THE FLORIDA BLACK BEAR HUNT – AFTERMATH

Something is bothering me and I just can’t shake this thought, no matter how hard I try. I take a deep breath and try to reflect on last weekend’s tragedy and travesty and desperately reach for even a small iota of reasoning or justification for the Florida black bear massacre. The problem is, I can’t.

A hunt that was ill conceived from the beginning, that was supposed to last for seven days, barely made two days before the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) mercifully put a stop to this. And what irks me is that they are touting the hunt as being so successful, that it only took two days to reach the targeted goal. And worse, many of the talking heads on local television are also using that same word “success” to describe the hunt.

Fortunately, it appears that journalistic integrity is beginning to penetrate this charade, and the true colors of this hunt are beginning to show.

Mamabearandcubs

BY THE NUMBERS

Because this hunt was so horrific, from planning to implementation to result, it was evident and obvious that by early Saturday afternoon, the hunt would not extend beyond the weekend. And original reports on Saturday were projected out to estimate that as many as 450 bear had actually been killed; and potentially 800 to 1,000 for the weekend. That would have had catastrophic implications on the bear population.

On Sunday evening, the FWS called the hunt off and a day later, provided an official reported count of 295. However, this final tally bothers me, and bothers others, because honestly, it doesn’t add up; nor does it consider the aftermath implications. So, let’s discuss that.

In 2012, the FWC published a study entitled “The Florida Black Bear Management Plan”. This is THE handbook, THE playbook, if you will, developed by the FWC to “maintain sustainable black bear populations in suitable habitats throughout Florida for the benefit of the species and the people.” This study determined that there needed to be at least one subpopulation of at least 1,000 individual bear, as well as smaller subpopulations areas of at least 200 bear each.

So, although the overall “goal” of this hunt was 320 bear (theoretically representing 10% of the bear population), the FWC supposedly analyzed the six core bear management areas and the two remnant areas, and concluded that there were a total of four core areas that would support the bear hunt. That included the Central region (1,300 bear), representing the one sub-population of at least 1,000 bear, and three additional regions: East, North and South. And this is where the math becomes fuzzy.

Although the FWC completed counts of the North and Central bear populations in 2014, the East and South region counts had not been completed at the time of the hunt, and are not expected to be released until 2016. Yet, there was only one FWC Commissioner against the hunt. Ron Bergeron was quoted by the Sun Sentinel in September to say “You should have all your science in place before you hold your first hunt in 21 years, especially when you’re dealing with an icon animal.”

12079543_847437148710024_685610861999970941_n

Based upon this partially completed study, and even with bear counts in the East and South regions last occurring in 2002, the FWC still approved the hunt. So, was there any surprise that the final numbers were vastly inconsistent, suggesting that the FWC really had no clue as to what the actual numbers were, and where the greatest damage would incur, in terms of bear kills?

Region      Orig. Est.     Targeted     Actual     % of Target
East               600                 40               112              280%
North            550                100                23                 23%
Central      1,300                100               139               139%
South            700                  80                 21                26%

These numbers greatly concern me because they either suggest that the FWC really had no idea as to the territorial location of the Florida black bear; or worse, artificially reported a lower kill number so as to avoid even more outrage than currently exists today. As noted in the table above, both the North and South bear management regions only met approximately 25% of their targeted numbers, while the Central region (139%) and East Panhandle region (280%), were so substantially above their targeted numbers.

So, one must wonder if the FWC had any clue whatsoever as to what they were doing. Further, of the 295 bear reported, the FWC confirmed that 207 were killed on Saturday, representing 70% of the total. So one must also ask, why were only 88 bear killed on Sunday? Quite frankly, the inconsistency of these numbers raises a lot of suspicion and statistically, it just does not add up.

According to Politico Florida, there were a total of 3,778 permits issued for this hunt. Subtracting the 207 hunters that got their “bear fix” on Saturday, this left a total of 3,571 hunters still seeking a bear trophy. However, two of the four bear management territories had been closed, so only two remained. Granted, some of those hunters planning to hunt in the closed regions probably opted not to pursue any bear in the North and South regions. After all, their “investment” was a paltry $100 for in-state residents and $300 for out-of-state residents. So the total number of hunters on Sunday probably were less than 3,571.

