future harm were not strong enough to derail the hunt.
"Her (Dowell's) future expectations are so speculative," he said.
Markarian said he was unsure whether Smith's decision would be appealed. Because the hunt begins next week, the judge automatically forwarded his decision on to the Court of Special Appeals if the ruling is challenged
