|
Post by wayvis on Apr 4, 2024 21:54:55 GMT -5
As some have said I also tend to vote no on most amendments, but I see no bait and switch in this one. The link to the article that Cyclist posted was submitted on behalf of the Animal Law Section, Ashley Baillargeon, chair, Macie J. H. Codina, editor, and Ralph A. DeMeo, special editor. This group is all about animal rights and the article is very slanted on behalf of animal right groups. I can see why these groups would not support this amendment because it does put hunting and fishing as the first tool to use in the management of game species.
I will be supporting it.
|
|
|
Post by richm on Apr 5, 2024 6:31:52 GMT -5
So it seems like this amendment is coming out to promote a bear hunt?
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Apr 5, 2024 8:05:37 GMT -5
I will have to read it thoroughly. It's always a legalese word game with these kooks exactly. colorado lost certain hunting privledges because of 1 word they changed in a bill most hunters voted for thinking it was good for hunting. not 100% sure but think they changed sport to trophy or some bullshit and that 1 word change screwed them.
|
|
|
Post by cracker4112 on Apr 5, 2024 8:23:52 GMT -5
This deal is supported by the pro-hunting groups. The link Cyclist posted is from an animal rights group who opposes the measure. The main claim from the antis is that hunting and fishing aren’t under threat of being banned so we don’t need this amendment and it could cause all sorts of problems blah blah blah. Yeah, problems for them with getting rid of us!
Fact is, hunting and fishing are under threat, while not to the point of being banned, the antis are slowly chipping away. If sportsman don’t codify our right in the constitution, as this state turns more urban and blue, both hunting and fishing will definitely be under threat of being banned in the future. This may be our best and only chance to get it in the constitution like the other 23 states.
Just my 2 cents
|
|
|
Post by wayvis on Apr 5, 2024 8:32:21 GMT -5
Agree 100% with cracker!
This is not just about a bear hunt, but it could force the FWC to use hunting to control the population and that's what the animal rights groups are afraid of.
|
|
|
Post by tampaspicer on Apr 5, 2024 9:29:41 GMT -5
I vote no on every constitutional amendment whether it benefits me or not. All they are is an end run around science/rational thought, etc. You could at least vote for recreational marijuana.
|
|
|
Post by wayvis on Apr 5, 2024 10:02:10 GMT -5
Here's some more info on the pro's and con's of this amendment, you decide.
AI copilot.... The Florida Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment, which will be on the ballot in Florida on November 5, 2024, aims to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish in the state. Let’s explore the pros and cons of this proposed amendment:
Pros: Preserving Tradition: Supporters argue that this amendment recognizes and preserves Florida’s rich heritage of hunting and fishing. It acknowledges the economic value these activities bring to the state, with fishing and hunting contributing over $15 billion annually1. Public Right: The amendment explicitly declares hunting and fishing as a public right and the preferred means for responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife. By enshrining this in the state constitution, proponents believe it reinforces the importance of these activities. No Limitation on Authority: The amendment does not limit the constitutional powers of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission under Article IV, Section 9. This ensures that existing regulatory authority remains intact2. Cons: Environmental Concerns: Critics worry that the amendment could authorize practices beyond recreational fishing and hunting. For instance, it might open the door to using gill nets (which can harm marine life) or even allow hunting of species like Black Bears1. Overriding Protections: Some opponents argue that the amendment might override existing protections for fish stocks and wildlife. For instance, it could potentially weaken regulations that prohibit certain harmful fishing methods1. Unnecessary Constitutionalization: Skeptics question whether hunting and fishing need to be constitutionally protected. State law already safeguards Floridians’ ability to engage in these activities, and some believe that constitutional amendments should be reserved for more fundamental rights3. In summary, the Florida Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment seeks to balance tradition and conservation. Supporters emphasize heritage and economic benefits, while opponents express concerns about unintended consequences and environmental impact4. Ultimately, voters will decide its fate in the upcoming election.
"Clay Henderson, author of “Forces of Nature: A History of Florida Land Conservation" and president emeritus of the Florida Audubon Society: "The amendment goes too far in declaring this right to hunt and fish as a 'public right.' No other right in our constitution is described in this way. It seems to imply this right is even more important than our other fundamental rights. Perhaps it means this right to hunt is more important than one’s right to 'possess and protect property.' The language in the original NRA proposal states, “this section shall not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass or property rights,” but the Florida Legislature didn’t include that important restriction. ... The biggest concern for me and other mainstream conservationists is that the amendment proclaims hunting and fishing the “preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.” Really? Often the preferred means to conserve fish and wildlife is to limit hunting and fishing to protect their numbers. That’s why we have limits on the size of fish that can be taken and seasons for hunting. These are reasonable rules to protect numbers of fish and game. Populations of grouper, red snapper, and redfish have been severely regulated as their numbers have declined. Allowing more fishing will not increase their numbers. We don’t allow bear hunting in Florida because the bear population is confined to isolated areas and may not be sustainable. Many of us think this proposal is just a door to bring back bear hunting. As one of a few lawyers who have drafted most of the environmental provisions of Florida’s constitution, I can tell you that every word matters in a proposed amendment. That’s why another section of this proposal is scary. It proclaims this right to hunt and fish includes 'the use of traditional methods, shall be preserved forever.' What does this mean? To me it clearly means return to steel jaw traps, spears, spearfishing, gill nets, and other inhumane means of hunting and fishing."
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 5, 2024 10:04:44 GMT -5
This deal is supported by the pro-hunting groups. The link Cyclist posted is from an animal rights group who opposes the measure. The main claim from the antis is that hunting and fishing aren’t under threat of being banned so we don’t need this amendment and it could cause all sorts of problems blah blah blah. Yeah, problems for them with getting rid of us! Fact is, hunting and fishing are under threat, while not to the point of being banned, the antis are slowly chipping away. If sportsman don’t codify our right in the constitution, as this state turns more urban and blue, both hunting and fishing will definitely be under threat of being banned in the future. This may be our best and only chance to get it in the constitution like the other 23 states. Just my 2 cents Of course the hunter want this, they want to hunt bears, science be damned.
First, you assume no democrats hunt, I can assure you that the 6-10 guys I hunt with regularly, lean blue. The problems I have are hunting and fishing do not need this amendment to survive and this is a way to ignore the science of game/wildlife management. Hunting plays the largest part in game/wildlife management but it is not the only tool, or always the best tool. I will vote for keeping our scientific options open.
You want to keep hunting around, keep things like the bear hunt fiasco to a minimum.....hunting in general received a bad publicity hit when a bunch of mouth breathers shot cubs, used illegally bait and more during the last hunt, that was bad for hunting.
Bear hunt an ‘embarrassment’ to Florida "The first black bear hunt in 21 years can best be described as poorly conceived, poorly coordinated, poorly conducted and the end result was embarrassing for Florida." Cory O'Donnell codonnell@news-press.com
98 documented bear kills in two days. Nearly 300 bears dead from a population of 3,000.
Florida officials thought the hunt would last a week. The staggering numbers over the first two days prompted the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to stop it early.
“Cubs were shot. Lactating mothers were killed,” News-Press reporter Chad Gillis wrote in his bear hunt final numbers story. “Some hunters illegally baited bears while others didn't buy a permit or hunted before the season even started.”
The News-Press Editorial Board shared their view on Tuesday, stating that FWC officials “underestimated the hunter success for the first day (when most of the bears were killed).” “That’s unacceptable, especially when you consider that the Florida black bear was a threatened population just three years ago.”
“The first black bear hunt in 21 years can best be described as poorly conceived, poorly coordinated, poorly conducted and the end result was embarrassing for the state,” writes The News-Press Editorial Board.
The Facebook response on this issue has been large and vocal. After 434-plus shares, the editorial’s Facebook post has been seen by more than 50,000 people. More than 130 of those readers shared their views with us.
“The bear hunt was truly embarrassing for our state,” Susan Williams Blust said. “When mother bears are [laid] out and you can clearly see their swollen breasts knowing that they are still nursing! There is something very emotionally disturbing about this. Also, I would be willing to bet that most of these hunters didn't even have to look very far because if you have bears on your private land and you have been feeding them via corn turkey feeders, that's an easy kill. They are familiar with humans, and a food source. I am a country girl, and have been around hunters all of my life. But I can honestly say that this was as stated "a poorly conceived and poorly coordinated" slaughter that took place. We have to learn to coexist with these animals. And the problem [is] the state is under the impression they have taken care of with bears coming into our neighborhoods has not ended. What will happen when the next bear shows up in someone's neighborhood?”
|
|
|
Post by cracker4112 on Apr 5, 2024 10:11:41 GMT -5
I don’t assume no democrats hunt. I know and count members of my family as hunting democrats, hell even though I lean conservative on some things, since I live in Tampa and want my vote to count, I’m a registered democrat. The amendment specifically reaffirms the FWC’s power to regulate hunting and fishing. If a bear hunt isn’t scientifically viable, they certainly won’t have to hold one. I for one could give 2 shits about a bear hunt. Never shot one, don’t plan to ever shoot one in the future. If the scientists say some bears need killing, then I think the bear hunters should have at it. Its not for me. If you think that the bear hunt is where the antis will stop, you’re a fool. And i I don’t really think you are.
Edited to add-- The antis would snap their fingers and erase your ability to take your all around gun dogs (beautiful animals by the way) to public land to chase birds and bunnies in a hot second if they could. And the demographics of our state are moving that way and you know it. Hell you live in Gainesville for God's sake.
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 5, 2024 11:13:40 GMT -5
I don’t assume no democrats hunt. I know and count members of my family as hunting democrats, hell even though I lean conservative on some things, since I live in Tampa and want my vote to count, I’m a registered democrat. The amendment specifically reaffirms the FWC’s power to regulate hunting and fishing. If a bear hunt isn’t scientifically viable, they certainly won’t have to hold one. I for one could give 2 shits about a bear hunt. Never shot one, don’t plan to ever shoot one in the future. If the scientists say some bears need killing, then I think the bear hunters should have at it. Its not for me. If you think that the bear hunt is where the antis will stop, you’re a fool. And i I don’t really think you are.
Edited to add-- The antis would snap their fingers and erase your ability to take your all around gun dogs (beautiful animals by the way) to public land to chase birds and bunnies in a hot second if they could. And the demographics of our state are moving that way and you know it. Hell you live in Gainesville for God's sake.
I know many of the "antis", we are members of the Florida Native Plant Society, Audubon, etc. And I don't know any "anti" who wants to ban any hunting or fishing. The people you are talking about are super crazy vegan animal fanatics who, because they are crazy and irrational, carry no weight or sway when it comes to anything resembling hunting and fishing bans. You and I are in agreement that their are super left wing nutjobs, I just don't think they are an issue here.
|
|
|
Post by cracker4112 on Apr 5, 2024 12:02:19 GMT -5
I don’t think they are an issue here either. Yet.
|
|
|
Post by nuthinfancy on Apr 5, 2024 12:36:35 GMT -5
This deal is supported by the pro-hunting groups. The link Cyclist posted is from an animal rights group who opposes the measure. The main claim from the antis is that hunting and fishing aren’t under threat of being banned so we don’t need this amendment and it could cause all sorts of problems blah blah blah. Yeah, problems for them with getting rid of us! Fact is, hunting and fishing are under threat, while not to the point of being banned, the antis are slowly chipping away. If sportsman don’t codify our right in the constitution, as this state turns more urban and blue, both hunting and fishing will definitely be under threat of being banned in the future. This may be our best and only chance to get it in the constitution like the other 23 states. Just my 2 cents Of course the hunter want this, they want to hunt bears, science be damned.
First, you assume no democrats hunt, I can assure you that the 6-10 guys I hunt with regularly, lean blue. The problems I have are hunting and fishing do not need this amendment to survive and this is a way to ignore the science of game/wildlife management. Hunting plays the largest part in game/wildlife management but it is not the only tool, or always the best tool. I will vote for keeping our scientific options open.
You want to keep hunting around, keep things like the bear hunt fiasco to a minimum.....hunting in general received a bad publicity hit when a bunch of mouth breathers shot cubs, used illegally bait and more during the last hunt, that was bad for hunting.
Bear hunt an ‘embarrassment’ to Florida "The first black bear hunt in 21 years can best be described as poorly conceived, poorly coordinated, poorly conducted and the end result was embarrassing for Florida." Cory O'Donnell codonnell@news-press.com
98 documented bear kills in two days. Nearly 300 bears dead from a population of 3,000.
Florida officials thought the hunt would last a week. The staggering numbers over the first two days prompted the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to stop it early.
“Cubs were shot. Lactating mothers were killed,” News-Press reporter Chad Gillis wrote in his bear hunt final numbers story. “Some hunters illegally baited bears while others didn't buy a permit or hunted before the season even started.”
The News-Press Editorial Board shared their view on Tuesday, stating that FWC officials “underestimated the hunter success for the first day (when most of the bears were killed).” “That’s unacceptable, especially when you consider that the Florida black bear was a threatened population just three years ago.”
“The first black bear hunt in 21 years can best be described as poorly conceived, poorly coordinated, poorly conducted and the end result was embarrassing for the state,” writes The News-Press Editorial Board.
The Facebook response on this issue has been large and vocal. After 434-plus shares, the editorial’s Facebook post has been seen by more than 50,000 people. More than 130 of those readers shared their views with us.
