Protests planned as FWC further considers implementing a black bear hunt this year
Next week, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission will be discussing how - and if - it should reimplement a black bear hunt this year.
FWC released an initial proposal on how to carry one out last month, which would allow for up to 187 bear kills in December. If allowed, it would be the first time a bear hunt has been allowed in Florida in ten years.
As a result, bear activists across the state are planning to protest in across the state this weekend, including in Jacksonville.
The proposal is sparking a huge debate among locals, considering there were recently two black bear sightings in our area, and a deadly bear attack in Collier County.
In the previous hunt held in 2015, hunters were given a limit of 320 bears total. However, the hunt had to be stopped because hunters killed 304 bears in just two days.
This year, the proposal is for a three-week hunt where hunters would only be allowed to hunt in designated Bear Hunting Zones. Permits will also be awarded through a lottery system, rather than being sold without restriction like they were in 2015.
FWC started discussing bringing back a bear hunt in December 2024, well before the state's first-ever deadly bear attack earlier this month that killed an 89-year-old.
>>> STREAM ACTION NEWS JAX LIVE <<<
[DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks]
Supporters say a hunt could help better manage bear populations in residential areas. They also point to a voter-approved ballot measure in November that enshrined hunting and fishing rights in the state Constitution.
'It's bad for the state's image," said Adam Sugalski, executive director of the nonprofit One Protest.
The protests this weekend are part of his nonprofit's Bear Defenders campaign. He says bear hunting in Florida is not necessary.
'People aren't really eating bears, we don't need fur rugs -It's trophy hunting. And bears are highly intelligent animals, some studies even place them as almost smart as great apes,' said Sugalski. 'And they're already having enough problems with overdevelopment in Florida."
Next week's meeting will go over the proposed rules before a final vote is expected to be held in August.
The Jacksonville protest this weekend will be held on Park Street in Riverside on Saturday from 11 am to 1 pm.
St. Augustine will have a separate one at the same time on Cathedral Place.
For information, locations, and times for each protest, click here.
[SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New Mexico Appeals Court orders dismissal of oil and gas pollution lawsuit
A pumpjack operates north of Carlsbad, NM. The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled to dismiss a lawsuit alleging the state violated the state constituion and failied to protect residents from oil and gas pollution.(Photo by Jerry Redfern / Capital & Main) The New Mexico Court of Appeals ordered a lower court Tuesday to toss a case alleging that state officials failed to protect residents from oil and gas pollution in violation of the New Mexico State Constitution. In the order issued Tuesday, justices in the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's ruling and concluded that the judiciary does not have the power to address the plaintiffs' claims. 'The relief Plaintiffs seek—as presented by their complaint—exceeds the boundary of that which the judiciary is authorized to grant,' wrote Chief Judge Jacqueline Medina. Justices ordered the lower court to dismiss the complaint. The civil lawsuit was first filed in May of 2023 on behalf of environmental groups, youth activists and individuals from the Pueblos, the Permian Basin and Navajo Nation against the Legislature, New Mexico's top officials and rulemaking bodies on oil and gas. The lawsuit alleged the state government failed to limit permitting of oil and gas production and did not adequately enforce pollution laws, which plaintiffs argued is a violation of a 1971 amendment to the state constitution, called the Pollution Control Clause. 'The protection of the state's beautiful and healthful environment is hereby declared to be of fundamental importance to the public interest, health, safety and the general welfare. The legislature shall provide for control of pollution and control of despoilment of the air, water and other natural resources of this state, consistent with the use and development of these resources for the maximum benefit of the people.' Further, the plaintiffs argued the state's actions around oil and gas production and pollution discriminated against Indigenous people, youth and frontline communities. Plaintiffs requested the courts rule that the state has a constitutional duty to prevent pollution — similar to landmark rulings in education and workers' compensation — and asked the courts to 'suspend additional permitting of oil and gas wells' until the state is in compliance. Moreover, plaintiffs asked the courts order state government to install a regulatory structure and plan to protect from pollution. Attorneys for the State of New Mexico argued the ruling oversteps separations of power between the branches of government, and that youth and frontline communities are not protected classes and there's no discriminatory intent. In June 2024, First District Judge Matthew Wilson dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the Legislature, but allowed the case to continue moving through the courts to determine if a constitutional right to pollution control exists. On Tuesday, the Appeals Court determined the state Constitution does not grant any specific right 'to any individual or group, to be free from a given amount of pollution. Nor can it be inferred to create an enforceable right to a beautiful and healthful environment,' Medina wrote. Additionally, justices agreed with the state's arguments that frontline and youth are not classifications for discriminatory treatment. Gail Evans, lead counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, said plaintiffs plan to appeal Tuesday's decision. 