FREDON -- The fifth consecutive bear hunt that began last Monday in the state's northwestern region has attracted a flurry of reader comments ranging from support for the bears to criticism of the animal advocates.

Officials from the state backed the hunt saying it was necessary to control the growing population of bears. By this past Sunday, Dec. 13, the total number of bears killed was up to 472 -- compared to last year's count of 272 -- but officials called for the hunt to be extended by four days, to Saturday at sunset.

Officials reported that 17 more bears were killed Wednesday, on the first day of the extended hunt.

This year, aggressive bear complaints are up, officials said, more bears are being seen in suburban areas, and in 2014, the state recorded the first-ever bear attack fatality. A 22-year-old Rutgers student was mauled to death by a 300-pound bear in West Milford Sept. 21.

The protesters have equated the hunt with murder, criticizing the tactics as well as the purpose, since some critics say bears can be controlled by other, kinder methods, like sealed garbage cans and not leaving grills outside.

Among those in favor of the hunt was MBren, who said the hunt was "needed":

"This is great news for Northwest NJ. This has been needed for a while and the hunters did a good job, and I'm glad they had the sense to extend the hunt. The nice weather was a huge bonus as well."

But others, like mike148, said the animals were being killed senselessly:

"Seems absurd to kill such beautiful animals for no good reason. I have lived with bears and Cubs on my property for more than 25 years. It's pretty easy to coexist with them and nobody is killing them to feed themselves. I just don't see the need."

And Priscilla Feral argued that the tactic of leaving food for bears to bait them was unethical:

"Someone has to be deranged to bait bears with (food) and then stand by to shoot one to death, and it should be illegal because that makes bears associate people with food -- the OPPOSITE of what the (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) should be teaching to assure public safety."

On the other hand, a once-neutral Watcher said that the news about the student's death had tipped him to the side of the hunters:

"I was neutral on bear hunts till I learned that young college student, a robust male, was hunted down and mauled by one. They are not Gentle Ben or Yogi bear, these are wild animals."

Listenpeople argued for those who love animals but also think the hunt is necessary:

"I love animals and I think bears are amazing and beautiful, but the sad fact is there are more and more issues with bears and humans coming in contact with one another. It doesn't matter if we developed housing in their area. What is done is done, we won't abandon developed areas for the sake of bears.

The hunt is going to happen, it has to. For the safety of humans and bears. My only hope is that the meat from the bears is used and they are not just hunted for a trophy."

zone3adk said that hunting can "benefit" the animals:

"There is no reason not to hunt bear. Bear, like a lot of wildlife, is a renewable natural resource. Properly managed hunts benefit the species at the expense of the individual animals killed. It's science, part of wildlife biology."

Still, sacrificenotshared, and others, said humans are the real "enemy":

"Man has proven time and again, to be nature's worst enemy. From the pollution of her waters, land and air we are without a doubt natures biggest enemy. We have hunted several species into extinction, and destroy the habitat of any remaining. We nearly hunted the seemingly endless numbers of buffalo into extinction years ago. Hunting for pleasure, or sport is not only arrogant and disgusting, it also proves that man cannot be trusted."

Laura Herzog may be reached at lherzog@njadvancemedia.com. Follow her on Twitter @LauraHerzogL. Find NJ.com on Facebook.