|
Post by pinman on Apr 5, 2024 14:48:25 GMT -5
You know why 300 Bears were killed in 2 days? Because they hadnt been hunted in 2 decades. They didnt fear anything. Hunt them for 5 years and theyll begin to understand.
|
|
|
Post by nuthinfancy on Apr 5, 2024 14:58:03 GMT -5
I guess a suburb north of Orlando is different, but all the times I’ve been lucky enough to lay eyes on one down here they are very alert and flee at the first whiff of me they get. I’ve only had a handful of them actually get within bow range over the years. Most were a mother with cubs. Trail cams tell the real story though, there is plenty of them. Again, no biologist but I would venture to say there are over 2k in big cypress alone.
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 5, 2024 14:58:36 GMT -5
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. The crux of the matter is this amendment calls for hunting over science regardless of the species we are talking about. That is just wrong.
The bear thing is a side show, a hunt wanted by the people behind this amendment.
There are no yuppies managing the science behind FWC and the other agencies.
Nick Wiley is no yuppie.
|
|
|
Post by cracker4112 on Apr 5, 2024 15:05:25 GMT -5
“The crux of the matter is this amendment calls for hunting over science regardless of the species we are talking about. That is just wrong.”
Disagree completely. Nowhere does this amendment say that. In fact it says the opposite by preserving all of the FWC’s power. Hunting being the #1 tool should always be the case. Sometimes it’s not feasible, but that will be FWC’s call.
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Apr 5, 2024 15:18:09 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't we let the science determine IF management is warranted and let the managing agency determine HOW the management will take place. I don't think the science tells us how, just if.
|
|
|
Post by swampdog on Apr 5, 2024 15:22:48 GMT -5
I simply need to read the current proposed amendment, in its entirety. I’ve pretty much made my living by reading and listening. Laws and the Florida Administrative Code can be really confusing and can be misinterpreted. Some on here have posted slanted portrayals of the proposed amendment, which can unfairly influence the vote. As some have mentioned it does not remove FWC’s science and authority. It does provide FWC another tool to one day prevent “paid sharpshooters” from wrongfully managing our resources. I will also state, I’m familiar with the amendment from its initial inception and believe it to be sound and protective of our right to hunt and fish. I’ve had people in the legislature tell me that hunting and fishing is a privilege and not a right. That appears to be true without this constitutional amendment.
|
|
|
Post by swampdog on Apr 5, 2024 15:41:19 GMT -5
Additionally this proposed amendment will not do away with any existing constitutional bans, i.e. “the gill net ban”, and others. The Constitution is to be followed in its entirety. If the desire was to remove any pre-existing “bans”, it would have to be written to specifically say that. Know this, some of the “anti hunting” groups will be using untruths about this proposed amendment to garner fund raising and membership drives. While I respect cyclist’s views, I also have friends and colleagues (many environmental professionals) and that while the majority support our desire to hunt, many would be happy for it to “go away”. This may very well be, a “now or never” event…
|
|
|
Post by olmucky on Apr 6, 2024 6:45:11 GMT -5
Sounds like something peta wrote. Name one time where regulated recreational hunting has had catastrophic effects on our states wildlife. The fact that bears need to be managed remains no matter who does the killing. I would rather a hunter who values the resource and desires the meat than us paying someone to do it. The bear hunt was a fiasco. And bears are rarely killed, there are other things FWC is doing to control bears. Maybe at some point there will be a bear hunt.
Ron D is the only reason we don’t have that hunt
|
|
|
Post by olmucky on Apr 6, 2024 6:48:16 GMT -5
The science supported the bear hunt. The science still supports a bear hunt. Yep
|
|
|
Post by Stumpy on Apr 6, 2024 7:42:27 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. Yep, I vote no on all of them also... just think of all the dip shits that vote yes and gave pigs constitutional rights....
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Apr 6, 2024 7:56:22 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. Yep, I vote no on all of them also... just think of all the dip shits that vote yes and gave pigs constitutional rights.... That was the one that really got to me. How in the hell does a state constitution give rights to pigs. Most absurd thing ever.
|
|
|
Post by ogbohica on Apr 6, 2024 8:05:34 GMT -5
I wonder how AR play into all of this?
|
|
|
Post by Stumpy on Apr 6, 2024 8:44:10 GMT -5
Yep, I vote no on all of them also... just think of all the dip shits that vote yes and gave pigs constitutional rights.... That was the one that really got to me. How in the hell does a state constitution give rights to pigs. Most absurd thing ever. people are stupid ... "it feels good"
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 6, 2024 13:52:35 GMT -5
I’m going to vote “Yes.”
First, generally vote for anything the animal rights groups are against and vote against anything they’re for. You’ll rarely go wrong doing that.
Second, it ought not force the FWC to manage animals in ways they don’t want to. It seems like all the “preference for hunting and fishing” language is doing is insulating the FWC from lawsuits if and when they reinstitute bear hunting. The anti-hunting groups will ask a judge to find that hunting is bad for the bears. The FWC can point to this provision and say that its constitutionally mandated to prefer hunting. Lawsuit shut down.
That being said, the FWC’s authority to manage wildlife without judicial oversight is already legally absolute. Its common to sue the Feds over their wildlife management decisions, but I am not sure that the FWC or GFC was ever so successfully sued.
The FWCs biggest fear is a constitutional amendment that removes the ability of the FWC to have unfettered discretion over wildlife decisions. Thus the reason there hasn’t been another bear hunt. The FWC’s biologists believe its scientifically necessary but the Commissioners find it politically unfeasible. Maybe this will help.
There might be unforeseen consequences. It may allow lawsuits regarding public land closed to hunting. Good if it does. I don’t think it will legalize gill nets, as the FWC will still have authority to ban what it wills.
|
|
|
Post by anumber1 on Apr 8, 2024 5:48:30 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." gill nets don't harm wildlife and the net ban was the prime example of a feel good run around good science and management. Suck it up buttercup.
|
|