That said, Sunday’s reported number sounds artificially low. If this number is truly accurate, then we should be thankful that only 88 bears lost their lives. However, I have my doubts. Did the North and South regions truly contain fewer bear than estimated, resulting in less success for the hunters on Sunday? Or did the FWC under-report?

Neither is a good answer for the FWC, but these are the only two plausible explanations. So, if the FWC did not under report, then this raises a red flag question as to the competency of the FWC members…and that may be of a greater concern to the state of Florida residents.

ILLEGAL KILLINGS

Diane Eggeman, FWC’s hunting director, predicted the hunt would claim 183 bears, based upon similar hunts in other states; while Brad McNaughton, the Central Florida Bear Hunters Association president commented that “If you do it by the (Florida) rules, no dogs and no baiting, it won’t be easy. It’ll be a luck deal. They’re sneaky suckers.” he said.

And there is some truth in both of these statements, because both were based upon one critical and important assumption: that hunters would play by the rules. Both of these individuals made these comments based upon a belief and understanding that:

• No baiting would not be involved (Evidence has proved that baiting took place.)

• No killing of mothers with cubs (Politico Florida has analyzed 170 kills thus far and of this total, 102 were female and 28 of those were lactating. Assuming this ratio is representative of the 295 reported total, then it can be assumed a total of 49 lactating females were killed.)

• No killing of cubs over 100 pounds. (Eight of the 170 were less than 100 pounds; and again using the same ratio for the 295 bear kills reported by the FWC, cubs killed is estimated to be approximately 14.)

12193687_846682452118827_6555892071956874728_n

Excluding the estimated 63 illegal kills of lactating females and cubs less than 100 pounds, the total number of legal bears killed would be about 232. This number is still significantly higher than the 183 estimated by Ms. Eggeman; however, this does not consider the amount of baiting that apparently existed. And based upon the rapid pace of bears killed on Saturday, there is little doubt that a number of hunters had begun baiting days, if not weeks ahead of the hunt.
The fact of the matter is that had the hunters strictly played by the rules, the carnage would likely have been less. However, this continues to be the problem with the rationalization of hunters being touted as conservationists. Before we can even have an honest debate about this statement, there are a number of assumptions that must be made. Those assumptions are that hunters follow the rules; that honest governments collecting the revenue actually invest this into conservation programs (rather than pocketing the money); and that hunters truly target the oldest and the weakest. The reality is that none of these assumptions are true; and until they are, this will remain a moot discussion.

UNACCOUNTED FOR

On Saturday, a Kayaker sadly discovered a dead bear cub floating in the Suwannee River, a previously unreported casualty of this disaster of a bear hunt. So, let’s discuss these additional casualties and long term impact of this hunt.

Interestingly enough, some protestors of the bear hunt included those that traditionally hunt with dogs, referred to as “hounding”; and they actually view “still hunting” as unethical. Now, many will argue that hounding is equally unethical, however they do make one valid point. Under hounding, the dogs chase the bear up the tree. And from this angle, the hunter can determine the sex of the bear, whether she is lactating, the approximate weight; and the bear is unlikely to suffer as the shooting accuracy is much greater. In other words, it is less likely that an injured bear might escape, only to suffer and succumb to his injuries days or weeks later.

It could be argued that had hounding been implemented, there would have been fewer lactating mothers and cubs killed; and fewer injured bears yet to be found. The problem is, no one knows how many of those casualties may still exist in the wild. I would assume that hunters are required to report any bear shot but not found to the FWC. However, it is questionable whether this rule was followed or not.

Orphaned cubs, according to the FWC are capable of surviving on their own at about 8 months, and with an October hunt, most would have been 8 to 9 months old. Based upon the assumed 49 lactating mothers that were killed, and an average litter of 2.5 bear cubs (typical litter are two to three bear cubs), that would equate to approximately 123 orphaned cubs.

