So I hear NO BEAR HUNT - Page 3
REPORTSREGIONSFORECASTPHOTOSBOATINGHOW-TOSPORTFISHGEARVIDEOS
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,698
    There are certain times...and votes.....that are seminal....and the bear hunting issue is one. Several Commissioners have consistently disallowed the science and the staff recommendations on the issue. It is obvious there are politics involved and that is what upsets the hunters more than anything. God bless Nick Wiley....he is in a terrible position as is the FWC staff.....That a few Commissioners can create such a negative impact on the FWC, internally as well as with the sports groups is sad......If anyone thinks there is a political positive for their aspirations coming out of this...at whatever level or contest.....they are going to be very disappointed as the sports community, one that normally votes for "conservative" candidates, is not happy and the anti hunters will vote Democrat almost 100%....There is no gain...and a lot of loss.... for a couple of rumored candidates because of this vote......The voters gave the FWC a landslide 70% victory when they were granted INDEPENDENCE from political and public pressure when making decisions on wildlife management....And, to have commissioners vote, even stating the reason was...culture and public opinion...., against a program strongly supported by the science and the brave staff tells you we need some new blood on the commission who will not abrogate their responsibilities.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    North Port
    Posts
    1,617
    Thanks for the insight. You are normally very diplomatic but it seems easy to tell they even "got your goat" on this one.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    6,787
    As an Executive Director, one holds more powers than one is lead to believe.. the fish still stinks from the head!

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    307
    Rick Scott === Senate run=== No bear hunt. Plain and simple politics

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Edgewater, FL
    Posts
    3,685
    Lost cause....

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Ocala
    Posts
    1,063
    I'm so very disappointed.

    Looking at some of the responses the FWC has sent individual members, I think the Commissioners and Director may be missing our point. We aren't upset because we can't hunt bears. If I want to hunt a bear bad enough, I'll just go out of state to do it. I'm upset, and I think probably all of us are upset, primarily because the FWC bowed to the political pressure of anti-hunters. That's what this is about. The anti-hunting movement isn't scientific or reasonable. The religious fervor of anti-hunters has fascist-like tendencies that cannot be reasoned or compromised with. Every time a victory is given to them for no other reason that they shouted down the opposition, it emboldens them to hold what they've won and take more ground.

    I'm thinking the Commissioners don't really understand politics after all. Because if they did, they'd have learned by now they can basically do whatever they want, and the rank and file public will just accept whatever they do as status quo within a few years so long as the Commission keeps doing it without apology. That's why we have all the liberal social norms we do now. Liberals just do what they want (usually thru judicial fiat) and the majority just comes to accept it once their outrage burns out. The Commission could do the same with bear hunting if they wanted. Just do it, ignore the anti-hunters' rage, and nothing will come of their bluster in the end.

    Just a few months ago I was praising the backbone the FWC had developed in recent years. I spoke too soon.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    West Palm Beach
    Posts
    783
    Great post Bullfrog, i agree with you 100 percent.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Debary, FL
    Posts
    164
    Wildlife management decisions should not be made based on public opinion at all.
    That is why we amended the constitution to make the FWC commission an appointed position.

    As stated by another poster, I am very upset at how decisions are being made.
    I am also very concerned about the future of all hunting and fishing.
    The anti's have a tactic that works on this commission. They will not stop with bear!
    We can very easily loose our right to kill deer or catch mahi mahi.

    To those that think it can't happen, I'll just say the foundation is set!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #29
    Senior Member bgeorge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Plant City
    Posts
    1,058
    Disappointed very well sums it up. I will throw another one up. Respect. We gain it and loose based upon our actions. Some people lost a chunk when they threw all science and data aside for a small piece of social concern. They could have chosen to go with half of the quota or even a third and been very safe. Then start the education part to coincide with the hunt.

    In today's politics no one should feel comfy on what used to be the core support that never waivers. Many sportsmen will not forget and just because it is not on the agenda does not mean you can not go to every meeting and take a few minutes to explain your position and ask. That is what the people who opposed the hunts did. It caused them to totally restructure public comments. First they reduced max yielded time and then made it so that you can only do public comments on items not on the agenda on one day. Hunters were nice and did not use all their time or even sign up. Take your time and let your voices be heard.
    The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones. Hopefully the next man is not dropping his stones on the mountain you are trying to move.

  10. #30
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brandon
    Posts
    2,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Florida Bullfrog View Post
    I'm so very disappointed.

    Looking at some of the responses the FWC has sent individual members, I think the Commissioners and Director may be missing our point. We aren't upset because we can't hunt bears. If I want to hunt a bear bad enough, I'll just go out of state to do it. I'm upset, and I think probably all of us are upset, primarily because the FWC bowed to the political pressure of anti-hunters. That's what this is about. The anti-hunting movement isn't scientific or reasonable. The religious fervor of anti-hunters has fascist-like tendencies that cannot be reasoned or compromised with. Every time a victory is given to them for no other reason that they shouted down the opposition, it emboldens them to hold what they've won and take more ground.

    I'm thinking the Commissioners don't really understand politics after all. Because if they did, they'd have learned by now they can basically do whatever they want, and the rank and file public will just accept whatever they do as status quo within a few years so long as the Commission keeps doing it without apology. That's why we have all the liberal social norms we do now. Liberals just do what they want (usually thru judicial fiat) and the majority just comes to accept it once their outrage burns out. The Commission could do the same with bear hunting if they wanted. Just do it, ignore the anti-hunters' rage, and nothing will come of their bluster in the end.

    Just a few months ago I was praising the backbone the FWC had developed in recent years. I spoke too soon.
    Spot on. The minute someone addresses them as being against hunting they should lose all say in any matters regarding hunting. The science supports it and the hunters want it. Enough said.

    What's next I wonder. Will they start bowing to non-hunters regarding other hunting matters? Maybe they should ask the anti's their opinions on season dates or bag limits. Maybe they should ask non-boaters how they feel about life jacket requirements. Maybe they should ask freshwater fishermen how they feel about expanding the snook season.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •