Home General Hunting

Bear 2020

zimmy4209zimmy4209 Ocala FloridaPosts: 969 Officer
Just heard on radio they voted against the bear hunt for 2020. Unfortunate 

Replies

  • Big MakBig Mak Posts: 3,367 Captain
    Not surprising at all....
  • OGBOHICAOGBOHICA floridaPosts: 210 Deckhand
    No, it wasnt even part of FWC's proposal.. BOHICA
  • spanglerspangler daBurgPosts: 2,709 Captain
    What vote exactly??
    There will never be a really free and enlightened state until the state comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived.
  • zimmy4209zimmy4209 Ocala FloridaPosts: 969 Officer
    OGBOHICA said:
    No, it wasnt even part of FWC's proposal.. BOHICA
    Gotcha. I read a little bit of the 200+ page bear management plan or whatever it's called. Loaded with interesting information. Most of it above my IQ but understood some of it.  One part of it said there was documented research that certain percentage of newborn bear mortality was from males eating them. Man that's not good way to stay on mama bears good side 
  • OGBOHICAOGBOHICA floridaPosts: 210 Deckhand

    Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

    (Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.)

    12/11/2019 

    Bear management facts:

    1. Commissioners approved the updated Bear Management Plan, which reflects a comprehensive, science-based approach.
    2. FWC staff will continue to focus on reducing human-bear conflicts by promoting the use of bear-resistant trash cans and removing bears that pose a safety threat.
    3. There was no proposal to hunt, but it is an important tool in the toolbox for managing bear populations.
    4. FWC staff will continue to explore options on population management in the future, knowing bear hunting could be added to an agenda by an FWC chairman.
    5. FWC staff will continue education and outreach to the public in general and regarding human-bear conflict and population management.

    “We’re proud to have approved a world-class plan for bear management in Florida,” said Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Chairman Robert Spottswood. “This represents a comprehensive, science-based approach. We will continue to prioritize public safety while we manage bear populations” 

    What about a hunt?

    While there was no proposal to hunt at the December Commission meeting, we can’t predict what a future Commission or Chairman might decide to do. Today, our Commission approved a world-class, science-based Bear Management Plan.

  • spanglerspangler daBurgPosts: 2,709 Captain
    The best part of the plan is where is details Hunting to be the ONLY viable means of population control.
    FWC is already ignoring the science..
    There will never be a really free and enlightened state until the state comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived.
  • OGBOHICAOGBOHICA floridaPosts: 210 Deckhand
    What would Dr Eason say....
  • Panhandler80Panhandler80 Posts: 8,237 Moderator
    OGBOHICA said:

    Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

    (Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.)

    12/11/2019 

    Bear management facts:

    1. Commissioners approved the updated Bear Management Plan, which reflects a comprehensive, science-based approach.
    2. FWC staff will continue to focus on reducing human-bear conflicts by promoting the use of bear-resistant trash cans and removing bears that pose a safety threat.
    3. There was no proposal to hunt, but it is an important tool in the toolbox for managing bear populations.
    4. FWC staff will continue to explore options on population management in the future, knowing bear hunting could be added to an agenda by an FWC chairman.
    5. FWC staff will continue education and outreach to the public in general and regarding human-bear conflict and population management.

    “We’re proud to have approved a world-class plan for bear management in Florida,” said Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Chairman Robert Spottswood. “This represents a comprehensive, science-based approach. We will continue to prioritize public safety while we manage bear populations” 

    What about a hunt?

    While there was no proposal to hunt at the December Commission meeting, we can’t predict what a future Commission or Chairman might decide to do. Today, our Commission approved a world-class, science-based Bear Management Plan.

    Like most things on politics, (which this of course if, and not wildlife management), you can pretty much stop paying attention when you come across the word "comprehensive."

    Let's not address a pretty simple issue, let's go COMPREHENSIVE!  That way we can do nothing to address any particular subject matter, but we'll talk for days about the outlying trivial matters.  Maybe tweak 10% of them, then call it day.


