Florida wildlife officials to hold series of meetings about bear hunts returning to state
Florida wildlife officials will hold a series of online meetings in March and April about the possibility of a return to bear hunting in the state.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Executive Director Roger Young said Wednesday that the first meeting, open to anyone "who wants to provide feedback" on a potential bear hunt, will be held March 13.
Three more will be held in April. Young, who addressed the issue during a commission meeting at Florida State University, said dates of the April meetings had not been set.
Bear hunting has long been a controversial issue in Florida, but calls have increased for wildlife officials to approve the first hunt in a decade. Supporters say, in part, a hunt could help better manage bear populations as the animals interact with humans and point to a voter-approved ballot measure in November that enshrined hunting and fishing rights in the state Constitution.
Opponents have argued that hunting doesn't reduce human-bear interactions and say the state should use non-lethal options to address bear populations. They say unsecured trash continues to be a lure for bears on residential and commercial properties.
The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is halfway into a 10-year bear management plan, with a focus on education and making available bear-proof trash containers. But commission members in December directed staff to bring forward proposals for a possible bear hunt.
The proposals are expected to be completed by a May commission meeting, giving staff members time to compile data from ongoing studies about bear populations and gather public input.
The last hunt, held in October 2015, was projected to last up to a week. Instead, it was called off after two days as the bear death count quickly reached 304.
Commission officials at the time acknowledged being caught off guard by the success of the hunters.
The state estimated Florida had more than 4,000 bears in 2015, and the population is known to be growing. Meanwhile, the agency receives more than 6,000 calls a year about bears.
In June, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a law that bolstered self-defense arguments for people who kill bears on their property.
The law requires shooters to notify the commission within 24 hours of bears being killed. Shooters are prohibited from possessing or selling bear carcasses. Legal immunity isn't available to people who provoke or lure bears.
Similar bills were filed in previous years but did not pass the Legislature. But the 2024 proposal, sponsored by Rep. Jason Shoaf, R-Port St. Joe, and Sen. Corey Simon, R-Tallahassee, gained traction after Franklin County Sheriff A.J. Smith said his rural community was "being inundated and overrun by the bear population." Shoaf and Simon represent largely rural districts that include Franklin County.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
44 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's massive tax-cut bill could shield the president from court orders
A provision in President Donald Trump 's massive tax-cut bill that would shield Trump from some court orders is drawing Democratic opposition as it heads for the Senate. But a leading Republican says the court restriction is necessary to keep judges from abusing their authority. The provision drew little attention in the marathon debate that ended with a 215-214 House vote to approve the measure in the early-morning hours of May 22. But it would make a significant change in the standards for injunctions, the orders judges issue to prohibit a person, business or government agency from taking actions the judge has found to be illegal. Under the proposal, a judge could find a violator in contempt of court, and issue penalties, only if the judge who issued the order required those who sought it to post a bond that would reimburse the other side for its costs if the injunction was later found to be unjustified. And the new rule would apply not only to future injunctions, but also to those issued in the past, when judges have rarely required bonds. No bonds were ordered, for example, by judges who prohibited Trump from sending immigrants to a prison in El Salvador — injunctions that would become unenforceable under the legislation passed by the House. And it could even cast doubt on decades-old court orders to limit police practices or desegregate schools, said Erwin Chemerinsky, the UC Berkeley law school dean whose online posting called attention to the bill's language. While the debate has centered on the bill's reductions in taxes for the rich and health care for the poor, some Democrats are starting to voice opposition to the injunction limits. 'Republicans are once again seeking to twist the rules to avoid accountability and advance their overtly political interests by attempting to shut down federal courts' enforcement mechanism,' Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., said after the House approved the measure. 'The Constitution outlines the Judicial Branch as an independent, co-equal branch of government, and I will do everything in my power both to ensure it remains that way and to shut down Republicans' attempts to further insulate Donald Trump from our system of checks and balances.' 'You have activist judges, a handful of them around the country who are abusing that power,' Johnson told a reporter last weekend. 'They're issuing these nationwide injunctions. They're engaging in political acts from the bench. And that is not what our system is intended for. And people have lost their faith in our system of justice.' His language was in line with Trump's responses to judges who rule against him, whom the president has labeled 'radical left lunatics' who should be impeached. One was U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of Washington, D.C., who ordered Trump in March to halt the deportations of more than 200 Venezuelans to El Salvador and turn the flights around, orders the Trump administration has ignored. Boasberg was initially appointed to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, and promoted later by Democrat Barack Obama. The tax-cut legislation, however, does not address individual judges' authority to issue nationwide injunctions, an issue the Supreme Court is now considering in the Trump administration's challenge to birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. The language in the bill would instead invalidate standard injunctions issued against one person, including the president, or a business or organization accused of violating the law. The bill 'has nothing to do with nationwide injunctions,' Chemerinsky said. 