text:
Having undesirable fat in various areas of your body can have a significant influence on your health and self-confidence. While standard weight loss through workout and diet is a terrific method to reduce weight in general, even the very best workouts cannot target issue locations like the belly, inner thighs, arms, and butts. Liposuction is a time evaluated treatment that is utilized to remove excess fat from particular areas of the body, allowing a specific to form and contour their body to their preference. Is liposuction right for you? Learn now.
Pros of Liposuction
There are many benefits to this cosmetic procedure, consisting of:
• Right away visible changes. Unlike traditional weight loss, liposuction produces modifications that are instantly noticeable in the body. Some difference is noticeable immediately, and the preferred results are typically achieved in simply a couple of days.
• Proven and safe. This cosmetic treatment has actually been performed by experienced cosmetic surgeons all over the world for years and the method has been improved over and once again to be safe and efficient.
• Recovery time is generally fast. The downtime needed after having this type of procedure is usually much less than what is needed for other types of cosmetic procedures, including abdominoplasty, breast reduction, and more. Individuals who have had the treatment can frequently go back to work much more quickly than they anticipated and can get back to living a healthy, active way of life.
• Weight loss can be irreversible. With the right upkeep strategies, the fat that was gotten rid of throughout the liposuction treatment will not return.
• Complete control over your physique. With liposuction, a person can have complete control over how they want to look, beyond exactly what traditional diet and workout can supply. Offering people this power over their bodies enhances self-esteem and aid people feel their very best.
While there many benefits to liposuction, there are naturally a couple of caveats that should be thought about before making the decision to move on with the treatment.Cons of Liposuction
Prior to having actually liposuction done, it is very important to analyze the possible drawbacks of the treatment and determine if the advantages outweigh the risks in your certain case. Your cosmetic surgeon can help you find out more about the threats related to the procedure and can help you decide if progressing is the right thing for you.
• Problems with basic anesthesia. Because liposuction is performed under general anesthesia, the treatment carries the same dangers as other type of surgical treatment where general anesthesia is used. Hidden medical conditions might enhance these risks.
• Unfavorable reactions. Bruising, bleeding, and discomfort are all to be anticipated, nevertheless, in uncommon cases can trigger more substantial problems.
• The prospective to acquire the weight back. After having liposuction done, it is critical to maintain a healthy diet plan and workout correctly as recommended by your physician. Failure to do so could cause getting back the weight that was lost or potentially even more.
There are dangers associated with liposuction, for numerous individuals, the benefits far exceed them. Educate yourself about the treatment by having in-depth discussions with your specialist and consider how liposuction has the potential to affect you as a distinct individual. Only you and your surgeon can figure out if liposuction will supply you with the results you are searching for within your expectations.
Laser Liposuction procedure is a new non invasive procedure to loose unwanted bodyfat in Faison NC
Laser liposuction is a more recent, minimally intrusive treatment that involves heating the fat cells to melting point and getting rid of the melted fat through a small cannula. The procedure is typically done right in your doctor's office and is an exceptional alternative for individuals who have less than 500 ml of fat to eliminate from any one area. Laser liposuction can be a safe, complementary procedure to weight-loss in order to sculpt the body you've always wanted.
Contact a Cosmetic surgeon in your Faison NC today.
If you're considering liposuction as a weight-loss option, it's important that you discuss your desires with a certified cosmetic surgeon in your area. Your cosmetic surgeon will carry out a total test and health history questionnaire to determine if liposuction can benefit you and assist you reach your physical and emotional goals. Call today for an examination and learn more about how liposuction can assist you accomplish the body of your dreams.


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
December 1, 2011
ANIMAL PROTECTION LEAGUE OF NEW JERSEY, THE BEAR EDUCATION AND RESOURCE GROUP, THERESA FRITZGES, AND ANGELA METLER, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS,v.NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ("NJDEP"), BOB MARTIN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NJDEP, DIVISION OF FISH & WILDLIFE, DAVID CHANDA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION, NJDEP, DIVISION OF FISH & WILDLIFE, FISH & GAME COUNCIL, AND JEANETTE VREELAND, IN HER CAPACITY AS CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL AND SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION, INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Argued November 29, 2011
Before Judges Carchman, Fisher and Nugent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by CARCHMAN, P.J.A.D.
This appeal challenges the validity of the Comprehensive Black Bear
Management Policy (CBBMP) adopted by respondent New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP, DEP or Department).*fn1
The issues raised in this appeal were previously addressed,
in part, by appellants Animal Protection League of New Jersey, the
Bear Education and Resource Group, Theresa Fritzges and Angela Metler
on an unsuccessful, prior application
to stay the 2010 bear hunt. See Animal Prot. League of N.J. v. N.J.
Dep't of Envtl. Prot., No. A-1603-10, Motion No. M-1925-10 (App. Div.
December 3, 2010). On this appeal, addressing the merits of the CBBMP,
appellants raise myriad issues as to the validity of CBBMP; however,
the nidus of their argument is that respondents acted arbitrarily and
capriciously in adopting the CBBMP. While there may be disagreements
as to available data and its interpretation, under our standard of
review we defer to agency findings that are based on sufficient
evidence in the record. We conclude that the agency findings here meet
that standard. Most important, we conclude that appellants have failed
to demonstrate that respondents acted arbitrarily or capriciously or
in bad faith. We further conclude that appellants have failed to
demonstrate any procedural deficiencies supporting invalidation of the
CBBMP. Accordingly, we affirm.
Respondent Council exists within the DFW, a division of the NJDEP. N.J.S.A. 13:1B-24. See also U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Found. v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 182 N.J. 461, 473 (2005). The Council is responsible for "formulat[ing] comprehensive policies for the protection and propagation of fish, birds, and game animals . . . ." N.J.S.A. 13:1B-28. The Council is authorized to adopt appropriate and reasonable regulations regarding the circumstances under which game animals may be "pursued, taken, killed, or had in possession" for the purpose of "providing an adequate and flexible system of protection, propagation, increase, control and conservation" of such animals, "and for their use and development for public recreation and food supply . . . ." N.J.S.A. 13:1B-30. The Council may do so only "after first having determined the need for such action on the basis of scientific investigation and research . . . ." N.J.S.A. 13:1B-30.
In 2010, pursuant to the enabling legislation and statutory authorization, respondents developed the CBBMP. See 42 N.J.R. 753(a). The proposed CBBMP recommended, among other things, the reintroduction of a regulated black bear hunt, to take place annually in December. 42 N.J.R. 764-65. Other issues addressed by the proposed CBBMP include: education; control of human-derived food; research and analysis of the State's black bear population; analysis of the State's available black bear habitat; cooperative research with other states, academic institutions and other entities engaged in research on black bear management; lethal and non-lethal means of controlling bears to reduce the nuisances they create and their threat to human safety, agricultural crops and property; habitat protection; and bear population management. 42 N.J.R. 753(a).
In the CBBMP, the Council stated that it supported "active, integrated bear management and [the Division's] population goal of maintaining bears at a density that provides for a sustainable population within suitable bear habitat, minimizes human-bear conflicts and reduces emigration of bears to unsuitable habitat in suburban and urban areas." 42 N.J.R. 765. It recommended that the Division "continue its integrated strategy for black bear management," including the implementation of a regulated black bear hunting season. 42 N.J.R. 765. The details of this hunt were described in the CBBMP and included the adjustment of permit quotas and season length "as necessary to regulate hunting pressure," as well as the establishment of a bear permit fee. 42 N.J.R. 764-65. The CBBMP further advised that respondents "develop a long-term structure for bear hunting seasons to reduce and then stabilize the bear population at a level compatible with the availability and quality of habitat, which is consistent with public safety and residential and agricultural concerns." 42 N.J.R. 765.
The Council approved the proposed CBBMP on March 9, 2010, which DEP Commissioner Martin then approved on March 17, 2010. Animal Prot. League of N.J. v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., No. A-1603-10, Motion No. M-1925-10 (App. Div. December 3, 2010) (slip op. at 6).*fn2 On April 19, 2010, respondents published the proposed CBBMP in the New Jersey Register. See 42 N.J.R. 753(a). On May 11, 2010, respondents held a public hearing on the proposed CBBMP. Respondents also accepted written and online comments from the public until June 18, 2010. Animal Prot. League, supra, No. A-1603-10, slip op. at 6-7. During the public comment period, over 9000 comments were submitted.
In July 2010, the Council and Commissioner Martin approved the CBBMP. Id. at 7. Respondents published the final adopted version of the CBBMP in the New Jersey Register on November 15, 2010. See 42 N.J.R. 2754(c).
On November 17, 2010, appellants requested that respondents stay the 2010 bear hunt pending this appeal. Respondents refused.
Appellants appealed respondents' adoption of the CBBMP and moved for a stay of the 2010 bear hunt, scheduled to commence on December 6, 2010. Animal Prot. League, supra, No. A-1603-10, slip op. at 7. On December 3, 2010, in an unpublished opinion, we denied the motion for stay. Id. at 18. The New Jersey Supreme Court thereafter denied a similar motion. We now address the merits of the appeal.
Appellants argue that respondents acted arbitrarily and capriciously when they, "[i]n an apparent effort to both provide recreational hunting and deflect public opposition to a purely recreational hunt, . . . distorted, misstated, and made up data in support of a policy that represents to the general public, falsely, that the proposed black bear hunt is a matter of scientific necessity."*fn3 Appellants raise a number of specific acts by respondents to demonstrate that respondents acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Both respondents and intervenors argue that respondents did not act arbitrarily or capriciously and that this court should defer to respondents' expertise in bear management.
We first address our standard of review. We will not overturn an administrative action "in the absence of a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or that it lacked fair support in the evidence." In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482 (2007) (quoting Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963)). Our role in reviewing agency action is generally limited to determining:
(1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Thurber v. City of Burlington, 191 N.J. 487, 501 (2007) (quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995)).]