    "Whatcha doin' in my waters?"
  • wayviswayvis FloridaPosts: 137 Deckhand
    Sad but true, this is all politics in an organization that suppose to be removed form politics by having commissioners. So why do we have commissioners?
  • FloridaODFloridaOD Posts: 3,758 Captain
    “ Science” well and good- people/“ Societal “/ “ Political” aspects are also key Wildlife Management elementals.
    Hunters are present yet relatively uncommon in Florida :wink
  • swampdogswampdog Central FloridaPosts: 1,057 Officer
    Bear management isn’t a simple solution today. Because the “bear tree huggers” attend meetings ( most apparently don't have to work ), organize at their club houses, network constantly to barrage FWC and elected officials, it requires a “comprehensive” plan to ensure no one can second guess the “Plan”. To do anything less than, will be impossible to defend. 
  • wayviswayvis FloridaPosts: 137 Deckhand
    FloridaOD, Swampdog…….great comments. The problem is the commissioners are most likely bowing to one group of stakeholders because of political pressure. It is may understanding that the FWC has enough data to support a bear hunt. If this is true than the commissioners should be supporting the FWC to conduct a hunt.
  • N. CookN. Cook Posts: 2,165 Captain
    edited December 2019 #14
    There is no political will to face the strong opposition to hunting bears...at the top of the pollical pole in FL.....there is some "legitimate' fear that in a state where the voters added an amendment to the State Constitution on how many pigs can be in a pen...and stopping dog racing...that a Constitutional Amendment either banning bear hunting...or even taking away the right of the FWC to write game rules without the Legislature approval (today the Legislature can only be involved in the financing of the FWC.....not rule writing) would pass....Simply a decision that "it is not worth risking the independence of the FWC for 300 bears taken by hunters".....But...of course, by not approving the science based need for a bear hunt, the Commission has already "given up that independence"....sad...The only solution I see is the current (small in numbers) move to raise the bar for a new Constitutional Amendment from 60% of voters to 66%....this would stop the "hot issue of the day" Amendments from being passed.  If you want bear hunting....there is the way to go to the State Legislature....Get the bar raised!

  • FloridaODFloridaOD Posts: 3,758 Captain
    The focused questions and outright opposition the Commission faces is not limited to Chicken Littles appearing at the Commission podium.
    Consider too the opposition by some Florida hunters, Conservation organizations known as “ Pro Hunt” to the anti hunters.
    We focus on “ Anti” label. Sometimes crystal clear, many of us have no idea of the breadth and depth of Anti presence, which often includes resource management specialists.
    And do remember the Speak Up Wekeiva legal action.
    Hunters are present yet relatively uncommon in Florida :wink
  • spanglerspangler daBurgPosts: 2,709 Captain
    edited December 2019 #16
    Still haven't had time to watch the commisioner mtg, but it came on on wedu last night, and I caught some of the public comments. Wow. Just wow. The ignorance.
    You know there's a high correlation between those that oppose bear hunt and those that seem to oppose burns. True idiots. And we let them call the shots?
    There will never be a really free and enlightened state until the state comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived.
  • bswivbswiv Posts: 7,773 Admiral
    spangler said:
    Still haven't had time to watch the commisioner mtg, but it came on on wedu last night, and I caught some of the public comments. Wow. Just wow. The ignorance.
    You know there's a high correlation between those that oppose bear hunt and those that seem to oppose burns. True idiots. And we let them call the shots?
    We too have noted the correlation between anti-burn. Though, I would caution, with the burning they are COMPLETELY ignoring the science whereas with the bears it is a public policy question to a great extent. 

    I say that because you can not properly protect our ecosystem, a ecosystem which evolved with fire and which has a part of it a great number of species that NEED fire to prosper.....even to survive?......without burning. With bears it's a bit different in that there are other ways to manage them than with hunting, more costly, less effective, and maybe as hard on the bears as being hunted......so the situations are not exactly the same. Meaning you may not win the hunting point using science as it is public policy. 
  • ShineShine Posts: 833 Officer

    4% of the US adult population hunts.

    You only have any voice if 100% vote.


    BTW, virtually all the members of FWC were appointed by Republican Governors.  Last vote to support a bear hunt only failed by one vote on the Commission.  Next time it comes up, mobilize. 


    Black Bears are game animals.  Plain and simple.


  • PhattkoppPhattkopp Posts: 42 Deckhand
    ^^^^THIS^^^
    FWC Commission members are APPOINTED by the governor. They ignored advice from  Mike Orlando and his FWC biologists' recommendation for the hunt to continue because of direction they received elsewhere......
    Jus' sayin'......

    Phattso  ;)
  • FloridaODFloridaOD Posts: 3,758 Captain
    edited December 2019 #20
    Shine said:

    4% of the US adult population hunts.

    You only have any voice if 100% vote.


    BTW, virtually all the members of FWC were appointed by Republican Governors.  Last vote to support a bear hunt only failed by one vote on the Commission.  Next time it comes up, mobilize. 


    Black Bears are game animals.  Plain and simple.