'New Mexicans amended our constitution 50 years ago to protect our residents from pollution. With this terrible ruling, the court has eviscerated our constitutionally protected rights,' Evans said in a written statement. 'This will lead to more air pollution, more contaminated land and water, and more sickness in our communities. We'll continue our fight against the filthy oil and gas industry on behalf of all New Mexicans and will be appealing this decision to the state Supreme Court.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Trump administration's emerging surveillance state raises privacy concerns
Trump administration's emerging surveillance state raises privacy concerns Civil liberties advocates say the Trump administration's data collection and sharing endanger Americans' constitutional rights. Show Caption Hide Caption Privacy at risk as Trump expands surveillance. Here's what we know. The Trump administration is expanding government surveillance with Big Tech's help. Here's what we know now about what's being tracked. DENVER ‒ For decades, the government has been able to watch where you drive and where you walk. It can figure out where you shop, what you buy and with whom you spend time. It knows how much money you have, where you've worked and, in many cases, what medical procedures you've had. It can figure out if you've attended a protest or bought marijuana, and it can even read your emails if it wants. But because all of those data points about you were scattered across dozens of federal, state and commercial databases, it wasn't easy for the government to easily build a comprehensive profile of your life. That's changing ‒ fast. With the help of Big Tech, in just a few short months the Trump administration has expanded the government surveillance state to a whole new level as the president and his allies chase down illegal immigrants and suspected domestic terrorists while simultaneously trying to slash federal spending they've deemed wasteful and keep foreigners from voting. And in doing so, privacy experts warn, the federal government is inevitably scooping up, sorting, combining and storing data about millions of law-abiding Americans. The vast data storehouses, some of which have been targeted for access by Elon Musk's DOGE teams, raise significant privacy concerns and the threat of cybersecurity breaches. "What makes the Trump administration's approach so chilling is that they are seeking to collect and use data across federal agencies in ways that are unprecedented," said Cody Venzke, a senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. "The federal government's collection of data has always been a double-edged sword." Americans value their privacy Americans have fiercely guarded and worried about their privacy even from the country's earliest days: The Constitution's Fourth Amendment specifically limits the government's ability to invade a person's privacy. Those concerns have only grown as more government functions are carried out online. A 2023 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 71% of Americans worry about the government's use of data about them, up from 64% in 2019. The survey found the concern was greatest among those people who lean or consistently vote Republican, up from 63% to 77%. The level of concern among people who lean or consistently vote Democrat remained steady at 65%, the survey found. That same survey found that Americans overall are almost as concerned about government access to their data as they are about social media companies having access. People who had attended college were more worried about data privacy, while people with high school degrees were in general "confident that those who have access to their personal information will do the right thing." In acknowledgment of those concerns, the federal government carefully stores most data about Americans in separate databases, from Social Security payments to Medicare reimbursements, housing vouchers and food stamps. That limits the ability of government employees to surreptitiously build comprehensive profiles of Americans without court oversight. In the name of rooting out fraud, and government inefficiency, however, President Donald Trump in March ordered federal agencies under his control to lower the walls between their data warehouses. The Government Accounting Office estimates the federal government loses $233 billion to $521 billion to fraud annually, much of that because of improper payments to contractors or falsified medical payments, according to a GAO report in April. The report also noted significant losses via Medicare or unemployment fraud and pandemic-era stimulus payments. "Decades of restricted data access within and between agencies have led to duplicated efforts, undetected overpayments, and unchecked fraud, costing taxpayers billions," President Donald Trump said in a March 20 executive order that helped create the new system. "This executive order dismantles unnecessary barriers, promotes inter-agency collaboration, and ensures the Federal Government operates responsibly and efficiently to safeguard