Furthermore, "we grant administrative agency action a 'strong presumption of reasonableness.'" Aqua Beach Condo. Ass'n v. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs, 186 N.J. 5, 16 (2006) (quoting Newark v. Natural Res. Council, 82 N.J. 530, 539 (1980)). An agency's findings of fact "are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence." In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999) (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)).
When we review an "agency's interpretation of statutes within its scope of authority and its adoption of rules implementing its enabling statutes, we afford the agency great deference." N.J. Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. N.J. Dep't of Agric., 196 N.J. 366, 385 (2008) (citing In re Freshwater Wetlands Prot. Act Rules, 180 N.J. 478, 488-89 (2004)). As the Court noted, "[s]uch deference is appropriate because it recognizes that agencies have the specialized expertise necessary to enact regulations dealing with technical matters and are particularly well equipped to read . . . and to evaluate the factual and technical issues that . . . rulemaking would invite." In re Freshwater Wetlands Prot. Act Rules, supra, 180 N.J. at 489 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Ultimately, our role is not to "micromanage" an agency but to recognize that unless the agency's action is inconsistent with its legislative authority, we will act with restraint and not intervene. In re Failure by the Dep't of Banking and Ins., 336 N.J. Super. 253, 262 (App. Div. 2001). Particularly relevant here, "the choice of accepting or rejecting testimony from witnesses resides with the administrative agency, and so long as that choice is reasonably made it is accorded deference on appeal." In re Young, 202 N.J. 50, 70-71 (2010) (citations omitted).
As the Court has long acknowledged:
[i]f a subject is debatable, the agency determination must be upheld. Quite obviously, if we were to decide the underlying merits, we would thereby perform the administrative function itself. Upon that approach the court would become the legislative body. The judiciary can interfere with such a determination only when it is plainly demonstrated to be arbitrary. The most that here is revealed is that men can earnestly disagree. This being so, the Council alone bears the responsibility for decision. It is not for the judiciary to agree or disagree. [United Hunters Ass'n of N.J., Inc. v. Adams, 36 N.J. 288, 292 (1962) (citations omitted).]
We will affirm an agency decision if we find that the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom support the decision, even if we would have reached a different result. Campbell v. N.J. Racing Comm, 169 N.J. 579, 587 (2001) (citing Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 588 (1988)). See also In re the Certificate of Need of the Visiting Nurse Ass'n, 302 N.J. Super. 85, 95 (App. Div. 1997). ("When there is room for two courses of action, an administrative decision will not be deemed arbitrary and capricious if exercised [sic] honestly and the course ultimately chosen is a reasonable one").
As we have previously observed, the Council is authorized to adopt appropriate and reasonable regulations regarding the circumstances under which game and fur-bearing animals may be "pursued, taken, killed, or had in possession" for the purpose of "providing an adequate and flexible system of protection, propagation, increase, control and conservation" of such animals, "and for their use and development for public recreation and food supply . . . ." N.J.S.A. 13:1B-30. The Council may do so only "after first having determined the need for such action on the basis of scientific investigation and research . . . ." N.J.S.A. 13:1B-30.
Appellants question the validity of the data and findings respondents used to justify the bear hunt.*fn4 Among other things, appellants claim that respondents utilized improper data, ignored relevant data, miscategorized complaints and misrepresented findings and predictions.
Appellants rely on experts' studies and opinions as well as their own perceptions and interpretation of the relevant data. Appellants challenge the factual predicates of respondents' conclusions. The record, however, demonstrates that respondents conducted significant scientific investigation of and research on the subject matter. They, too, relied on experts, including biologists, statisticians and wildlife personnel, significant public commentary on the issues before them and their own specialized expertise, developed from decades of experience managing the New Jersey black bear population.
Based on that research and knowledge, respondents concluded that a hunt was a necessary component of an "integrated approach to managing black bears," which also included "educating people about black bear ecology, recommending human behavioral judgments while in bear range, enforcing laws that minimize human-bear conflicts, taking action against dangerous and nuisance bears, monitoring the bear population and implementing population control." 42 N.J.R. 2790.
Respondents made a series of findings and conclusions to support this decision. First, despite the Department's extensive integrated bear management efforts, serious complaints of bear-human interaction had not abated as the bear population continued to expand. At present, black bear complaints are at historically high levels.
Second, bear hunting seasons can alleviate damage and nuisance incidents caused by problem bears. New Jersey's recent experience with black bear hunts supports this, as the population reduction achieved by the 2003 and 2005 bear hunting seasons resulted in short-term reductions in bear-related complaints received by DFW and cooperating law enforcement agencies.
Third, the New Jersey black bear population is large enough to sustain a hunt without endangering the population as a whole. Fourth, the 2003 and 2005 hunts demonstrated that bears could be harvested safely, and harvests could be accurately predicted. Fifth, no other viable method exists to reduce, or slow the growth of, the black bear population. Although fertility control and sterilization have been studied, these methods of population control have not been effective.
Sixth, hunting is a safe, legal and responsible use of wildlife resources, as well as a legitimate and effective means to control over-abundant game species in a cost-effective manner. Black bear hunts are used to manage and control the black bear population in at least twenty-nine other states with resident black bear populations, including Pennsylvania and New York.
Appellants disagree with respondents' findings. However, simple disagreement, even if based on contradictory expert opinions, is insufficient to overcome the presumption of reasonableness ascribed to respondents' findings. See United Hunters Ass'n, supra, 36 N.J. at 292.
In Mercer County Deer Alliance v. N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, 349 N.J. Super. 440 (App. Div. 2002), we applied this standard to a challenge of the Council's adoption of rules for deer hunting as part of a community-based deer management plan. In rejecting the challenge, we found that "[i]t was clearly within the discretion of the Division and the Council to evaluate the available scientific literature and professional opinion and to determine which of various theories and approaches to adopt." Id. at 449.
We also rejected appellants' argument that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the Council's decision to adopt certain special deer hunting rules, noting that it "require[d] little comment." Ibid. ("We reject the contention that the State Plan was adopted without sufficient scientific research and investigation as required by N.J.S.A. 13:1B-30. That simply is not so."). We determined that the rules were not improper merely because there was disagreement among the experts as to the means, methods and conclusions of the applicable science. Ibid. Instead, the critical inquiry was whether the Council's decision was based on scientific knowledge and investigation. We said:
[w]hile there may be some scientific dispute to the utility of standards based on biological and cultural carrying capacities as well as dispute as to the specific content of the standards, the fact remains, as this record demonstrates, that there is a wealth of respectable professional and scientific literature supporting the determinations represented by the Plan. [Ibid.]
The same is true here. Despite the conflicting opinions, the CBBMP contains significant substantive professional and scientific support for its conclusions.
We address, seriatim, appellants' various challenges. Appellants assert that respondents inflated their bear complaint data by: (1) double counting bear complaints that were both received by police departments and faxed by those departments to the Division; and (2) including in their 2009 figures complaints from previously unused sources, such as the Division's Emergency Response Communications Center (ERCC), thereby allegedly making comparison of its 2009 figures to prior years' figures "impossible." In support of this argument, appellants rely upon a study by Professor Edward A. Tavss of Rutgers University (Tavss Report).
Appellants also assert, again based on the Tavss Report, that respondents miscategorized bear complaints "with a slant towards categorizing complaints as more serious than they actually were," thereby compounding the inflation.*fn5 Appellants claim that, after correcting for these errors, the actual number of bear complaints in 2009 was 1170, rather than respondents' figure of 3804, and that the number of bear complaints has fallen, not risen. However, Commissioner Martin addressedappellants' claims in his November 22, 2010 letter, in which he refused to stay the bear hunt. As he noted, the DEP conducted a review of its bear complaint reports, and [a]fter identifying [the] reports that represent potential double-counting of same-day/same-location incidents, the Department concluded that such double-counting may affect only a fraction of reported incidents. Specifically, potential double-counting may have occurred in only 24 out of 2,844 recorded incidents (or .83%) in 2008, and only 13 out of 3,005 recorded incidents (or .43%) in 2009, resulting primarily from duplication of incidents reported both to the Department and to local police departments.
As a result of this review, Commissioner Martin stated, "I am convinced that the Department's black bear incident report data is accurate . . . ."
The Commissioner also addressed the inclusion of bear complaints made to the ERCC, asserting that: beginning in 2008, the Department changed its procedures for handling incoming black bear incident calls. Prior to 2008, incoming calls were handled primarily by the [Division's] Wildlife Control Unit. Since mid-2008, the Department has sought to redirect such incoming calls to its Department-wide [ERCC].
Appellants rejoin that while respondents and intervenors focus on the issue of whether respondents' bear data are accurate, "the issue is not whether the 2009 data is [sic] accurate. The issue is whether the 2009 data can be meaningfully compared to the 2007 data." However, while appellants observe that the Council's meeting minutes acknowledge that the change in the way in which the number of bears in New Jersey was calculated "made it impossible to compare previous year information," effectively, appellants' argument would preclude respondents from making its black bear research more complete or accurate.*fn6
Under the circumstances, respondents' findings regarding the size of the New Jersey black bear population and the number of bear complaints, both in absolute terms and relative to previous years, do not appear arbitrary or capricious. While Professor Tavss' findings may contradict those upon which respondents rely, respondents questioned the Tavss Report,*fn7 and under the circumstances, that decision appears to have been reasonable and is entitled to deference. See In re Young, supra, 202 N.J. at 70-71.