However, while cubs may have the ability to find food and survive on their own, a 70 or 80 pound cub would have a significantly less chance of surviving the attack of a 300 or 400 pound full grown male, than one with a mother there to defend him or her. So, there must be an assumption that the mortality rate of an orphaned cub is substantially higher than one protected by a mother bear. According to http://www.bear.org, the one-year survival rate of a litter of two bear is 88% and three bear is 82%, so an average of about 85%. Without a protective mother bear, the survival rate is certainly less than 85%.

12189581_10208365993370623_5679964527767223348_n

Additionally, within the last week, there has been an increase in bear sightings in residential neighborhoods, which of course, was completely expected by everyone; with apparent exception of the FWC. There are two reasons for this.

One, the young orphaned bears do not have the same level of foraging experience of their moms. The logical question must be posed as to why they normally stay with their mother for an average of eighteen months if they only require eight months? The answer is simple…that is the ideal period of time that mother nature had intended for these bear to have the best chance of survival.

Because these young bear do not have those years of foraging experience, they are likely to seek more readily available food sources like leftover food in unsecured trash cans. And even the FWC has noted: “Bears typically wander into residential areas because the food they can find there is high in calories and easy to get. Because black bears are “smart enough to be lazy” and take the path of least resistance – the neighborhood. They will spend a few hours in a neighborhood getting into trash cans, bird feeders, or gardens and get the same number of calories.”

Secondly, bear are intelligent animals and quite frankly, many now associate the forest with the carnage that took place last weekend; and now view the residential areas as safer environments. Unfortunately, this will result in further human – bear conflict, and an increase in bear fatalities through future vehicle collisions.

Additionally, the Politico Florida report indicated that 102 of the 170 bear killed were female. Again, using that ratio and applying to the 295 reportedly killed, this equates to a total number of female bear killed to be approximately 177. With an average of 2.5 cubs per litter, this means that there will be about 450 fewer bear cubs born in 2016…and 2017…and 2018. Simply put, any hunt will always have long-term negative implications of future population growth.

So, the official tally provided by the FWC is 295 bears. For reasons already addressed in this article, this figure appears to be suspiciously and artificially low. Add the unaccounted bears that were injured but never found, increase in orphaned cub mortality, increase in bear – human conflict, and loss of future offspring, what is the true death toll resulting from this bear hunt? And what is the long term impact? Whatever that answer is, it is significantly higher than the original target of 320 bear.

A HUNT WITH NO EXPLANATION

Perhaps the greatest anger, outrage and frustration of this bear hunt was in the fact that the FWC never provided an adequate explanation of the hunt in the first place. The Editorial Board of the News-Press.com labeled this hunt as “poorly conceived, poorly coordinated, poorly conducted and the end result was embarrassing for Florida.”

There is no question this is a black spot on the state of Florida. And because this hunt was conducted only three years after the Florida black bear was removed from the threatened species list, with no indicators of over-population issues, no reports of starving bear, an ample food supply and only a handful of isolated incidents of bear attacking humans (with most of those proven to be provoked by humans or human carelessness), this made national as well as international news.

blackbear

WHAT WENT WRONG

It would be simpler and easier to address what went right; because in truth, nothing went right, except that the FWC mercifully called a TKO after the second day of the hunt. However, most of the “wrongs” have already been covered in detail in this article, and the myriad of other articles that are now circulating. So “What Went Wrong” will consist of a simple list.

• The FWC consists of real estate developers, attorneys, ranchers and hunters. Not a single commissioner has experience in conservation or biology, and any on the job education obtained as commissioner has been offset by their conflicts of interest. The reality is that the majority of these commissioners would benefit financially if there were no Florida black bear, if there were no Florida Panther, and no other wildlife to stand in their way. Simply put, decisions made by the FWC are made to benefit the FWC commissioners and not the residents of Florida, and they are using the hunters as their pawns.

• The FWC produced a detailed Bear Management Plan in 2012, which was developed to ensure the black bear would never again become a threatened species. A hunting program was never addressed as part of this plan; and this recent hunt represents a significant step backward in what had been a great story of recovery of the black bear.