    Florida’s Hunters have lost their grip on positive public image.In Northeast Florida I saw posters opposing the Bear Hunt, the posters at a new building, part of a development on lands that could have ended up state public conservation and Hunt lands.....we lost our grip there too.
    As a Florida Hunter, I will never support any Hunt presented as a “Referendum” on hunting, as the most recent Bear Hunt was. 
    The botched first hunt ( first being most recent, subsequent to Baker/Columbia hunts) certainly shifted the matter.Who would have known an organization such as Speak Up Wekeiva! would play a key role in the Referendum Science Based Save The Families Bear Hunt!?
    I imagine the Commission/State has engaged with Mark Damian Duda & Assoc. regards Bear Path Forward. 
    Any Duda & Assoc. interaction with the Commission would be an interesting study. 

    Hunters are present yet relatively uncommon in Florida :wink
  • LostconchLostconch Posts: 711 Officer
    Down in South West Florida hardly a day goes by that there is not a report of bears in some subdivision. They need to be hunted to keep a healthy fear of humans in their habits
  • bgeorgebgeorge Plant City FLPosts: 1,652 Captain
    All I can say is watch the FWC meeting on the Florida Channel.  Listen close to the commissioner comments.  A hunt was not what was being discussed or proposed. Some commissioners indicated how they feel about a future hunt and others have in private. This is the management plan and that needs to be passed and put to rest.  Some of the issues that arose from the last hunt was from the speed that we got to it.  

    Do we have enough to hunt, yes.  In a scientific pole do Floridians support using hunting to control populations, yes. Is there lots of bad taste left in peoples mouth from the last hunt,YES.  

    I would think that we will see a more limited hunt in parts of the State that supported the hunt more.  
    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.
  • meateatermeateater south flaPosts: 515 Officer
    as said before if you wanna blame someone or something for no bear hunting the person is      do as i say not as ive done possum poop ron b        end of story.
  • FloridaODFloridaOD Posts: 3,758 Captain
    edited January 3 #24
    Some opposed to Bear Hunt have noted the connection between development/ habitat loss interests and Commission member’s connection to Development, and an alliance with hunters and development.
    Staff Biologists are referred to as “ Hunterologists”.
    The failure to implement Amendment One also often noted by Bear Hunt critics.
    Hunters are present yet relatively uncommon in Florida :wink
  • joelunchbucketjoelunchbucket Posts: 452 Deckhand
    Amendment was written to be a failure.
  • FloridaODFloridaOD Posts: 3,758 Captain
    edited January 3 #26
    I was close to those that wrote and lobbied Amendment One- they knew the Legislators would muck with it, but the Language has to be worded in a certain way.
    Lack of leadership from the Governor’s office has been a factor too.
    Current legal battles over Amendment One.....talk about mucked up!......even the Riverkeeper organization involvement may have contributed to legal challenge difficulties.

    Hunters are present yet relatively uncommon in Florida :wink
  • joelunchbucketjoelunchbucket Posts: 452 Deckhand
    It was destined to disappoint 
  • N. CookN. Cook Posts: 2,165 Captain
    We, UW-F, opposed Amendment One because of the lousy language...We, along with other hunting groups, contacted the authors and expressed our concerns "you could drive a truck throutgh the holes in the language" and the funds could be spent in too many ways...We were summarily dismissed as a bunch of "hunters" and told the "language will result in better use of taxes"...one lady said "we need more toilets on the beaches"!  Frankly, the authors had no intention of listen to our suggestions the wording be more direct on actual application of funds, especially the need for PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT as well as just PURCHASING....and also a clause for PUBLIC ACCESS INCLUDING TRADITIONAL RECREATION...I have no remorse for what happened with the Legislature taking over the spending of the funds...in fact, glad to see grownups, established AGENCIES with the knowledge of doing budgeting and keeping close tabs on spending, handing the $hundreds of millions coming in each year.  Spending that level of income flow wisely...and without waste or fraud...needs to be in the hands of established State Departments...not some "ad hoc" group of appointees...So far, the funds are being used for needed projects, and some land buying where appropriate. 

  • MRichardsonMRichardson Posts: 10,326 AG
    Shine said:

    BTW, virtually all the members of FWC were appointed by Republican Governors.  

    They are certainly an interesting combination of folks that tend to side with hunters while at the same time siding with, engaging in and promoting destruction of our resources at a manic pace.
    I have never seen live bones, but I know that they are often used by rich people to decorate the interior.
Sign In or Register to comment.