Appellants also argue that respondents "ignor[ed] their own data" by
claiming that a bear hunt serves the CBBMP's goal to "reduce the bear
population" when the data demonstrate that bear hunting actually
increases rather than decreases the bear population.*fn8
Appellants support this argument by pointing out that the
2005 CBBMP contained the estimate that the bear population would be
2694 in 2009, as opposed to the Division's current higher figure of
3438, and that this increase can be explained by "[a]n influx of
subadult males upon removal of adult males," (quoting respondents'
1997 Black Bear Management Plan).
However, in their 2010 CBBMP, respondents found that New Jersey experienced a decrease in bear complaints after the 2003 and 2005 bear hunting seasons and that northeastern Pennsylvania experienced a similar decrease after implementing extended bear hunting in 2002. 42 N.J.R. 2780-81. Further, [t]he Council and DEP note that bear complaints in New Jersey had been rising since the 1990's and the Council and DEP believe this trend would have continued if the DFW had not implemented the integrated black bear management strategy in 2001, which utilized all the tools such as DFW's bear education program, training local police for bear response, lethal control on Category I bears, and the short term population reduction from the 2003 and 2005 black bear hunting seasons.
The CBBMP then listed various examples upon which respondents based this opinion, including research by biologists studying the Northeast region of the United States demonstrating that decreases in bear complaints generally follow bear hunting seasons. The CBBMP concluded, "The Council and DEP believe these examples all support the premise that a regulated harvest, in conjunction with other bear management tools, can lead to a reduction in bear complaints." 42 N.J.R. 2781.
Intervenors also note that appellants' argument hinges on the assumption that respondents' 2005 predictions regarding what the black bear population would be in 2009 were correct. "Respondents merely predicted a certain number of bears would exist in 2009; it was not a fact there would be that number of bears in the absence of a hunt." It is just as feasible to conclude, as intervenors did, that "[h]ad there been no hunt in 2005, the 2009 actual population count likely would have been higher." As noted by intervenors, appellants fail to show their theory is anything more than speculation, such as by showing that a disproportionate number of adults were harvested compared to subadults, or by showing that a reservoir of subadults existed to repopulate the harvest areas. Under the circumstances, respondents' 2010 CBBMP findings regarding whether bear hunting reduces bear complaints do not appear arbitrary or capricious. They are well-supported by scientific data, and appellants' complaints amount to a disagreement with the data and the conclusions respondents drew from them. See United Hunters Ass'n, supra, 36 N.J. at 292.
Appellants next claim that respondents failed to consider cultural carrying capacity*fn9 - despite the fact that respondents' CBBMP claims that its goals are based on such information - and that respondents fabricated the existence of cultural carrying capacity findings where none exists. Appellants note, among other things, that in a November 9, 2010 response to an OPRA request for documents "related to any cultural carrying capacity studies on black bears in New Jersey . . . ," respondents failed to identify any responsive records. Appellants also maintain respondents ignored the fact that black bears have not reached their biological carrying capacity despite respondents' acknowledgement that biological carrying capacity should be considered in a black bear management policy.*fn10
However, respondents address these issues in the CBBMP. The CBBMP notes that:
[t]he Council and DEP recognize that no state agency manages any wildlife species for biological carrying capacity. Managing a species for biological carrying capacity would be irresponsible to the species as well as the environment in which they live. The Council and DEP disagree that a black bear hunt should be contingent solely upon bears [sic] reaching their biological carrying capacity . . . . Thus, the black bear population management goals of the CBBMP consider the cultural carrying capacity . . . in concert with the biological carrying capacity of the land to support bears, just as it does for all wildlife species under the jurisdiction of the Council and [DFW].
Also, as noted above, respondents based the CBBMP on scientific data and the opinions of experts, as well as decades' worth of their own specialized black bear expertise. Based on that data and expertise, respondents found that "serious [bear-related] incidences have increased with the increase in the bear population. Of particular concern to the Council are increases in Category I incidents as the bear population has expanded," the occurrence of which "remain[s] unacceptably high." 42 N.J.R. 2793. These findings appear reasonable under the circumstances.
Appellants next make a number of assertions that, as a whole, claim respondents acted arbitrarily and capriciously with regard to predicting, collecting, reporting and reacting to information regarding the potential for over-harvesting the bears, particularly pregnant females. Specifically, appellants maintain that (1) respondents falsely claim that the sex and age structure of past harvests match that of bears captured during research and control activities when no such predictions were made and even if they were, the ratio of females to males harvested would be closer to one-to-one, rather than sixty-four percent female in 2003 and fifty-eight percent female in 2005;
(2) contrary to respondents' claims, the CBBMP fails to protect pregnant females from the hunts; (3) respondents failed to consider the effects of over-harvesting female bears; and (4) respondents fabricated harvest number predictions for the 2003 black bear hunt. Appellants base these claims largely upon their own interpretations of respondents' data as well as studies and opinions of experts who disagree with respondents' findings. Regarding the claim that respondents fabricated harvest number predictions for the 2003 black bear hunt, appellants cite to past statements made by two particular Council members in an effort to show that no such predictions were ever made.
Respondents maintain that, while they had previously predicted based on data from 2002 that the sex ratio of the New Jersey bear population was one-to-one, and that the 2003 harvest would approximate that ratio, subsequent analysis has led respondents to conclude that New Jersey's bear population is female-biased. Respondents base this conclusion on data from the 2003 and 2005 hunts, as well as bear tagging research conducted in 2003. As a result, respondents assert that "statements in the adoption document and the CBBMP that the sex ratios of bears taken during the State's 2003 and 2005 black bear hunts were representative of the State's population as a whole . . . have proven to be accurate." Regarding the protection of pregnant females from the hunts, respondents assert that the CBBMP protects pregnant females because by December, "the majority of pregnant females . . . will already have denned, and that additional protection against over-harvest is provided by the safeguard that allows for ceasing the hunt on twenty-four hours [sic] notice should biologists determine that an over-harvest could occur." Respondents do not directly address appellants' claim that respondents fabricated harvest number predictions for the 2003 black bear hunt.
Under the circumstances, respondents' findings are not arbitrary or capricious. They represent a considered view on one side of an honest disagreement between appellants and other experts with respect to the import of the data gathered about black bears in New Jersey. Such a disagreement provides an insufficient basis to overturn the decisions of an administrative agency. See United Hunters Ass'n, supra, 36 N.J. at 292. Although respondents do not address appellants' claims of fabrication, given the strong presumption of reasonableness to which the agency is entitled, see Aqua Beach Condo. Ass'n, supra, 186 N.J. at 16, appellants have failed to establish that respondents' predictions were, in fact, fabricated.*fn11
Appellants next claim that respondents failed to consider the public safety risk posed by hunting. In support of this claim, appellants cite to statistics regarding the history of hunting accidents in New Jersey and claim that respondents "ignore the fact that many more people are killed and injured by hunters than by bears." However, as respondents and intervenors point out, the CBBMP addressed concerns regarding the safety risks posed by hunting. The CBBMP notes that "there were no hunting accidents during the 2003 or 2005 bear hunting seasons" and that "[e]very hunter, regardless of age, must successfully complete the hunter education course in order to purchase his or her first hunting license." 42 N.J.R. 2783.
Respondents did not fail to consider the safety risks posed by hunting when they created the CBBMP, and they did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in enacting the hunt notwithstanding the potential safety risks.
Appellants assert that respondents acted arbitrarily and capriciously by dismissing the effectiveness of non-lethal bear management such as aversive conditioning. As evidence of this, appellants cite to studies purportedly demonstrating the effectiveness of aversive conditioning. Appellants also attempt to discredit respondents' claim that bear hunts reduce bear complaints by claiming respondents are ignoring drops in bear complaints experienced in years that did not follow a bear hunting season; based on these drops, appellants assert that "one cannot conclude that hunting reduces bear conflicts."
However, respondents did not "dismiss" non-lethal bear management methods. As part of their integrated approach to black bear management, respondents utilized multiple non-lethal bear management methods, such as: educating people living and recreating in bear habitat about methods to minimize negative human-bear interactions; supporting and enforcing legislation intended to reduce access by bears to human food and food waste; and employing non-lethal aversive techniques such as "rubber projectiles, pyrotechnics and specially trained dogs as a means of aversive conditioning to mitigate nuisance bear behavior."
42 N.J.R. 2780, 2790-91. Respondents also considered relocation and fertility control as means of bear population management, but dismissed both as ineffective and infeasible. 42 N.J.R. 2795. Ultimately, respondents concluded that while "aversive conditioning has limited short-term effectiveness, [it] does not eliminate nuisance behavior in bears and does nothing to reduce or stabilize the bear population." 42 N.J.R. 2780.
Also, as intervenors aptly note, appellants are essentially arguing that respondents may only employ a hunt as a last resort when necessary to control the bear population or reduce bear complaints. However, as noted above, the Council's enabling statutes permit it to consider "public recreation" when determining if and when game animals may be hunted, see N.J.S.A. 13:1B-30, indicating that there is no requirement that the hunt be a last resort. Appellants retort that the statute also provides that respondents may act only "after first having determined the need for such action . . . ." N.J.S.A. 13:1B-30 (emphasis added). Respondents did determine that a hunt was necessary, and that decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
As a result, respondents' conclusions regarding the effectiveness of nonlethal bear management methods and the need to supplement those methods with a bear hunt are not arbitrary or capricious and are entitled to our deference.
Finally, appellants claim that respondents acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in bad faith in delaying publication of the adopted CBBMP in the New Jersey register until November 2010, while issuing bear hunt permits, conducting bear hunting seminars, and setting up bear check stations before the publication date. Appellants assert that by taking these steps to prepare for the bear hunt prior to publication, respondents facilitated a bear hunt before the CBBMP could be challenged in court. See U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Found., supra, 182 N.J. at 479. Respondents maintain that the delay in publication was due to their diligent effort to respond to the copious comments they received about the CBBMP. This explanation is reasonable. There is no evidence to support appellants' allegation of bad faith. Furthermore, the impact of the delay on appellants' ability to challenge the CBBMP in 2010 has no bearing on their ability to litigate in 2011. Accordingly, respondents' procedure for publishing the CBBMP was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
Appellants assert that respondents violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15. Specifically, appellants argue that respondents violated the APA by failing to respond to comments, responding disingenuously to comments, falsely characterizing comments, intentionally delaying adoption of the CBBMP to disadvantage appellants, and engaging in misconduct that denied appellants a full opportunity to voice their views during the public hearing on the CBBMP. We reject these claims and conclude that there was no violation of the APA.