public funds." Merging of commercial and government databases Supporters say this kind of data archive, especially video surveillance coupled with AI-powered facial recognition, can also be a powerful tool to fight crime. Authorities in New Orleans used video footage collected by privately owned security cameras to help capture at least one of the fugitives in a high-profile prison escape in May. And systems that read license plates helped Colorado police track down a suspect accused of repeatedly vandalizing a Tesla dealership. White House authorities are now prosecuting some Tesla vandalism cases as terrorism. But the new White House efforts go far beyond anything ever attempted in the United States, allowing the government to conduct intrusive surveillance against almost anyone by combining government and commercial databases. Privacy experts say it's the merging of government and commercial databases that poses the most significant concern because much of it can be done without court oversight. As part of the broader White House effort, contractors are building a $30 million system to track suspected gang members and undocumented immigrants and buying access to a system that tracks passengers on virtually every U.S.-based airline flight. And federal officials also are making plans to compile and share state-level voting registration information, which the president argues is necessary to prevent foreign nationals from illegally voting in federal elections. Privacy experts say that while all of that data has long been collected and kept separate by different government agencies or private vendors ‒ like your supermarket frequent shopper card and cell phone provider ‒ the Trump administration is dramatically expanding its compilation into comprehensive dossiers on Americans. Much of the work has been kicked off by Musk's DOGE teams, with the assistance of billionaire Peter Thiel's Denver-based Palantir. Opponents say such a system could track women who cross state lines for abortions − something a police officer in Texas is accused of doing − or be abused by law enforcement to target political opponents or even stalk romantic partners. And if somehow accessed by hackers, the centralized systems would prove a trove of information for fraud or blackmail. The nonpartisan, nonprofit Project on Government Oversight has been warning about the risks of federal surveillance expansion for years, and it noted that Democrats and Republicans alike have voted to expand such information-gathering. "We need our leaders to recognize that as the surveillance apparatus grows, it becomes an enticing prize for a would-be autocrat," POGO said in a report in August 2024. "Our country cannot build and expand a surveillance superstructure and expect that it will not be turned against the people it is meant to protect." Starting with immigration, ending where? Trump campaigned in 2024 on a platform of tough immigration enforcement, including large-scale deportations and ending access by undocumented people to federal programs. Immigrants' rights advocates point out that people living illegally in the United States are generally barred from federal programs, although those who have children born as U.S. citizens can often access things like food assistance or health care. Supporters say having access to that data will help them prioritize people for deportation by comparing work history and tax payments to immigration status, work that used to be far more labor-intensive. Because federal officials don't know exactly who is living illegally in the United States, the systems by default must scoop up information about everyone first. One example: A newly expanded program to collect biometric data from suspected illegal immigrants intercepted at sea also can be used to collect the same information on American citizens under the vague justification of "officer safety." That data can be retained for up to 75 years, according to federal documents. "It's only a matter of time before the harmful ripples from this new effort reach other groups," Venzke said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump DOJ takes 'unprecedented' step admonishing foreign judge in free speech case centered on Rumble
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sent an unprecedented letter to a Brazilian Supreme Court justice in May, admonishing the judge for ordering American-based video platform Rumble to restrict the free speech of a user on U.S. soil, describing the orders as international overreach that lack enforceability. Rumble, a popular U.S.-based video-sharing platform that bucks censorship efforts frequently found on other video and social media platforms, is at the center of an international battle to protect free speech that has been ongoing for months. Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the suspension of Rumble in the South American country back in February over claims the U.S. company did not comply with court orders, including removing the accounts of a Brazilian man living in the U.S. and seeking political asylum. "If you look at what's happening around the world, it's clear we're living through a perilous moment for anyone who believes in freedom of expression — a fundamental human right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and recognized globally, even by the United Nations," Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski exclusively told Fox News Digital Tuesday following the DOJ's May letter. Rumble, Trump Media Declare 'Complete Victory For Free Speech' In Win Against Brazilian Judge "The fact that Rumble has become a central player in this global fight for free speech is a powerful validation of our mission. We're proud to stand at the front lines of this effort and grateful that President Trump and his administration have made this battle a foreign policy priority." Read On The Fox News App Moraes is now in the U.S. government's crosshairs after the DOJ sent a letter to him in May outlining his reported international overreach into U.S. law affecting the First Amendment, as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealing in a congressional hearing that the Brazilian judge could face U.S. sanctions. Moraes had ordered Rumble to remove a user from its platform as he stands accused of spreading false information online and is considered a fugitive in Brazil. Rumble refused and was threatened with financial penalties for the lack of cooperation. Trump-backed Media Company Sues Brazilian Supreme Court Justice, Claims He's Illegally Censoring Free Speech The DOJ letter, dated May 7 and made public Thursday, argued that Moraes' orders are not enforceable in the U.S. "These purported directives to Rumble are made under threat of monetary and other penalties," the letter, signed by DOJ official Ada E. Bosque, reads. "We take no position on the enforceability of the various orders and other judicial documents directing Rumble to act within the territory of Brazil, which is a matter of Brazilian law. However, to the extent that these documents direct Rumble to undertake specific actions in the United States, we respectfully advise that such directives are not enforceable judicial orders in the United States." The DOJ did not have additional comment to provide when approached about the letter Tuesday. Pavlovski described to Fox Digital that the letter is "unprecedented" and draws a clear line to foreign nations that they cannot attempt to thwart U.S. laws and the First Amendment. "The letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to a foreign judge over censorship orders is unprecedented," Pavlovski said. "It draws a bright red line: foreign officials cannot issue censorship orders that violate the First Amendment or bypass U.S. law. That kind of extraterritorial overreach is incompatible with American sovereignty. And that's good news, not just for Americans, but for free societies everywhere." Rumble Reveals Censorship Demands From Surprising List Of Countries As Ceo To Testify On Free Speech Threats The letter continued that there are established channels for international legal proceedings, which the DOJ said the judge bypassed, and directed the Brazilian judge to various proper procedures he could take regarding the court orders. Rumble facing restrictions in foreign nations is hardly new, with the platform currently disabled in China, Russia and France, as well as Brazil. It has also previously received censorship demands in nations such as the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, but has maintained its free speech objective. The DOJ's letter comes as Rubio revealed in a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing in May that the State Department is considering sanctions against Moraes under the Magnitsky Act. The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act authorizes the U.S. government to sanction individuals overseas if determined responsible for human rights abuses or corruption. "We've seen pervasive censorship, political persecution targeting the entire opposition, including journalists and ordinary citizens," Republican Florida Rep. Cory Mills asked Rubio at the hearing in May. "What they're now doing is imminent, politically motivated imprisonment of former President Bolsonaro. This crackdown has extended beyond Brazil's borders, impacting individuals on U.S. soil., the 2023 Financial Times article actually talked about this. What do you intend to do? And would you be looking at Supreme Court justice sanctioning of Alexandre de Moraes under the Global Magnitsky Act?" Brazilian Ex-president Bolsonaro Ordered To Stand Trial Over Alleged Coup Plan Rubio responded, "That's under review right now, and it's a great, great possibility that will happen." Days later, Rubio posted to X that the State Department will roll out visa restrictions on foreigners found "complicit" in censoring Americans. "For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights," Rubio wrote on X. "Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life — a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority." "Foreigners who work to undermine the rights of Americans should not enjoy the privilege of traveling to our country," Rubio added, not naming specific individuals responsible for such actions. "Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over." Moraes is also overseeing the upcoming trial of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is accused of allegedly attempting to overturn his 2022 election results. Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva slammed the U.S. for threatening sanctions against Moraes in comment this week. "It is unacceptable for the president of any country in the world to comment on the decision of the Supreme Court of another country," da Silva said Tuesday, according to Reuters. The Brazilian president added that the U.S. should understand the importance of "respecting the integrity of institutions in other countries." Fox News Digital reached out to Moraes' office Tuesday but did not immediately receive a article source: Trump DOJ takes 'unprecedented' step admonishing foreign judge in free speech case centered on Rumble