“The bear hunt was truly embarrassing for our state,” Susan Williams Blust said. “When mother bears are [laid] out and you can clearly see their swollen breasts knowing that they are still nursing! There is something very emotionally disturbing about this. Also, I would be willing to bet that most of these hunters didn't even have to look very far because if you have bears on your private land and you have been feeding them via corn turkey feeders, that's an easy kill. They are familiar with humans, and a food source. I am a country girl, and have been around hunters all of my life. But I can honestly say that this was as stated "a poorly conceived and poorly coordinated" slaughter that took place. We have to learn to coexist with these animals. And the problem [is] the state is under the impression they have taken care of with bears coming into our neighborhoods has not ended. What will happen when the next bear shows up in someone's neighborhood?”
If you seriously believe that there are only 3,000 bears in the state after over 300 were killed in under a week then I don’t know what else I can say. Probably believe there are only 200 “panthers” and they only exist south of SR80. Do we know the numbers of does shot with fawns on the ground? How many of you have shot a pregnant doe? Do we shut down deer hunting because it’s a mindless slaughter? Give me a break. The bear hunt was only a fiasco because the media and anti hunters wanted it to be. That’s what happens when you take a bunch of news cameras and shove them down hunters throats while they try to skin their kill. News flash…. certain people get pissed. So a couple people killed them over bait… your point? In most states hunting bears over bait is the preferred method that way you can be more selective on which ones you harvest. Maybe if we let hunters bait and pattern the bears we could have avoided a couple mothers and cubs getting killed. But no, we followed the “science” aka feelings and people jumped the trigger at the first bear they saw because they dropped big bucks on a tag and didn’t want to go empty handed. Cry me a river. The argument that an amendment is not necessary is just as ridiculous. You probably argue that we don’t “need” a second amendment. Why the hell do you think the same folks that are escorted by armed guards everywhere they go want to take our guns? Same logic applies here. If you’re not against hunting then why don’t you want our right to do it to be set in stone? I’m all for being cautious with this sort of legislation, but the fact that anti hunters are against this amendment is the exact reason we should be for it.
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 5, 2024 12:54:23 GMT -5
Of course the hunter want this, they want to hunt bears, science be damned.
First, you assume no democrats hunt, I can assure you that the 6-10 guys I hunt with regularly, lean blue. The problems I have are hunting and fishing do not need this amendment to survive and this is a way to ignore the science of game/wildlife management. Hunting plays the largest part in game/wildlife management but it is not the only tool, or always the best tool. I will vote for keeping our scientific options open.
You want to keep hunting around, keep things like the bear hunt fiasco to a minimum.....hunting in general received a bad publicity hit when a bunch of mouth breathers shot cubs, used illegally bait and more during the last hunt, that was bad for hunting.
Bear hunt an ‘embarrassment’ to Florida "The first black bear hunt in 21 years can best be described as poorly conceived, poorly coordinated, poorly conducted and the end result was embarrassing for Florida." Cory O'Donnell codonnell@news-press.com
98 documented bear kills in two days. Nearly 300 bears dead from a population of 3,000.
Florida officials thought the hunt would last a week. The staggering numbers over the first two days prompted the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to stop it early.
“Cubs were shot. Lactating mothers were killed,” News-Press reporter Chad Gillis wrote in his bear hunt final numbers story. “Some hunters illegally baited bears while others didn't buy a permit or hunted before the season even started.”
The News-Press Editorial Board shared their view on Tuesday, stating that FWC officials “underestimated the hunter success for the first day (when most of the bears were killed).” “That’s unacceptable, especially when you consider that the Florida black bear was a threatened population just three years ago.”
“The first black bear hunt in 21 years can best be described as poorly conceived, poorly coordinated, poorly conducted and the end result was embarrassing for the state,” writes The News-Press Editorial Board.
The Facebook response on this issue has been large and vocal. After 434-plus shares, the editorial’s Facebook post has been seen by more than 50,000 people. More than 130 of those readers shared their views with us.
“The bear hunt was truly embarrassing for our state,” Susan Williams Blust said. “When mother bears are [laid] out and you can clearly see their swollen breasts knowing that they are still nursing! There is something very emotionally disturbing about this. Also, I would be willing to bet that most of these hunters didn't even have to look very far because if you have bears on your private land and you have been feeding them via corn turkey feeders, that's an easy kill. They are familiar with humans, and a food source. I am a country girl, and have been around hunters all of my life. But I can honestly say that this was as stated "a poorly conceived and poorly coordinated" slaughter that took place. We have to learn to coexist with these animals. And the problem [is] the state is under the impression they have taken care of with bears coming into our neighborhoods has not ended. What will happen when the next bear shows up in someone's neighborhood?”