To be valid, a rule must be adopted in "substantial compliance" with the APA. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4(d). Under the APA, prior to adopting or amending any rule, an administrative agency must give notice of its intended action, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4(a)(1), and afford interested parties a "reasonable opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, orally or in writing."
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4(a)(3). Public comments should be "given a meaningful role" in the process of rule adoption. In re Adoption of Rules Concerning Conduct of Judges, 244 N.J. Super. 683, 687 (App. Div. 1990). "The agency shall consider fully all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule" and "[p]repare for public distribution a report listing all parties offering written or oral submissions concerning the rule, summarizing the content of the submissions and providing the agency's response to the data, views and arguments contained in the submissions." N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4(a)(3)-(4). Among the purposes of the APA is "to give those affected by the proposed rule an opportunity to participate in the rule-making process, not just as a matter of fairness but also as a means of informing regulators of possibly unanticipated dimensions of a contemplated rule." In re Comm'r's Failure to Adopt 861 CPT Codes, 358 N.J. Super. 135, 142-43 (App. Div. 2003) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
Appellants first assert that respondents ignored public comments concerning such matters as the impact of the hunt on the size and composition of the bear population, the dangers of hunting and the nature of the threat bears pose. Respondents claim that the record shows the 9000 comments were compiled and addressed.
Appellants cite to Exxon Corp. v. Hunt, 190 N.J. Super. 131 (App. Div. 1983), aff'd, 97 N.J. 526 (1984), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 475 U.S. 355, 106 S. Ct. 1104, 89 L. Ed. 2d 364 (1986), where respondents informed appellants that their comments "need not be considered." Id. at 133. No dismissive rejection of appellants' comments occurred here. Respondents' responses were characterized by a thorough and careful analysis of each comment submitted. In the CBBMP, the Council responded to many issues raised by comments, including: the sex and age structure of the 2003 hunt; alleged fabrication of bear complaints and speculation about the increase of such fabrications; the human safety risks posed by hunting; and the dangers posed by bears as well as the frequency of deaths caused by bears. The Council's responses to these comments more than satisfied its statutory obligation to publish a summary of all comments received as well as its responses to such comments. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4(a)(4).
Appellants next maintain that respondents provided disingenuous responses to several comments, including: its response to a 2005 report authored by Professor Tavss; comments about aversive conditioning; bears' self-regulation; the dangers of hunting; whether the hunt was a trophy hunt; alternatives to hunting; and concerns about a bear relocation program.
Respondents claim that they considered and addressed these issues in detail and responded to experts' analyses, articles and reports submitted.
Respondents note that conflicting opinions generated by responsive comments received during adherence to the procedures mandated by the APA do not require respondents to change their position to that of appellants. See Mercer Cnty. Deer Alliance, supra, 349 N.J. Super. at 449 ("While there may be some scientific dispute . . . , there is a wealth of respectable professional and scientific literature supporting the determinations represented by the Plan. It was clearly within the discretion of the Division and the Council to evaluate the available scientific literature and professional opinion and to determine which of various theories and approaches to adopt."). The responses to appellants' comments were not disingenuous. Disagreement with a reasoned, supported agency determination does not give rise to an APA violation. Respondents did not violate the APA in their responses to appellants' comments.
Appellants allege that respondents published the adoption of the CBBMP with a four-month delay and that they did so in bad faith. They claim that this was a tactic to force appellants to rush into court on the eve of the bear hunt and meet the higher standard of emergent relief. Appellants argue that during those four months, respondents implemented the bear hunt absent a valid comprehensive black bear management policy, in violation of the APA. U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, supra, 182 N.J. at 479 (requiring a comprehensive black bear management policy before holding a bear hunt); N.J. Animal Rights Alliance v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 396 N.J. Super. 358 (App. Div. 2007) (invalidating the 2005 CBBMP due to failure to follow APA procedures). Appellants conclude that respondents' bad faith delay and violation of the APA require that the CBBMP be invalidated.
Respondents assert that any delay in publication was the result of the considerable time and care the Council invested in reading, considering, organizing and responding to over 9000 comments. Intervenors note that appellants' allegation of bad faith is purely speculative; moreover, whatever hindrance the publication had on appellants' ability to challenge the 2010 bear hunt, the publication was available well in advance of the 2011 hunt.
Respondents did not violate the APA in publishing the CBBMP. Respondents cannot be faulted for devoting the time and energy necessary to respond to the numerous comments received in response to the proposed CBBMP. Most important, any delay in 2010 has no bearing on appellants' ability to challenge the CBBMP in 2011.
Appellants argue that comments from Commenter #754, John Donahue, Superintendent of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DWGNRA), were misconstrued and inappropriately included in a list of comments that "supported the proposed CBBMP." In the response, respondents claimed that Donahue's comment commends respondents' efforts in developing the CBBMP, explains that he must cooperate with New Jersey and Pennsylvania to develop hunting regulations and offers to establish and manage bear check stations in the DWGNRA. The record reveals that Donahue recommends that the DWGNRA support higher bear densities than was recommended in the policy and commends the Council's nonlethal efforts to curb the black bear population in New Jersey. Although Donahue's comment does not similarly commend the Council for the hunting component of the CBBMP, he does not contradict the Council's statement that he is among the commenters who "indicated that hunting was the best tool available to control the black bear population." 42 N.J.R. 2776.
The APA requires that the agency comply substantially with its mandate that all comments be considered. Even if the Council misconstrued or perhaps exaggerated Donahue's comments and support for its actions, we cannot say that such response in isolation (or even assuming a minimal number of other such responses) would support a finding that respondents violated the APA.
Appellants also challenge respondents' failure to present a summary as well as to respond to questions at the public hearing. The APA requires that, "[a]t the beginning of each hearing . . . the agency, if it has made a proposal, shall present a summary of the factual information on which its proposal is based, and shall respond to questions posed by any interested party." N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4(g). Appellants maintain that at the May 11, 2010 public hearing on the proposed CBBMP, respondents failed to present a summary of the factual information on which the Council's proposal was based. Furthermore, appellants claim that, while Division biologist Patrick Carr answered some questions, he refused to answer many questions at the public hearing and failed to provide explanations in the adoption document published in the New Jersey Register, in violation of the APA.
Respondents counter that the proposed CBBMP was available to the public before the public hearing and fully explained the basis for the proposed policy. 42 N.J.R. 753(a). The policy was summarized and its main components highlighted. Copies of the proposed policy were made available to attendees of the May 11, 2010 public hearing. Respondents informed attendees that those questions requiring lengthier responses than time allowed or those requiring review by the agency would receive responses after the close of public comment, which would be published in the New Jersey Register. With regard to specific questions about sex ratio and dangers of hunting raised during the hearing, respondents point to their responses to these comments in the record. Explanations of the various management tools available and evaluations of those proposed tools are contained in the proposed CBBMP and the later adopted CBBMP.
Here, while the better practice would have been to provide the summary, respondents substantially complied with the APA. Participants in the public hearing had access to the data and information that formed the basis of the Council's proposal. See In re Adoption of Amendments and New Regulations at N.J.A.C. 7:27-27.1, 392 N.J. Super. 117, 140 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 192 N.J. 295 (2007) ("As to the disclosure issue, suffice it to say, the June 10, 2003 memo used data that [appellant] itself had supplied . . . , [and] there is no indication that [the documents] contained information on which DEP needed to rely . . . ."). See also American Cyanamid Co. v. State, 231 N.J. Super. 292, 309 (App. Div. 1989) (acknowledging that the model and technology used by the agency was not placed in the actual record on adoption of the regulation but noting that the data used by the agency is public information and holding that the agency's oversight did not cause substantial prejudice because the affected parties had access to the information).
We have previously observed that an agency's failure to respond to all questions during a hearing is not fatal to the agency's subsequent promulgation of the resulting regulation. American Cyanamid, supra, 231 N.J. Super. at 310 ("[i]n reaching our conclusion, we are mindful of the important public policies advanced by the safeguards established under the Administrative Procedure Act. We also recognize, however, that administrative agencies must possess the ability to be flexible . . . ."). Attendees of the public hearing had access to the proposed CBBMP and respondents provided either contemporaneous oral responses or written responses to the majority of questions raised during the hearing. Most important, participants in the hearing had an opportunity to be heard, the Council considered their concerns, and respondents substantially complied with the APA.
We conclude that respondents substantially met its obligations under the APA.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us

subset: commoncrawl


text:
£63,500 Fixed price
* Superb Maisonette
* Lovely Bright Double Bedroom
* Attractive Lounge
* Kitchen and Shower Room
* Study Area with Space for Single Bed
* Gas Central Heating Double Glazing
* Communal Drying Area
* Lovely Location
* Well Presented
This is a lovely upper maisonette on the fringe of Edzell village, with accommodation comprising a spacious, bright double bedroom, an attractive lounge, kitchen and a shower room. There is a most useful study area which could accommodate a single bed should the need arise. There is double glazing and gas central heating, and a communal drying area to the rear. This is a lovely property which must be viewed to be appreciated.