• Seventy five percent of Florida residents were opposed to this hunt; yet the FWC ignored that 75% of the population, and chose to side with a small minority of the hunting community.

• The FWC choose to move ahead with this hunt before final bear counts were even completed. The completion date was targeted for 2016. Why couldn’t the FWC wait one additional year and establish solid counts of the bear population, then make a decision?

• The FWC did not limit the number of permits sold for the bear hunt. Ultimately, there were 3,778 permits sold…enough to kill every black bear in the state. Obviously, that was not going to happen. However, the FWC certainly put themselves in a vulnerable position that, with a guaranteed two day hunt, the bear population could have been decimated beyond recovery.

• The $100 in-state permit fee and $300 out-of-state permit fees were so low, it failed to generate any significant revenue that truly could have been invested in bear conservation efforts. While many may believe $376,000 is a significant amount of money, it really is not. Charging $2,000 for in-state residents and $3,000 for out-of-state residents, and limiting the number of permits to 2,000 would have generated $5,000,000 in revenue (assuming an equal number of in-state and out-of-state residents). This is real money and could have gone toward a bear proof trash can subsidy program, further education of residents in bear country, and investment in over-passes or under-passes, allowing bear and panthers safe haven and access over busy highways.

• Additionally, more expensive permitting tends to draw in a more experienced hunting crowd. Because they are more experienced; they are less likely to shoot lactating mothers and less likely of shooting cubs. And if there are any ethics to be found in the hunting community, it certainly is more likely to come from the experienced hunters.

• By allowing an unlimited number of hunters, a compacted hunting period, and a two day guarantee, the FWC virtually assured themselves of an unmanageable hunt. Expanding the hunt into multiple weeks and limiting the number of hunters on any given day, this would have helped to manage the hunt count. This would have ensured that both the Eastern Panhandle and Central Florida bear counts remained in check. As it happened, the number of bears killed in the Eastern Panhandle were nearly triple the target and bears killed in the Central region exceeded that target by 40%.

• The FWC held the bear hunt in the first place. Aside from the mistakes referenced above, the simple fact is that there was no justification to even have the bear hunt. The FWC acknowledged that there was not an over-population issue. They acknowledged that natural food sources were ample. They acknowledged that the isolated incidents where bear actually attacked humans was due to human provocation. (Bears are very shy animals, and almost never initiate an unprovoked attack.)

The FWC acknowledged that the most effective way of controlling the human – bear conflict is to educate the public, and to place a greater emphasis of bear proof trash cans in bear country. Yet, the FWC ultimately justified the bear hunt on the basis that it would reduce the human – bear conflict, even though they acknowledged this bear hunt would not accomplish that goal. “We know this isn’t going to work but we are going to do it anyway” appeared to be the mantra of the FWC. Additionally, the majority of the bear killed were in Marion County, and deep in the Ocala National Forest. These were not even the bears that were creating the human-bear conflict in the first place

SO WHAT DID WE LEARN?

In the movie Burn After Reading, the final scene captured a conversation between the CIA Superior and one of his officers. The CIA Superior posed the question “What did we learn Palmer?” to which Palmer answered “I don’t know sir.” The Superior responded back “ I don’t bleeping know either. I guess we learned not to do it again.” The officer’s only response was “Yes sir”, to which the Superior commented “I’m bleeped if I know what we did.”

The majority of Florida’s citizens did not want this hunt in the first place. After the black eye that the FWC has inflicted upon the state with this embarrassing, unjustified disaster of a bear hunt, I only hope that the FWC will bow to the will of the people…and to common sense…and to intelligent conservation and also never have this hunt again.

However, this assumes that the people making the original decision to hold this hunt in the first place have now developed the knowledge and intelligence not to repeat this mistake. Unfortunately, the only way to ensure that this does not happen again would be to remove the entire Commission, and appoint members without conflicts of interest, and with the proper backgrounds and education necessary to make decisions that protect Florida’s wildlife and not destroy it.

