|
|
Post by cadman on Apr 8, 2024 7:15:23 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. The gill net ban was a constitutional amendment, not sure how that affects anything regarding it. From reading more, I think the main effects will be with closed public land and even some local ordinances against hunting or fishing. I know some local counties and cities ban some hunting and fishing at certain times or areas. Some of these may be ruled unconstitutional. If there was an amendment I might vote for, this could be it. I doubt it would affect me either way, but it could be good for future generations as the population demographics change over time. But then, they could always introduce an amendment to repeal this amendment. but it would be harder than changing a statute. I have no issue with hunting and fishing being the preferred means for "responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife" as long as the FWC still controls what you hunt and how many. I might vote yes on this in spite of my objections to continue to keep adding amendments to our state constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by ogbohica on Apr 8, 2024 15:08:58 GMT -5
Too bad FWC doesnt do a Q/A on this matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by conchydong on Apr 8, 2024 16:54:17 GMT -5
Too bad FWC doesnt do a Q/A on this matter. That’s because their mind is already made up. Public hearings are a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by nuthinfancy on Apr 8, 2024 18:38:27 GMT -5
Too bad FWC doesnt do a Q/A on this matter. Not really an FWC issue. It’s an issue regarding the people’s right to hunt and fish. The FWC doesn’t give us that right, we the people simply agree to allow them to regulate OUR wildlife and OUR public lands. |
|
|
|
Post by ogbohica on Apr 8, 2024 20:10:35 GMT -5
Too bad FWC doesnt do a Q/A on this matter. That’s because their mind is already made up. Public hearings are a joke. This is true..... BOHICA |
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Apr 10, 2024 9:33:06 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by ogbohica on Apr 10, 2024 9:53:58 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 10, 2024 10:15:12 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. 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. The cats survived before the pigs, however many animals and plants don't survive the pigs. They need to be reduced as much as possible. I love hunting pigs, way more over deer. I find them more interesting to hunt, better to eat, etc. In my opinion its not the job of the Fish and Wildlife to hold deer populations artificially high just for whiny hunters. |
|
|
|
Post by cracker4112 on Apr 10, 2024 11:41:14 GMT -5
Meat, why would you pass on them if you know the problems they cause?
They are a plague. If we could flip a switch and get rid of every one, we’d all be better off.
|
|
sgp
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by sgp on Apr 10, 2024 12:02:15 GMT -5
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. The main landholder in Glades County is apparently conducting that experiment right now. For 3 years they have allowed a local high fence outfitter to trap thousands of hogs off a large lease, of which he is not a member, decimating the hog population by at least 90%. I saw one fawn this weekend in over 50 miles of buggy riding.
Unfortunately, I already know what the result is going to be because I lived it in the late 90's in Turner River, then in Hendry County.
|
|
wayvis
Junior Member
Posts: 99
|
Post by wayvis on Apr 10, 2024 12:19:19 GMT -5
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. The cats survived before the pigs, however many animals and plants don't survive the pigs. They need to be reduced as much as possible. I love hunting pigs, way more over deer. I find them more interesting to hunt, better to eat, etc. In my opinion its not the job of the Fish and Wildlife to hold deer populations artificially high just for whiny hunters. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 10, 2024 12:42:27 GMT -5
The cats survived before the pigs, however many animals and plants don't survive the pigs. They need to be reduced as much as possible. I love hunting pigs, way more over deer. I find them more interesting to hunt, better to eat, etc. In my opinion its not the job of the Fish and Wildlife to hold deer populations artificially high just for whiny hunters. 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. The quail question is interesting. There are probably more quail on public lands now than there were decades ago before widespread use of prescribed fire. I know I see more coveys every year. Were quail populations artificially high due to the abundance of small farms in the 30s-60s, probably so. Habitat loss is the main reason for fewer quail, as it is the main reason for the degradation of most ecosystems. Deer as a whole are more abundant in Florida than ever before, just not, apparently, in the southern region that overlaps with cats. But are the diminished deer populations unnatural, or a return to more natural?
Here are some sources for info.
Probably more info on destructive pigs than anyone wants to read.
UGA deer panther study - panthers eat deer.
Southeastern deer pops over time
|
|
|
|
Post by swampdog on Apr 10, 2024 15:04:53 GMT -5
I’m voting yes on the “Right to Hunt and Fish” amendment. It protects hunters/fishermen, resource lands and waters, wildlife, science and FWCs ability to manage our resources. It’s a good amendment.
|
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Apr 10, 2024 18:45:37 GMT -5
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. The main landholder in Glades County is apparently conducting that experiment right now. For 3 years they have allowed a local high fence outfitter to trap thousands of hogs off a large lease, of which he is not a member, decimating the hog population by at least 90%. I saw one fawn this weekend in over 50 miles of buggy riding.
Unfortunately, I already know what the result is going to be because I lived it in the late 90's in Turner River, then in Hendry County.
Correction. Manage the hogs. Not get rid of them. A trapper is assisting with hog control, mostly because not enough have been being removed by the hunters. I can’t speak for what any one person sees, but removal of 90% would be an unprecedented of level of hog control using hunters or trappers using the typical box traps. They tend to become wise to them fairly quickly after seeing part of their group trapped. The annual wildlife surveys don’t come anywhere near bearing out a 90% reduction. Fawn production also continues to be documented as being average to slightly better than average in the area being trapped as well. It really is amazing what keeping good records can do for the proper management of wildlife resources. It can dispel myths and it can document progress toward management goals, as is the case in the area being referred to. P.S. I will be voting yes on the amendment as well. Using science to guide hunting policy is the best combination for good management of our native game resources. |
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 10, 2024 19:22:42 GMT -5
The main landholder in Glades County is apparently conducting that experiment right now. For 3 years they have allowed a local high fence outfitter to trap thousands of hogs off a large lease, of which he is not a member, decimating the hog population by at least 90%. I saw one fawn this weekend in over 50 miles of buggy riding.
Unfortunately, I already know what the result is going to be because I lived it in the late 90's in Turner River, then in Hendry County.
Correction. Manage the hogs. Not get rid of them. A trapper is assisting with hog control, mostly because not enough have been being removed by the hunters. I can’t speak for what any one person sees, but removal of 90% would be an unprecedented of level of hog control using hunters or trappers using the typical box traps. They tend to become wise to them fairly quickly after seeing part of their group trapped. The annual wildlife surveys don’t come anywhere near bearing out a 90% reduction. Fawn production also continues to be documented as being average to slightly better than average in the area being trapped as well. It really is amazing what keeping good records can do for the proper management of wildlife resources. It can dispel myths and it can document progress toward management goals, as is the case in the area being referred to. Thats positive news. |
|