Dimensions in Metres Lounge 3.71 x 2.8 Kitchen 2.55 x 1.86 Shower Room 1.56 x 1.77 Study Area 3.87 x 2.4 (narrowing to 1.5) Bedroom 5.3 x 2.9 into coombs. EPC=D
The popular village of Edzell is a small attractive community which offers a selection of shops, restaurants, post office, medical centre, bank and primary school. Social activities nearby include: salmon fishing, grouse shooting, listed walks and a bowling club. Secondary education is at Mearns Academy, Laurencekirk and also Brechin High School. There is a country club within the Glen Esk Hotel a renowned 18 hole golf course also a 9 hole golf course.Our View
A Lovely, Quaint, Affordable Property in an Excellent Location.IMPORTANT NOTE TO PURCHASERS:
We endeavour to make our sales particulars accurate and reliable, however, they do not constitute or form part of an offer or any contract and none is to be relied upon as statements of representation or fact. The services, systems and appliances listed in this specification have not been tested by us and no guarantee as to their operating ability or efficiency is given. All measurements have been taken as a guide to prospective buyers only, and are not precise. Floor plans where included are not to scale and accuracy is not guaranteed. If you require clarification or further information on any points, please contact us, especially if you are travelling some distance to view. Fixtures and fittings other than those mentioned are to be agreed with the seller.
This house description is based upon information supplied by the owner, or on behalf of the owner. These property particulars are produced in good faith and do not constitute or form part of any contract. s1homes do not take any responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained in this document.
If a property value displays '0', don't worry it just means no properties have been sold in that area during that time.
Sold house price data is supplied to us by the Registers of Scotland, a government department responsible for compiling and maintaining property registers, every month. There can be a delay of up to 3 months from when a property is sold to being recorded with Registers of Scotland. We provide house price data for your information only, we do not accept any liability for any errors. If you have noticed any incorrect information, please contact Registers of Scotland.


text:
Big Brother 18: Who Is Playing The Best Game? [Op-ed]| August 16, 2016 at 12:00 PM EST
Big Brother 18 has been a very unusual season so far as no one person or one alliance has been dominating the game, which is something we've all grown used to during the past several seasons.
Out of the gate we had the vets, or "returners" as Julie Chen and the BB announcer liked to call them, lead by Frank calling the shots. Then after the vets clashed — thanks to Da'Vonne and Frank — Paulie took over. Paulie's reign lasted a few weeks longer than Frank's, but as we've seen in the past week, it's all but gone. Paulie's only hope is that he has that Round Trip ticket and gets another shot this week (or there's another Battle Back in the works).
So who will take over the game now? That's not a bad question to ask, but instead of that question, I have a better one. And that's who has been playing the best game all along that we may have simply overlooked? Nicole? No way. She's playing for the guys and that's very clear. Michelle? Nah. She's too messy. Natalie? Well, Natalie is an option. But a lot of her gameplay has been accidental or from a place of aggravation.
OK, I'm just going to say it. Paul. Paul has been playing the best game so far. He's playing what is the actual definition of a floater. And that's not the dirty word Rachel Reilly and many players and fans after her have made it out to be. Floater doesn't mean a person who sleeps all summer, doesn't win competitions and then votes with the house before they get evicted in anywhere from 5th to third place.
A floater is a person who goes where the power is and some how manages to maintain relationships with everyone in the house. That's not an easy job to do. The best floaters have a side angle or two as well. Take season 4 winner Jun Song. Jun literally invented the floater game. She went where the power was, but she also had two secret weapons: her cooking and her secret frenemy alliance with Alison Irwin.
In my opinion, no one has ever played the floater game quite like Jun, but season 15 winner Andy Herren came close. But of course his floater game was post-Rachel's "grab a life vest" comment in Big Brother 12. So Andy got little respect from fans and was often compared to a rat. Which brings me back to Paul.
Earlier in the season, people were calling Paul a rat and comparing him to Andy. There were Twitter memes about it and all the typical insane fan reactions. But call it what you will, it can be a very effective strategy. And it has been for Paul so far. Will it get him to the end? Well with his secret weapons, it's very possible.
Paul's secret weapons, of course, are Victor (who can win competitions and get the blood on his hands) and, I can't believe I'm going to type this, friendship. Paul is just likable. Everyone in the house likes him. Everyone in the house trusts him. Everyone in the house tells him things. And he's always around. He never misses anything going on.
Think about Paul's game. He was on Da'Vonne's team, so he ended up with her trust. He was on the non-8 Pack's side of the house and was kind of the one keeping them afloat (sorry, Josea). And then he moved on to PP with Paulie. And then he ended up in the Executives with the boys. And now he's in whatever the people who aren't Paulie, Nicole and Corey are calling themselves. I don't think there's an official alliance there, but that's beside the point.
Paul has been in all parts of this season and he pushed for arguably the biggest move of the season, which happened this week. Sure Victor won HOH and nominated Corey and Paulie, but Victor was reluctant. Paul was Victor's brain this week.
Don't get me wrong, this is Big Brother and anything can happen. Everything Victor and Paul worked for this week could backfire if BB decides to do something to shake things up. Big Brother 16 winner Derrick Levasseur has even said striking at Paulie this week was a mistake. I'm not sure why he thinks so, but it seemed like a good idea to me and the majority of Big Brother fans. So we'll just wait and see who is right.
Even if this plan does backfire, Paul still has himself in a better position than Victor, James and Natalie. So he could still have a chance to continue his solid gameplay.
Do I think Paul is a mastermind who can get to the end and win the game no matter what? No. Paul isn't a student of Big Brother. He's seen very little of the show and is what I'm going to call self-taught. He's not a dumb guy, but he's made a few rookie mistakes here and there. So his game hasn't been a flawless one, but this cast has been so messy that his game looks pretty good comparatively.
And since I know at least half of you are going to call me crazy for talking up Paul, I'm going to say that Natalie has also been one of the better players this season. She figured out things before anyone else and she knew the right little fires to start to get the ball rolling to get Paulie out of the game. So she definitely deserves a mention here.
Regardless of who is playing the best game, Big Brother 18 has really kicked into gear the past week and I hope the power players who are helping that along continue to give us something worth watching.
Who do you think is playing the best Big Brother 18 game?
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS! LEAVE A COMMENT NOW:Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation or is insulting to others, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. No ALL-CAPS.
105 Responses to "Big Brother 18: Who Is Playing The Best Game? [Op-ed]"
Paul is a top tier player and best player this season
Paul started off at the bottom and saw his alliance decimated in the 1st few weeks. Then he worked his way into the power alliance by agreeing to be a pawn.
After the 1st power shift happened and Frank was overthrown he became Paulie's right hand man. For the next 3 weeks he was 100% safe with Paulie.
Then this power shift against Paulie that is in its 3rd and final round sets him up for top 5. Him and Victor can win out the last 3 rounds and then he will sit in final 2 with someone who was already evicted and win the game.
He might have been nominated 3 times but he got out of the cycle and is now the front runner to win
He sure knows when and how to jump ship, and where to go next. Its going to keep him in this game for a while, as long as he can keep pointing targets elsewhere and not stirring up too much chaos.
I have to agree. Early on, it looked like Paul would be a goner, but his social game has saved him and put him in a place of power the last two weeks. After him, I'd put Natalie and Victor in a tie for #2 (best game-wise, not what position they'll finish the season in). At this point, frankly, everyone else's game has been terrible.
I feel like Paul lack of knowledge of pervious big brother seasons is an advantage for him. I feel like people on the house don't really compare his game to anyone else's from pervious seasons. I do agree that Paul has self taught himself how to play and it is working out for him really well. I hope he makes it to the end.
Paul is the best one right now. He convinced Victor to put up Paulie and Corey and is now against Nicole, even though Victor liked her.
Natalie is in a good spot, but her game has been horrible, even though she was criticizing Zakhya's game which is very similar to hers. I do think Natalie is more aware than Z was.
Victor has a good chance to win comps and hopefully the package, but I think he trusts Paul too much and that could be the end for him soon. Paul would rather stay with one of the floater girls.
I don't think Natalie's game is all that horrible though. She's one of the main reasons the house went against Paulie in the first place. She's a pretty decent player in my opinion. I don't know if she could win, but she's not too bad :)
Completley Agree with this analysis. I think this is a really weak cast but I do think that Paul and Natalie both have all the raw skills to be good big brother players and are learning on the fly. I think Natalie is extremely intuitive. I think if both were to play again and learn strategy… they could compete well against better players.
In reference to getting out Paulie… Once he's gone… and Nicole and Corey become the biggest target… once you get rid of one of them Paul and Victor become the biggest target with 7 or so to go. He might have the social skills to pull it off but strategically I don't think he's savy enough. What do you guys think.
I think Natalie and Paul are the best players too. Natalie needs to get some competition wins though
Does it specify on the care package if Co-HoH can win HoH the next week? Idk if it does. If the co can become HoH the next week then, if you're on the Paul and Victor team, you should 100% be voting for Victor as Co-HoH. If he can win Co-HoH next week will be all set for The Sitting Ducks (Paul and Victor's alliance name). Then they'd have to win HoH again, and again, and again. I don't really see any other scenario besides winning continuously that The Sitting Ducks can get to F2, and essentially comp wins is what will end up carrying players to the F2. BB18 is now one of those seasons where comps will decide the winner. I'm very excited to see what happens. For a boring season at first, it's becoming pretty freaking exciting
Definitely Paul and Victor, I would love to see them in the finale beside each other.
If Nicole or Natalie used their brains they could easily become in a power position and dominate the game. They both could easily go to Meech and say the girls tried to take us out and form a girls alliance. Then they also have the showmances which they could make an alliance out of. Then only Paul and Victor are in their way and they would have to win a competition to ensure they get out, but if Nicole and Natalie put their heads together they could win!
Let's hope they don't then. If Paul gets HOH Thursday and Vic is co-HOH then neither can play for HOH the next week and they would surely go up on the block. I hope the girls and James are too dumb to realize the sitting ducks are running the house now.