Advertisements

THE BLACK BEAR MASSACRE OF 2015

On Saturday, October 24, 2015, and less than three years after being delisted as a threatened species, the Florida black bear will once again be fighting for his life; and perhaps a survival of the species. This will be the first legal hunt of the black bear since 1994, when the Commission of Game & Fresh Water Fish (GFC) closed all remaining areas for bear hunting. And at that point in time there were approximately 1,250 black bears remaining in the state.

black bear medium
Photo from Sierra Club Florida

Thanks in part to this hunting ban and other conservation efforts, the population has recovered to over 3,000 bears in six core areas (Eglin, Apalachicola, Osceola, St. Johns and Big Cypress) and two remnant areas (Chassahowitzka and Glades / Highlands). And while recovery rate of this magnitude should be perceived as a great victory for the black bear, the decision by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) may succeed in returning the black bear population back to those pre-recovery levels.

Bear_Distribution_Map
Beginning Saturday and continuing for seven days until the following Friday, the FWC has approved the killing of up to 320 bears in four primary geographic areas, although the FWC will not be tracking total kills until after the weekend and has guaranteed the hunt will last at least two full days. Therefore, the likelihood is great that the total bears killed will greatly surpass the 320 bear objective.

Including historic mortality rates, this would essentially represent 20% of the population. (The FWC study “Florida Black Bear Management Plan” concluded that a black bear subpopulation of at least 200 could absorb and survive up to a 23% annual mortality rate and still sustain the species.)

Bear Chart

bear-management-units-hunt-map

As referenced above, in 2012, the FWC completed a lengthy study entitled “The Florida Black Bear Management Plan” (The Plan); with the objective of this study to “maintain sustainable black bear populations in suitable habitats throughout Florida for the benefit of the species and the people.” To reach this goal, the study determined that there needs to be at least one subpopulation of at least 1,000 individuals and smaller subpopulation areas of at least 200 bears each.

The North and Central estimates referenced in the chart above are based upon 2014 counts, while the East Panhandle and South counts have not been updated since 2002; but were estimated, based upon the concluded increase in the North and Central counts. However, Nick Wiley, Certified Wildlife Biologist and Executive Director for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission admitted that the FWC really doesn’t know if 3,150 is an accurate number or not.

But to read Nick Wiley’s June 22, 2015 news release, one might conclude that the Florida black bear is running rampant, wild and out of control on Florida’s highway and byways, and causing severe risk and danger to Florida drivers.

This is not to say that a human – bear conflict does not exist. In 2014, the FWC fielded in excess of 6,000 complaint calls from concerned citizens; or about 16 calls per day. And according to the FWC, there were 227 black bear killed in vehicle related accidents in 2014. However, this represents a 20% reduction over the 285 bears that were killed in 2012; thanks to the construction of wildlife underpasses, the posting of warning signs and reduced speed limits in frequent roadkill areas, providing of information at rest stops and tourist information areas, and other measures.

And all efforts to date seemingly have followed the FWC goal of delisting and restoring the black bear to healthy levels; and The Plan’s intention to “address these conservation challenges and to ensure that bears will never again need to be listed as a threatened species”.

ETHICS? WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ ETHICS

So, if the bear population can sustain up to a 23% loss in a single year, why the anger and protest by those attempting to stop the hunt? One could easily bring up the ethical aspect of hunting just to hunt. Unfortunately, it seems that this argument never gains any traction because in today’s world, we seem to view life as simply black and white. That is, if it is legal, it is okay; and ethical and moral implications be damned.

The reality is that those individuals that live a life built on an ethical foundation will likely continue to maintain a level of morality. Those that have built their lives on excuses and an ‘unethical act justification’ will always be ethically challenged. Therefore, although this should be a significant consideration against bear hunting, we will unfortunately have to check this one-off the list as non-applicable.

So, if ethical behavior is off the list, this also means compassion, the humane treatment of wildlife, and being a steward of our environment is also off the list. Which would seemingly suggest that we just get this carnage started; to see how much death, destruction and devastation of the black bear population we can actually cause over a 7-day period.

