Right to Hunt and Fish- Constitutional Amendment

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 science supported the bear hunt.

The science still supports a bear hunt.

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. 

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."

Too bad FWC doesnt do a Q/A on this matter.

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.

     just my opinion,   i watched as fwc launched a all out attack on wild pigs 15 years ago or so,    south zone all wmas,   they turned there back on guys trapping them on wmas, removed bag limits,20inch shoulder heights,added hog hunts and included them as legal to take during small game, back then anybody with a pitbull was free to hunt them and i have friends who did it at night on wmas with no problems.  im not a hog lover and pass on them 90% of the time since i dont eat them much and also know the problems they cause,,,,,BUT didnt fwc,biologists,land managers and all the science experts know that for hundreds of years hogs where the cougars number one food source.   it dont take 8 years of college to figure out if you take out the hogs deer will be next on the menu.  i dont trust people / fwc /biologists that dont hunt or fish.       hunters have always been the greatest conservationists not college educated book worms.

On a particular chunk of land in glades county they are tring to get rid of hogs as well, but the deer herd has suffered according to the fawns not being seen as prevalent as previous years.

Cats also roamed all over the southeast before hogs. How many plants and animals haven't survived because of hog? Hogs like most wildlife can cause problems like most wildlife if not controlled by humans or predators. Where is the FWC holding deer population levels artificially high? FWC tries to manage on a Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). "MSY aims at a balance between too much and too little harvest to keep the population at some intermediate abundance with a maximum replacement rate." My question is why are we having quail hunting with quail numbers so low? Would science not dictate that we should not be hunting quail.