I mean it's not like the house is blind though, Paulie and Corey were talking about targeting Paul last night!
I agree but with one exception. I am not quite sure whoever get's CO-HOH can't play for the next HOH. I fully expect either Nicole or Corey to win HOH this week.
I'm hoping Nicole wins and Corey gets co-HOH. When Paulie had control everyone wanted the underdogs (Natalie, Michelle and Bridgette) so now that it's 5 that gang up on people and it will only be Nicole and Corey (the underdogs) I hope they win. Otherwise it will be boring because we'll know exactly who's going week after week. And Nicole won comps on her season. She needs to step up.
Yeah you would think they are the underdogs and in a way they are. The fact that they have played (not played) this year will not make them underdogs but good luck to them as well since if they win we already know who will go up just like we know who will go up i the majority side wins.
Actually with Nicole and Corey you don't know who'd go up. Makes things more exciting. But with any of the 5 winning you do know who will go up.
I think if Corey or Nicole wins, both James and Natalie will be going up with Michelle as a renom if one of them wins the POV.
They've also mentioned Paul and Victor. That's what I mean you don't know.
I think it's BS that the co- HOH can't play for HOH the next week, both HOH's this week are "co" so both should be able to play next week.
Help me out here, so far your the only one that has said (that I have read to date) that the Co-HOH can't participate in the HOH that follows this weeks HOH. Please bring me up to date as to where to find that.
Its the way the CBS promo read.. Maybe u should go read it and give ur take on it..
I went back and reread that promo. It states that the CO-HOH shares all perks and responsiblites of the HOH but it doesn't say they do not nor can not participate in the following HOH. Just my take on it and we will find out later. I hope your not right on that but it will be what it is.
I hope I'm wrong, I asked it on here a few days ago and a few people commented saying that's how it would be, but honestly no one really knows until Julie says it. People were just saying that the co-HOH would have all the responsibilities the first HOH had so assumed they would have the same negative aspects as well
I reread it too but I didn't go away with that part of it. Maybe your right and Julie will explain it better when the person (Victor) get's it.
I posted/ said that yesterday about the HOH & CO-HOH. The way I read the promo the CO-HOH is under the same rules as the winning HOH. A smart player would have to think long and hard about "not" putting Paul or Victor or both OTB while the option presented itself.. Paul was right in saying to Victor that the #'s to get Paulie out this week may not be there next week so I don't get Derricks reasoning either…I said that the coming week is gonna be very interesting….just wait for it….
IMO Nicole has done nothing except play with Corey. She does not deserve to win.
You used 'Nicole' and 'brains' in the same sentence? Lol hahaha.
At this point, I'd be surprised if anyone but Natalie won…she has the clearest path to victory.
If Natalie can catch on to Paul and Victor before it's too late, then by all means if she pulls off their evictions she deserves to win. If she cannot, she will not even make the final two. I think Paul is the person to beat and Natalie and heck, maybe even Victor could, but it's not set in stone.
"Natalie has also been one of the better players this season" ROTF! But I get it, why you would say that on here…
Gameplay wise, she has definitely been one of the more strategically savvy houseguests this season, although it might not mean much compared to how most of the house has been playing. I would love to see Paul win at this point, but Natalie's strategic game has been pretty strong. Her social game, although good at manipulation (hence her strategic prowess), is in most other aspects lacking, so it's clear she isn't playing a winning game, unless she makes the final with James.
I agree with you on the Paul stuff… I would like to him win too, over any of the other HG…
I immediately thought of Paul when I ready the headline for this. He was on everyone's list to go in the beginning and now he has everyone's trust. He came in a hot head with Victor and Jozae and had no idea what he was doing but he figured it out quick. I say "way to go, Paul!". I hope final three are Paul, Natalie, and James.
James took awhile to make a move but I think he was following Derrick's advice and laying low until he had to strike (using his ACP power).
With these three in the final, it would really be anyone's game and I would love to see that instead of the predictable seasons we keep getting year after year.
I am sure James has laid low so far this season but to ensure his game he needs to win HOH.
I agree.
I think your right about them taking out Vic to make it to the end together. It would be a smart move. Vic waited for his reign to take out Paulie and I'm glad to see it. But James Paul and Nat would make on hell of a showdown since each has their oun area of expertise. It would be anybodys game straight to the end:)
I like Victor cause he wasn't afraid to make a big move, and he wins comps but I'm not sure where he would be right now without Paul. On the block in Paulie World I'd guess. Hope they both
make final 2.
There is no love lost between Paul and Nicole and I think she is the person that Paul will need to watch the most. If she wins HOH, she will be gunning for him. Of course, this next week, it will be utterly impossible for Corey or Nic to vote any of the others out(without some OTHER twist, like HOH advantage maybe?)even if one of them wins the HOH comp. The only way would be for Nic to win and Corey to get the CP. I think Paul is playing an awesome game. His and Vic's relationship entertains me greatly.
Paul would be a good one to say but I haven't counted out anyone else just yet. There is still plenty of time for a underdog to win HOH and make even a bigger move.
If it wasn't for the girls deciding to take Paulie down, Paul would not be in this good position. He was very very wise to align with them against Paulie Inc. It was an unsafe move that most BB players would not do. This has not happened to my memory ever because people are too scared to make a big move against the bossy one. James was very scared to go against Paulie, if he wasn't so crazy for Nat, he certainly would not have done so. Van and Amanda were the bossy ones for their season and I couldn't wait for them to leave!!
I agree. The girls were responsible for Paul's flip, and then he convinced Victor. I do see the girls hiding behind Paul and Victor and unless one of them start winning some comps, their only game move won't make much of a difference and they will go home one after the other.
Agreed. Paul is more aware and more influential than Natalie. Went from being one of the most hated to one of the most loved. Not an easy trick. And once America sees his Secret Service punishment this week, they'll choose him as AFP.
Or heck maybe the President might hire him as a secret service agent.
Lol JK
Doubt he'll be in the running for AFP. One, he's primed to get to the end at this point, should Corey go next week, and Two, America seems to like James and Natalie???? more.
If I recall, before Victor re-entered the House, he was told by Bronte to "Trust Paul" ?? Wondering how much of this advice was taken to heart by Victor and what direction he would have taken, if not for this advice from Bronte ? Hmmm
Considering where Paul was at by end of week 2 .. quite surprised that he has been able to last this far, let alone being one of the powerhouse(s) this Season ?
People are starting to mention Pauls name. Hopefully him and Victor will be sitting side by side sooner rather then later. Didn't like either of their behavior the first couple of weeks. And who the heck is Jun? She is one of the most forgettable players of BB history. She won by default because everyone hated Allison more then Jun. Nobody even clapped when she won. One of the most boring players in BB history.
To be honest, both of them (Paul/Vic) have the biggest target. Specially, Vic. Derrick even said, the girls will realized they're not gonna win sitting with any of them and could be tempted to take them out with the help of James.
Yep, I don't see a happy ending for the Vic/Paul duo. They are going to be the next targets the HGs are going to want to get out.
And James gets cut from the girl gang
I wish Nicole and Corey would team up with James and Natalie. Get to the F4 and fight it out.
She still won Big Brother. Only 17 people can say that. And she is the only non-white person to ever do so.
She's forgettable. And one of the worst players to ever win. Nobody even wanted to give it to her. It was laughable when they walked out and nobody clapped. I would of been embarrassed.
But they still voted for her for the money because she had better relationships with them. Just because she didn't play a flashy game doesn't mean she played a bad one. Her main aim is to win $500000 not to entertain people
Well we'll have to agree to disagree. She was very boring and forgettable.
What Radio said, and also the fact that jury votes in Survivor and Big Brother have long proved you do not need to make the jury want to give you the money, you simply need to make them want to give it to you more than your opponent(s).
Which is one of the two reasons why it's a mistake for these HGs' long-term games to get rid of Paulie now.
Paul is probably playing one of the better games but I don't count out Nat and Victor, in fact I think after Paulie goes it can be anyone's game. I don't agree with Derrick that it's a mistake to take out Paulie this week. In the past how many times have we seen a player left in the game because everyone felt they could get them out at any time. The house guests know that Paulie is strong in comps and they now know that he has lied to all of them and probably has no allegiance to anyone except maybe Corey, so I think they did the right thing. You have to strike while the iron is hot.
Keeping around a bad sport like the wouldent be smart by any measure. Just am starting to hate this whole RT ticket
I haven't liked the RT from the get go. I don't like when they bring players back into the game. Most of the time the player winds up going right back out so why bother. Victor seems to be the exception here.
I'm curious of Derrick's reason why it's a mistake to takeout Paulie…what did he say?
added: never mind, I just read the article, he didn't say why. Anyway, I don't agree with him.
I am stumped by why he said that as well.. unless it has to do with the RT or a juror returning..hmmmm food for thought..
I agree it was the right time – while the majority of available votes was highly excited and collectively upset at him. Don't pull a Helen – lol
..and he's only asking for a week. One week less for being claustrophobic in the Jury house..the mansion.
I agree. Paul is playing the best game by far.
I really don't think Nat is playing the game. Seems like she is basically just hanging out and looking for sympathy…..unless that is her game.
Although I still don't think Nicole is rat or a snake I am disappointed that all she wants to do is cuddle with Cody. She should have been delevolping other relatiobships as well.
Victor is doing well too. I like how he has stood up to Paulie.
Michelle is too easily manipulated and her allies know that. She will probably get cut from that side first.
Cody seems to just be there to agree with Paulie and cuddle with Nicole.
James is not playing a bad game either. Hopefully he keeps his head in the game and doesn't sacrafice his game for Natalie.
No one is playing particularly well.
Victor is likely to go out like all big comp threats do. But he did well to get himself back in the mix on his re-entry.