Yet, you may ask that if the FWC has capped the number at about 10% of the total estimated population, how can that cause this gloom and doom scenario? Simple. As of early October, the state of Florida had already issued 2,659 licenses for the right to kill these 320 bears, and nearly enough licenses to kill every black bear in the state. And because the FWC will not even attempt to track or monitor the number of bears killed until after the first two days, the likelihood is that the number of bears killed will far exceed the maximum 320.

And given that these 2,659 hunters are already well aware of this likelihood, we can also assume that there will be few, if any, that wait until Monday or Tuesday for their hunting experience. Rather, they will all descend into bear territory at the same time. So, in addition to the plight of the black bear, I would venture to guess that when you combine 2,659 hunters, an animal that has not been legally hunted in twenty plus years, a contracted timetable and a limit of how many bears that can be killed, there is an added probability of accidental shootings and injuries to hunters as well. However, I assume this would just be chalked up as collateral damage.

GETTY_12313_BlackBear
WWGP1050

A FAILED PLAN

Even those supporters of the bear hunt must surely be scratching their head and questioning why the FWC would implement such a questionable plan. After all, who in their right mind would establish a capped or targeted number, yet not establish parameters to ensure that number would not be exceeded? Two days of open-ending hunting. Come one, come all. Kill as many bears as you can, then we will see if we are at our limit. And keep in mind that it will also take the FWC time to tally the numbers, since there are 33 bear hunt check stations. So while the FWC is in the process of counting the number of Saturday and Sunday kills, bear hunting will continue to operate as normal well into the third day.

Intelligent planning would suggest that if the bear hunt was truly necessary (which remains a question), why would you not spread the hunt over at least three or four weekends, and limit the number of hunters per weekend? The FWC could have auctioned off permits and sold the first weekend permits for a significantly higher amount than $100 for Florida residents and $300 for out –of-state residents, and staggered pricing such that those permits acquired in the fourth or fifth weekend would be discounted.

The idea that the black bear would be hunted in the first place is sad; but all the more so, given that the price on his / her head is such a paltry amount. I would anticipate that in a lottery type scenario, a hunter would gladly pay at least $5,000 for the right to kill a bear that has been protected for the past 20 years. At that price, the State may have raised $10 million in revenue. But, as it stands, they will probably generate about $400,000 (assuming 50% of permits were issued to in-state residents and the other 50% issued to out-of-state residents).

LEGAL BASIS FOR KILLING

So, where does the FWC have the power to authorize such a hunt? Florida Administrative Code 68A-4.009 (i.e. Florida Black Bear Conservation) states:

(1) No person shall take, possess, injure, shoot, collect, or sell black bears or their parts or to attempt to engage in such conduct except as authorized by Commission rule or by permit from the Commission;

(2) The Commission will issue permits authorizing intentional take of bears when it determines such authorization furthers scientific or conservation purposes which will benefit the survival potential of the species or to reduce property damage caused by bears. For purposes of this rule, activities that are eligible for a permit include:

(a) Collection of scientific data needed for conservation or management of the species;

(b) Taking bears that are causing property damage when no non-lethal options can provide a practical resolution to the damage, and the Commission is unable to capture the bear.

Therefore, under Florida statutes, the FWC may authorize the killing of bears, only if it “furthers scientific or conservation purposes, which will benefit the survival potential of the species or to reduce property damage caused by bears.” Clearly, this effort has nothing to do with any scientific study, so it must fall under the vague and highly debatable “conservation” argument. However, through my research, I have yet to locate any study that definitively states the black bear population is deemed to be at a level that would require the “management” of the species. In other words, no over-population issue has been introduced that suggests the population needs to be reduced by 320 bears over a single week.

So, is the justification related to “property damage”? And if so, has the FWC determined that there are no non-lethal options that “can provide practical resolution to the damage”? We noted earlier that there were about 6,000 complaint calls made in 2014, with the majority of these calls representing concerned citizens that had either seen a bear in their back yard, or the bear had dumped over a trash can and was rummaging through the garbage. (See chart below.)

bearpiechart

However, can that truly be argued as damaging property? And isn’t this a correctable issue that can be accomplished simply by trading out traditional trash cans with bear-proof containers, something the FWC has already been pushing as part of its Education and Outreach program – which is described in the Florida Black Bear Management Plan?

