Now here's a story out of Florida that bears watching. Florida's black bear hunt is underway, and troubles' a-bruin. The problem is, as it so often is in wildlife policy: A question of policy based on emotion vs. policy based on science.
Ten years ago, a Florida bear hunt shocked the public when photos spread online of bloody carcasses of mother bears loaded in pick-up trucks and splayed out on concrete slabs at hunter check-in stations.
The hunt, the first in 20 years, was halted in less than 48 hours after an estimated 304 bears were killed the first weekend. The quota that year was 320.
Question: How did they know these were mother bears? Were all of them mother bears? Of that harvest, was there not one boar, not one unaccompanied sow? That's unlikely, but that's what you get from an emotional argument.
Hunters said the quick success rate was proof of a “robust” bear population. Wildlife defenders called the state-sanctioned hunt “a slaughter” and succeeded in discouraging officials from authorizing another one, until this year.
The first regulated Florida black bear hunt in a decade has been underway since Dec. 6. But unlike the 2015 version, it’s almost invisible to anyone but hunters. They report their kills over the phone, instead of taking slain bears to check-in stations open to public view.
Key concept: "Regulated" bear hunt. More on that in a moment. But note again, an emotional argument: "...almost invisible to anyone but hunters." Good; frankly, with nosy parkers like PETA and other animal rights groups constantly looking to interfere, that's probably for the best.
Look, every state has wildlife biologists whose job it is to monitor the populations of game animals. Even here in Alaska, with the vast, empty expanses, the Fish & Wildlife people cover a lot of ground, and wildlife, furbearers, big game, fish, and fowl harvests are, from time to time, adjusted accordingly. It's the same in every state. Professionals, not activists, should be making this decision. Where apex predators are concerned, it's even more critical that these decisions are made by people who know what they're doing.
Read More: Under the Floorboards: Altadena Man Hosts Bear Nightmare
Sad: Elderly Florida Man Is That State's First Victim of a Lethal Bear Attack
That's the "regulated" part of a regulated hunt.
Apex predators, like bears and mountain lions, tend to see the creatures they share their environment with in two ways: Food or foe. When soft, squishy humans, lacking big teeth, claws, hooves, horns, or antlers, stop being a foe, they tend to become rather easily obtainable food. It's still not common, mind you. In the last 10 years, there have been three fatal mountain lion attacks. In the last 10 years, there have been 11 fatal bear attacks, mostly by black bears. That's not surprising, as black bears are by far the most common bears, and are much more likely than their larger cousins to live near people. You're probably more likely to die by having a vending machine fall over on you, but that's not really the point.
The opposition to these hunts cites few numbers, and when they do, those numbers are questionable. They offer no alternatives to managing bear populations, deer populations, or any other kind of animal or fish populations. Their opposition is not based on science, and it's not based on the environment that so many "environmentalists" never experience. The fact is that it is hunters, through their license fees, through taxes on their arms and equipment, who fund modern wildlife management, who volunteer their own time and money to preserve habitat, and it's been that way since the days of Aldo Leopold. Florida should be lauded, not criticized, for keeping it that way. And to Florida's bear hunters, good luck!
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState's engaging reporting that always bears consideration? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth while it's still bruin.
Join RedState VIP and use the promo code MERRY74 to receive 74% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member