If you seriously believe that there are only 3,000 bears in the state after over 300 were killed in under a week then I don’t know what else I can say. Probably believe there are only 200 “panthers” and they only exist south of SR80. Do we know the numbers of does shot with fawns on the ground? How many of you have shot a pregnant doe? Do we shut down deer hunting because it’s a mindless slaughter? Give me a break. The bear hunt was only a fiasco because the media and anti hunters wanted it to be. That’s what happens when you take a bunch of news cameras and shove them down hunters throats while they try to skin their kill. News flash…. certain people get pissed. So a couple people killed them over bait… your point? In most states hunting bears over bait is the preferred method that way you can be more selective on which ones you harvest. Maybe if we let hunters bait and pattern the bears we could have avoided a couple mothers and cubs getting killed. But no, we followed the “science” aka feelings and people jumped the trigger at the first bear they saw because they dropped big bucks on a tag and didn’t want to go empty handed. Cry me a river. The argument that an amendment is not necessary is just as ridiculous. You probably argue that we don’t “need” a second amendment. Why the hell do you think the same folks that are escorted by armed guards everywhere they go want to take our guns? Same logic applies here. If you’re not against hunting then why don’t you want our right to do it to be set in stone? I’m all for being cautious with this sort of legislation, but the fact that anti hunters are against this amendment is the exact reason we should be for it. You don't mention the science or bear genetics, and you assume much. How did you feel when you shot the cub over bait? Are you really comparing deer and bear in FL?
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Apr 5, 2024 13:35:00 GMT -5
The science supported the bear hunt. The only issue with it was that the FWC’s implementation wasn’t as well thought out as it should have been.
The science still supports a bear hunt.
Anyway, this isn’t particularly about hunting bears. It’s about protecting tradition and about ensuring that the best tool available to manage our renewable wildlife resources remains as the preferred option, even if we eventually become the California of the south.
|
|
|
Post by nuthinfancy on Apr 5, 2024 14:25:15 GMT -5
If you seriously believe that there are only 3,000 bears in the state after over 300 were killed in under a week then I don’t know what else I can say. Probably believe there are only 200 “panthers” and they only exist south of SR80. Do we know the numbers of does shot with fawns on the ground? How many of you have shot a pregnant doe? Do we shut down deer hunting because it’s a mindless slaughter? Give me a break. The bear hunt was only a fiasco because the media and anti hunters wanted it to be. That’s what happens when you take a bunch of news cameras and shove them down hunters throats while they try to skin their kill. News flash…. certain people get pissed. So a couple people killed them over bait… your point? In most states hunting bears over bait is the preferred method that way you can be more selective on which ones you harvest. Maybe if we let hunters bait and pattern the bears we could have avoided a couple mothers and cubs getting killed. But no, we followed the “science” aka feelings and people jumped the trigger at the first bear they saw because they dropped big bucks on a tag and didn’t want to go empty handed. Cry me a river. The argument that an amendment is not necessary is just as ridiculous. You probably argue that we don’t “need” a second amendment. Why the hell do you think the same folks that are escorted by armed guards everywhere they go want to take our guns? Same logic applies here. If you’re not against hunting then why don’t you want our right to do it to be set in stone? I’m all for being cautious with this sort of legislation, but the fact that anti hunters are against this amendment is the exact reason we should be for it. You don't mention the science or bear genetics, and you assume much. How did you feel when you shot the cub over bait? Are you really comparing deer and bear in FL? I’m not a biologist, never claimed to be. Also never hunted black bear, in this state or elsewhere. However, the facts are that the biologists did come to the consensus back in 2015 that the bears were at a hunt-able level and allowed the public to participate in management as they should have. Even the FWC admits on their website that they underestimated the numbers that they thought would be taken, which means either Floridians are just naturally gifted bear hunters or there are more bears than they thought. I think we can all agree the state has a track record of underestimating populations when it suites them (Goliath grouper, mountain lions). And yes, I am pointing out the inconsistencies in the argument of the opposition. We pay no heed when Bambi’s mom gets shot leaving orphans behind, but clutch our pearls if a sow bear incidentally gets shot with cubs. We pay no heed if deer are shot over bait, but gasp in horror if a bear gets killed over bait. You ask for science, show me the data that suggests a decline in bear numbers associated with the hunt. Show me the numbers that suggest that the bears have not returned to hunt-able numbers over the last 9 years since the hunt? If they have in fact returned to hunt-able numbers, then why hasn’t a hunt been opened up? That’s right, because of the yuppies hailing primarily from Tampa and Orlando can’t fathom good wildlife management and the utilization of an amazing natural resource.
|
|