Even the FWC acknowledges on their website that “The mere presence of a black bear does not represent a problem. In fact, living in black bear country can provide unique and rewarding experiences! The best way to enjoy our wildlife is to keep them wild and away from food sources like garbage, pet food, and bird seed.”

The FWC has also acknowledged that “there is no shortage of natural foods in Florida’s forests for bears, they are very opportunistic feeders and are technically omnivores. Bears typically wander into residential areas because the food they can find there is high in calories and easy to get. Because black bears are “smart enough to be lazy” and take the path of least resistance – the neighborhood. They will spend a few hours in a neighborhood getting into trash cans, bird feeders, or gardens and get the same number of calories.”

And that “black bears avoid confrontation 90% of the time. They are naturally shy animals that will generally give plenty of warnings (e.g. jaw popping, huffing, bluff charging) before attacking”.

The FWC has been keeping track of incidents where a person has been injured by a bear in the state of Florida since 1976 and they have noted it is a very rare event. And in most cases the bear was acting in a defensive manner protecting itself, its young, or a food source.

Further, the FWC officials have acknowledged the majority of feedback the agency has received is against the hunt (40,000+ calls, letters and emails – 75% of them against the hunt), but they said they have to weigh public opinion versus scientific research. And that they agree with animal rights supporters that the best way to minimize human-bear conflicts is through managing garbage and food attractants, such as utilizing bear-proof trash cans. However, they also indicated that hunting is one tool in their comprehensive approach to curbing the population. Yet, if you review the Florida Black Bear Management Plan, you will find there is no mention of killing the black bear as part of the plan.

Nick Wiley noted that the two attacks on humans in 2013 and the two attacks in 2014 are not prompting bear hunts because they can’t prove they would reduce future incidents. He further stated that “We have never proposed bear hunting as a solution to conflicts. It’s to control the bear population. We don’t know for sure it will lessen the conflicts. We don’t have the science to prove it.”

ORPHANED CUBS

Of course, aside from the bears killed during this event, the additional victims of this hunt will be the orphaned cubs. FWC indicated that the hunt is occurring in late October for two reasons. One, it is just prior to winter hibernation; and two, the bear cubs will be old enough to fend for themselves and survive on their own by then. However, according to the FWC website, cubs are normally born in late January to mid-February and the family dissolution period is typically 15 to 17 months.

So, for those cubs born in early 2014, they most likely left their mothers between July and September, and should be fine. However, those cubs born early this year? They are only 8 to 9 months old, and certainly, will have no chance to survive without their mothers whatsoever. Their only hope is that the good-hearted volunteers that plan to scour the woods after the hunt is over, in hopes of finding the cubs. If not, the cubs will simply starve to death.

black-bear-mom-cub
Photo by Norbert Rosing, National Geographic

What I find humorous is that the Hunt Florida TV channel, commission spokesman Tony Young said, “If you see a bear that comes out into view, and you’re thinking about harvesting it because it looks big enough, give it a little while and make sure it doesn’t have a cub with it.”

I laugh because I ask the question, what hunter is going to follow this advice? Would that be the same hunter that seeks to kill the oldest and weakest lion out of conservation’s sake? No, the time is ticking. As soon as the hunter sees something large enough, he’s blasting away. He doesn’t have time to risk another hunter getting to this animal first. (Remember, we will have close to 3,000 hunters running rampant through the forests.)

I find it equally humorous when hunters use the word “harvest”. They talk as if they are going out to pick blueberries or apples. The simple fact is that fruits and vegetables are harvested…animals are killed. Let’s not mince words here. If you are going to kill the animal, say it proudly. You aren’t going to harvest the animal. You aren’t going to take the animal. You are going to kill the animal.

blackbearcubs
FINAL THOUGHTS

“It’s a mismanaged animal,” said Andrew Moyes, 45, of Fort Lauderdale, who plans to hunt bears on private land near Apopka. “These animals have no fear of humans. If people start taking a few bears, it’s going to change their thought processes. I think it’s actually beneficial to the bears.”