'The ability of the courts to review presidential actions was articulated in Marbury v. Madison,' an 1803 Supreme Court ruling, 'and was not something new created for the Trump administration,' he said. As budget-related legislation, the bill is exempt from filibusters and could be passed by a majority vote in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. But Chemerinsky said that if the restrictions on injunctions remain in the measure, the Senate's nonpartisan parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, could determine they were unrelated to taxing or spending and could be blocked by a filibuster, which would require 60 votes to overcome. And a House Republican who voted for the bill last week predicted Friday that the injunction limits would be dropped from the legislation. 'I don't see any argument that could ever be made that this affects mandatory spending or revenue,' Rep. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said at a town-hall meeting. 'I don't see it getting into the Senate bill.' Chronicle reporter Shira Stein contributed to this article.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
House Republican, Democrat move to limit Trump from entering Iran war
Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) plan to introduce a measure that would force President Trump to get approval to Congress to enter Israel's conflict with Iran. Why it matters: The rare bipartisan effort reflects long-running frustration among lawmakers in both parties with the executive branch's growing power to wage war unilaterally. Still, Republicans have proven largely reluctant to oppose Trump since he returned to office this year, making the war powers measure a longshot. Driving the news: "This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution," Massie said Monday in a post on X. "I'm introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution tomorrow to prohibit our involvement," he said. "I invite all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution." Massie, a libertarian-minded isolationist, has been one of the few House Republicans willing to regularly break with Trump. Khanna is co-leading the measure with Massie, the progressive California Democrat's office told Axios. State of play: Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) filed his own war powers resolution in the upper chamber on Monday, which would require congressional debate and a vote to authorize U.S. entry into the Israel-Iran conflict short of defending against imminent Iranian attacks. "This resolution will ensure that if we decide to place our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way, we will have a debate and vote on it in Congress," Kaine said in a statement. House members and senators can unilaterally force votes on war powers resolutions without support from leadership. Zoom out: Massie's announcement came as Trump left the G7 Summit early after warning Iranian civilians to "immediately evacuate Tehran," Axios' Barak Ravid reported. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said he was departing "because of what's going on in the Middle East," but did not offer further details. White House spokesperson Alex Pfeiffer denied reports that the U.S. had attacked Iran, saying that American forces "are maintaining their defensive posture, and that has not changed."
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Supreme Court to hear New Jersey pro-life free speech case
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a faith-based pregnancy center's request, challenging New Jersey over its claim the pro-life group misled women about offering abortion services. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for October. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI. | License Photo June 16 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Christian-based pregnancy center's request, challenging New Jersey over its claim the pro-life group misled women about offering abortion services. The Supreme Court will decide later this year whether First Choice Women's Resource Centers can use federal courts to block the state's attorney general from investigating its donor, advertising and medical personnel records. First Choice, which provides parenting classes and free ultrasounds to women facing unplanned pregnancies, claims a 2023 subpoena violated its free speech rights. Attorney General Matthew Platkin "has made no secret of his hostility towards pregnancy centers," the pro-life group wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court, as it called Platkin's subpoena "invasive" for demanding access to records. "State attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been accused of misusing this authority to issue demands against their ideological and political opponents," lawyers for First Choice wrote. "Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands." Platkin argues that the subpoena he issued has yet to be enforced in state court. He also said the donor information he sought was from two websites, which he claimed may have misled people into thinking First Choice provided abortions. "Nonprofits, including crisis pregnancy centers, may not deceive or defraud residents in our state, and we may exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure that they are not doing so -- as we do to protect New Jerseyans from a range of harms," Platkin wrote in a statement. The Supreme Court will focus on whether First Choice sued prematurely, not whether New Jersey's subpoena was valid, according to Platkin. "First Choice is looking for a special exception from the usual procedural rules as it tries to avoid complying with an entirely lawful state subpoena," Platkin added. "No industry is entitled to that type of special treatment -- period." Lawyers for First Choice said the group is not seeking special treatment and believes their free speech rights are being targeted. "New Jersey's attorney general is targeting First Choice simply because of its pro-life views," Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erin Hawley said in a statement. "The Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from unjustified demands to disclose their identities, and First Choice is entitled to vindicate those rights in federal court." Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for October. "We are looking forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court and urging it to hold that First Choice has the same right to federal court as any other civil rights plaintiff," Hawley added. "The First Amendment protects First Choice's right to freely speak about its beliefs, exercise its faith, associate with like-minded individuals and organizations, and continue to provide its free services in a caring and compassionate environment to people facing unplanned pregnancies."