Nicole … I don't get Nicole. She will actually be in a better place if Corey gets evicted in the next couple weeks. It will let her go alliance shopping, but the relationship with Day and her flip flopping may have sunk her.
Michelle … Even failed at getting evicted. That's right, she was so excited to be back on a 'team' that her grand plan was to take all the heat for the vote flip so she would go out. And Bridgette went instead. Ironically, she is in a not bad spot at the moment, but little of it is because of her.
Natalie … Decent social game and quite good at figuring things out, but the Z vote flip was literally her first foray into trying anything at all. The good news is that while Paulie blamed her for a lot, Corey and Nicole seem to like her and James more than other options. She could be in a good spot.
James … My candidate for playing the best game, even though it is a pretty terrible one. Still has relationships on both sides of the house, and is liked. But has been going with the flow too much prior to last week. He needs to successful put NiCorey against Victor and Paul.
Paul – is he in a good spot? Sure. And his social game is decent.
But you could argue he is where he is in spite of his play, not because of it. He survived the first weeks only because Victor and Jozea were even worse than him. PP may have protected him, but he was protected for doing exactly what Paulie wanted, including giving up a potential ally because she was Paulie's target.
He has solid control of Victor, but loyalties outside of that may not favour him. He really needs to cement a final 2 with Michelle and keep it quiet, or if Nicole goes next week, rope Corey back into a boys alliance.
If Victor makes it to F2, regardless of his Competition Wins, wondering if the Jury will see it the same way, as he had already been evicted and able to return to the Game? In particularly, when the rest of the House, if I recall, had originally agreed to send the returnee HG back out the door ?? Hmmm !!!
It depends who he's with in the finale. If it's Paul or Natalie he has no chance. If it's someone like James, he seems to have some chacne
I don't know about Natalie. I mean, we (the viewers) can see what she's done and why she should be a serious contender to win, but I fear that the other players will see her as just a cute girl who got where she is because she was absolutely no threat. I'm still rooting for Natalie, though.
Derrick and Steve were superfans. So this year it will probably be James.
It has to be Paul or Victor. I'd give the edge to Paul. Vic will continue to get his by winning comps, Paul has to play the social game. He was my absolute least favorite player at the start (big douchey beard, millennial soliloquies, aligning with the worst people in the house) but now I get the feeling that he's figured out how Big Brother is supposed to be played. From what I gather he was not familiar with the show when he was selected but has become a relatively quick study.
It's funny how someone who knew very little later picked up on the game. And that's pretty much Paul.
I agree and good for him. I hate when they have house guests that don't know the history, other than the DVD they give them of the last season to watch in sequester before they move in. Pleasantly surprised to see someone with no knowledge figure it out on their own.
Well to be fair, Dr Will had no knowledge till Survivor players entered the game
I rewatched season 1-5 over the summer and it was a completely different game. You know, back when they let people over 30 play.
I think I can rank them from least to greatest:
8. Corey (similar to Shane Meany)- He's pretty much hiding behind Paulie along with Nicole. He has been nothing but Nicole's boy toy and Paulie's lackey. No big moves on his end is just bland all around to expect much from him.
7. Nicole (similar to Danielle Murphree)- Let's see. A nurse who's friendly at time, mean at other times, who wants nothing more than to have a husband on BB. Yeah she's Danielle M. Seriously it's like after she won week 1 HOH, she pretty much rolled over and died.
6. Paulie (Amanda Zuckerman)- Like Amanda, Paulie started out decent and was a pretty nice guy for the most part. That changed when he started to think more for himself causing Paul and Vic and James not to trust him. Let's also not forget that he's been a complete mental case, in which no one (minus Corey and Nicole) would team up with him. Sad, I had high hopes for him
5. Michelle (Lydia Tavera)- Originally Michelle was a mean girl who just hated Bridgette due to crush on Frank. But once Frank left she made amends with Bridgette and together with Natalie all three pretty much made the change in this game against Paulie.
4 James Hueling (Donny Thompson)- James has so far not been nominated yet. Nobody seems to see him as a target or a threat. And the fact that he's pretty liked by everyone makes it easy for him to root for. I think if he focuses on the game rather than his relationship with Natalie he can do ten times better. Don't focus on love James. If you wanna take Natalie to final 2 that's fine, but focus on the game with her rather than make out all day.
3. Victor Arroyo (Caleb Reynolds)- Pretty much what happens if Johnny Mac and Caleb fused together and make a comeback kid with a really strong comp game. He later matured after coming back even making amends with former enemy Natalie. Right now he's making all the right moves and is finally seeing Paulie for who he truly is.
2. Natalie Nerogotti (Jordan Lloyd)- I didn't think much of Natalie when she first came in. I thought she was gonna be clone of Jordan. And I was slightly wrong. Because why did Jordan win? Because nobody liked Natalie Martinez? Kinda, but Jordan also has pretty good social game which earned her votes from people who didn't even like her (Jessie & Lydia). If she focuses more on the game and taking James to the end, I think she may win due to more strategic and social gameplay.
1. Paul Abhrahamian (Enzo Palumbo)- Paul originally came off as one of Jozea's goons which made him a target. After Victor left the first time, Paul later sharpened up his gameplay and tried to bond with people in the house. Even the weirdest things he does, like making muffins for the houseguests pretty much makes him a really good social player. And when he realized that Paulie didn't have his back, he intimidatly changed sides and went against Paulie. Right now Paul is in a good spot and if he can take anyone to the end, I think he'll win.
Fantastic article
I agree except James was being mentioned a number of times by paulie.
In addition, I would place vic as #2, with Paul and vic alternating between #1 and #2.
Natalie should be #3
Great job Dan!
I agree with everything on this, love it!
I agree with everything except James making out with Nat all day. I haven't seen a lot if any making out with those two. James used his america's prize wisely. He got Z out and started the ball rolling for Vic's big move, even though he knew he would receive the wrath of Paulie.
I was kinda exaggerating on that part meaning he has a showmance and he needs to focus on the game.
Natalie does not even come close to Jordan. Jordan was actually sweet.
I'm talking as far as gameplay. And in 13 Jordan did talk crap behind others' back.
All these comments….Has anyone ever played a good game? And I am not talking about winners only. There are 8 people left. In past seasons how many of the last 8 were playing good games. Not even 5 I would guess. Everyone will have their strengths and weaknesses.
Paul is playing the BEST game (different from a good game). He is social, wins some comps here and there and influences people.
Victor…..comp beast
Paulie….comp beast but horrible person
Nicole….dickmatized and hasnt really done anything of not. Just bigger targets than her.
Corey….brain seems to be occupied with things other than thinking but he has won comps here and there
James….playing a pretty good game so far. Deliberately throwing comps, social game, and….talking to much? It seems hes honest and tells people stuff b4 hand so no one hates him? Seems to be working for him.
Natalie….hasnt done much other than the last few weeks with Z and then Paulie.
Meech…..I dont think shes done anything of note besides crying like a idiot
Corey's brain 'seems to be occupied with things other than thinking'..
HAHA! That comment wins today's internets!!! Lol
Maybe Jozea really is the Big Brother Messiah… His two disciples have the biggest chances at winning this season!
Paul, Victor and Natalie are the most impressive to me. Although I still like James and Michelle
The phone booth.
I just think Andy wasn't as smooth as Paul with the floating. If I remember correctly, Andy would more likely force himself into conversations and rooms where there's whispering. Paul uses the power of "friendship" to naturally be able to be in the know of things and has good sense to know when to shift/float to the other side naturally.
Yes, Paul is the actual true definition of a floater, and there's nothing wrong with that strategy, as it has worked in the past and, clearly, is keeping Paul safe. But thinking he's playing a good game and liking him as a player are two different things.
As far as Derrick saying this was the wrong week to strike at Paulie… he's right. And I'm going to come at this from a gameplay standpoint rather than a viewer one. After this week, Paulie is a target. That bullseye is firmly on his back and it's not going away. What these HGs have is an advantage in Paulie, which is why they need to keep him. He's always going to be a target before them. Any of these HGs can use him as a shield to guarantee safe passage to the end. Furthermore, should they end up sitting next to Paulie at F2? A few weeks ago, I would've said that's a mistake. Not anymore. None of the jurors will vote for Paulie if someone like Victor or Paul or, yes, James is sitting next to him. It's a guaranteed win.
And before anyone says "why would we want to reward that behavior?", let's not forget who's been rewarded for being a mean person in the house in previous seasons. Natalie from BB11 and GinaMarie of BB15 are two of the biggest offenders of this.
But that's what happened last season with Vanessa and she almost made it to F2. Everyone was saying how much they hated her but said if she was in F2 they would've voted for her to win. They thought she was a target in front of them and it didn't work out that way.
I just think this was the perfect time because you still have the votes to get him out. If you wait too long you won't have those votes or you can't guarantee you'll have those votes. Right now you can.
Timing is important for these things and with the get them out now or wait argument its hard for me to know which is better. On Survivor it's clear, get them out when you can, but here, not so much.
They haven't done a very good job of keeping the bigger targets around imo. Sure they talk about it but they still got them out pretty quick. Its funny to me when they talk in the DR about how it would be better for their game to keep so and so around as the target but like clockwork they leave anyway.
I see both sides of the argument. The problem is Paulie wins comps, so better safe than sorry. Get him out when they have the chance. We have seen this time and time again and yelled at the TV how stupid the HG were.
I think Paulie will be back anyway with all these twists and turns. If he comes back and wins HOH, James is going. What I did really like about James is he had a honest conversation last week with Nat and told her to be prepared because the time will come where they will not be able to keep each other safe.
Little nat nat will throw James right under the bus when push comes to shove. You can't trust those jersey girls.
I called it after Vic was evicted. They kept 'teaching' him how to play the game and kept underestimating him. The student is now schooling them.