My question to Mr. Moyes is how do you conclude that an animal that has been on the threatened species list for nearly twenty years, has been off the list a total of three years, and with a population that has increased from 1,250 to around 3,000 over that twenty year period is a mismanaged species? And my question to those that would argue that hunting is conservation, why was the black bear on the threatened species list in the first place? Simple…over-hunting. If hunting was not the culprit, then the FWC would have never banned this activity in the first place.

And let’s not talk about hunting as conservation because the revenues will help support the preservation of the Florida black bear. Permits are $100 for in-state residents and $300 for out-of-state residents. Even if every hunter was out-of-state and the 320 bear max was attained; that is less than $1 million in revenue.

The FWC should have significantly upped the price for this hunt; generated millions and millions of dollars which could have been invested in additional wildlife underpasses, more signs, further communication, or perhaps as a subsidy toward the purchase of more bear proof trash cans and dumpsters. This tells me that conservation really was not a consideration in the FWC decision to allow this hunt.

The fact of the matter is that the reason there has been an increase in complaint calls from Florida residents is not that bears are suddenly coming out of the woods and into people’s back yards to eat. The simple fact is that Florida’s population is growing and is now infringing on territory that was bear territory. So, in truth, we are bothering them…they are not bothering us. And hunting bears deep in the woods is not going to prevent them from foraging for food in people’s back yards. As the FWC noted, black bears are smart enough to be lazy.

How many times have you decided to pick up a meal at a fast food restaurant because it was easier and more convenient than going home and creating a meal from scratch? The bears are no different. Why forage for food, when someone has left an unsecured trash can that makes for an easy meal? So, kill off 20% of the bears next weekend; but don’t be surprised when the number of complaint calls increases in 2016.

The challenge of course, is how to deal with the human – animal conflict when the human population continues to grow. The traditional method is to just expand into the territory of wildlife and wildlife be damned. And if humans prefer to live in a world with little wildlife, then there really need not be a further discussion. Just maintain this current strategy and this will happen, and it is happening at a frightening pace.

There is of course ample opportunity to recycle previous developments and to take a brownfield redevelopment approach rather than a greenfield approach. However, that is an article for another time.

The reality from this observer’s point of view is that hunters simply want to hunt. There will be arguments that dance around this issue – arguing that hunting is conservation, or that the black bear population is out of control. But, in truth, hunters simply want the opportunity to hunt something. But because they know they are often negatively viewed by the general public, they will attempt to spin this as if they are doing all of us a favor.

From this writer’s perspective, I admit that there are those unfortunate times when an animal must be killed for conservation or environmental purposes; and those situations arise where there is simply an over-population of that animal. Of course, that over-population is our fault as well – as we either screwed with the eco system (killing too many predators like the wolf or mountain lion), resulting in san over-population of prey animals. Or we have reduced the animal habitat to such a confined space, they have no place else to go and are then deemed as becoming “nuisance” animals because they are infringing on our territory (which was their territory).

It is ironic when you think about the fact that when the human population over-populates, we don’t hire hunters to reduce the human population to manageable levels. Rather, we simply take over more land to accommodate people. Animals generally don’t over-populate. We just force them into smaller and smaller habitats; and as those habitats become smaller, there is a perceived over-population. And the answer to that problem is to kill and reduce.

The reality is that the black bear hunt will likely occur next weekend…short of any last-minute miracles. And assuming this hunt occurs, I hope this hunt truly exposes the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for what it represents and who it represents. The FWC is composed of hunters, developers and ranchers; those individuals with motivations contrary to the protection of wildlife and contrary to conservation ideals.

If the Florida black bear suffers the fate we all fear, we can only maintain the faith and belief that positive change is often born from the ashes of ruin and devastation. But regardless, this will be a sad day for the state of Florida, for Florida residents, and for anyone that loves wildlife.