What's up with Paulie going naked twice today? In the kitchen and walking around…has he totally lost it?
He told a story the other day that this is how he would cook when he and his girlfriend lived together. Just in case something came up, he'd be ready.
Maybe he wants Natalie to pop up in the kitchen. Oh wait, she's I'll from all of his shenanigans.
Cause if something does come up it takes too long to remove a pair of shorts and you lose the something that came up?
I like Paul better than Andy because of his personality. Andy was a rat not only because of gameplay but personality. Paul seems more likeable and not as insulting to others, even though he can be brash in the DR.
All you Paul fans-are kidding me? He has shown his true colors. He is gross. He is a fake tough guy. He made fun of Natalie, called her FT to her face. He was "bragging" how he was going to terrorize Bridgette once Frank was out. Make her cry. Make her "lose it"…He had a stick up his butt with Frank and would start conversations with Frank then run back to the rest of the house like a rat to report. He also pleasured himself on camera and the live feeds (was quite gross)…..I know it is BB and you have to lie, etc. But Paul has been at the forefront of personal attacks on people who were at the bottom of the totem pole. Even this week-Paulie is going home..how many times does Paul have to tell Natalie (another gross person) and James and Michelle to gang up on Paulie?
As for Natalie-the only reason she became relevant this game is b/c she is jealous that Paulie did not go for her…she was a mess when victor dumped her, then made up lies about him. Her entire convo with Z was to manipulate her to abandon Paulie if she had RT. Yet, when Paulie calls her out on that, he is the bad guy? He should not have used the language he did, but everything else he said was spot on. She is fake. She hugs it out with Paulie then 2 hours later is joining in on the gang up. Please!! She is fake. Anyone who thinks that she really likes James, well I have a bridge in NJ to sell you. It is in good shape. Don't worry.
Leave a Reply
Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, Big Big Brother, or other commentators will result in comment removal and possible ban. Any comments with links or flagged words will go into moderation before approval. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved. Comments left in ALL-CAPS will be deleted regardless of content.


text: I would like to recommend to you this free Kindle ebook titled "The Northern Depression: Why do Scandinavians commit suicides? ". This book covers the issue of so-called "northern depression" – the disease that during the last couple of decades touched thousands of Scandinavians. In many cases, the overall result of this disease was suicide of people suffering. The author aims to examine what are the causes of northern depression and why do Scandinavians regularly kill themselves. Is the geographical location the main influencing factor? What social groups are the most vulnerable to this threat? Personally, I think that it's an interesting read and I hope many of you will enjoy it. Please note that the book is completely free only for the next 5 days!


text:
Low Carb Pumpkin Spice Latte
Total Time
Prep 1 min
Cook 5 mins
Delicious version of the Starbuck's latte but without all the carbs. You can adjust the cream to coffee ratio to your own tastes.
Ingredients Nutrition
- 3⁄4 cup heavy cream
- 3 tablespoons canned pumpkin
- 3⁄4 cup strong brewed hot coffee
- 2 tablespoons Splenda sugar substitute
- 1 teaspoon pumpkin pie spice
- 1 dash nutmeg
- Combine heavy cream and pumpkin in a saucepan over medium heat and stir constantly. Stir in Splenda and spices. Heat just until boiling.
- Pour mixture into blender and process on high for 20 seconds (be careful!).
- Pour into a large cup, add coffee, and enjoy!
Most Helpful
I googled this because I wanted a low carb option to still be able to enjoy my pumpkin spice latte's .... I made it the first time with the cream- it was a bit too rich for me, and made my tummy hurt. So.... I did half the cream, and half milk.... I plan on replacing the milk with the hood carb control coffee, but all and all I am super pleased with the outcome! Very tasty!
Great alternative to Starbucks. I used a little less cream and added in some milk as I'm really sensitive to cream and it makes me ill. Still tasted great and the texture was good too.
This was delicious, but I thought it was too much cream for one drink and it watered down the pumpkin pie flavor. I used a homemade pumpkin pie spice blend (from this site) since I don't usually stock pumpkin pie spice, and that worked out well. I don't usually put sugar in my coffee, but I found that sugar really is necessary in this drink in order to get the right pumpkin pie flavor. Thank you, AnnieGirl. Made for Fall 2012 Pick-A-Chef.


text: I got an i-pod touch for christmas but havent been on it in ages. I went to use it the other day but cant remember the passcode that i put on it. Now it wont let me go on it because the codes im putting in are wrong. Is there anyway i can do something to it where i can get onto it without the code? Someone please help!! Would really appreciate it!!!


text:
Hotels near Miraflores Golf Club
Search hotels near Miraflores Golf Club in Malaga
Get Secret Prices on select hotels
These prices aren't available to everyone.
Trending now in Malaga
Hotels within 0.5 miles of Miraflores Golf Club
- Most bookedGrangefield Oasis ClubTop-rated for families
8 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Grangefield Oasis is a pleasant resort, and very good value. Our apartment had two bedrooms, lounge and kitchen area and extra sleeping room from Sofa-beds, and all for the price of an average hotel room. It's well-placed for access to all local attractions, but don't expect to be online much, th..."
A Traveller, May 2016, US
Hotels within 1 mile of Miraflores Golf Club
110 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"The apartment was great although really does need air conditioning ' we stayed during mid October with temperatures in the low mid twenties and by the end of the day the rooms were too warm, fans in the rooms helped although I would imagine during the heat of summer the rooms would be too hot. ..."
A Traveller, Nov 2016, GB
18 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
13 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Lovely clean apartment with beautiful view of the sea and mountains plenty of walking !!! Apartment on top of hill need to be quite fit or hire a car over all a lovely place to stay"
A Traveller, Nov 2016, GB
12 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"great stay. cleaning ladies done a great job. tidy clean and fresh apartment and good kitchen"
A Traveller, Jun 2016, GB
10 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"We were very impressed with the quality of the apartment (701). Key points are summarised below: Pros * Tastefully decorated throughout * Everything you need for a self-catering holiday * Spotlessly clean * Lovely garden with patio * Mature gardens * Very nice setting (on a hill overlooking Cala..."
A Traveller, Dec 2015, GB
10 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"La Perla De Torrenueva is a wonderful hidden treasure. We stayed in La Casita a delightful quaint detached cottage. It has its own garden with a table and chairs and two good quality sun beds. Great for some really private r&r. The views are stunning. It's peaceful and the hosts make you feel rea..."
A Traveller, Oct 2016, GB
7 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
- Mijas Costa 101380 2 Bedroom Apartment By Mo RentalsNo Guest Reviews yet
6 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Exquisite food. Top quality drinks and overall facilities were top notch. Luxury all the way through. Can't wait to return next year. Missing it already"
A Traveller, Sep 2015, GB
Map of hotels near Miraflores Golf Club
- Fuengirola Beach
- Benalmadena Costa
- La Carihuela
- Torre del Mar
- Calahonda
- Malaga Cathedral
- Los Boliches Beach
- Malagueta Beach
- Costa del Sol Square
- Calle Larios
- Los Alamos Beach
- Bajondillo Beach
- Playamar Beach
- Torreblanca Beach
- Casino Torrequebrada
- University of Malaga
- Parador Malaga Golf Club
- Cabopino Golf Marbella
- Alcazaba
- Palace of Congresses and Exhibitions
Hotels in Malaga near Miraflores Golf Club
Are you looking for a cheap Miraflores Golf Club hotel, a 5 star Miraflores Golf Club hotel or a family friendly Miraflores Golf Club hotel? You just landed in the best site to find the best deals and offers on the most amazing accommodations for your stay.
When you search for hotels near Miraflores Golf Club with Hotels.com, you need to first check our online map and see the distance you will be from Miraflores Golf Club, Spain.
Our maps are based on hotel search and display areas and neighborhoods of each hotel so you can see how close you are from Miraflores Golf Club and refine your search within Malaga or Spain based on closest public transportation, restaurants and entertainment so you can easily get around the city. All the hotels details page show an option for free or paid onsite parking.
If you wish to see the hotels with the highest featuring discounts and deals near Miraflores Golf Club, simply filter by price/ average nightly rate. We recommend you filter by star rating and read our genuine guest reviews so you can get the best quality hotel with the best discount.
One of the new features on Hotels.com guest reviews is that also show reviews from Expedia for Miraflores Golf Club hotels and the TripAdvisor Miraflores Golf Club hotels reviews so you can make sure that you checking with a reliable source. See the review scores on our Malaga hotel information pages.
Make the most out of your family vacation when you book your accommodation with Hotels.com – book your hotel near Miraflores Golf Club, Malaga after reviewing the facilities and amenities listed for each hotel.
After booking your hotel near Miraflores Golf Club, expect to receive your reservation confirmation in the mail in less than 10 minutes. The confirmation email contains more information on all nearby attractions, local directions and weather forecast, so you can better plan the days during your trip.
After getting the best hotel rates you can still save more by winning 1 free night! That's right, book 10 nights in any hotel near Miraflores Golf Club, Malaga and after you sign up for the Welcome Rewards program, you are eligible hotel you receive 1 night free*
The best hotel deals are here: We have Miraflores Golf Club hotel deals, Miraflores Golf Club last minute deals and offers to get you the cheapest Miraflores Golf Club hotel with our lowest price guarantee.
Malaga travel guides
The best drinks to try in Spain
One of the main pleasures of traveling is discovering new food and drink. Not only are these delicio...
A Costa del Sol travel guide – sun-soaked beaches, family theme parks and vibrant nightlife
Summer fun or winter sun, holidays in the Costa del Sol cover all the bases from family-friendly adv...
A Malaga travel guide – Picasso paintings, fortified castles and fish suppers by the Mediterranean
Moorish fortresses, cutting-edge art galleries and beaches lapped by the Mediterranean Sea await on ...