Sierr@ Club causing issues in Florida ?

[Old Gobbler]

The seirra club I'm am going to look into there social media and meetings and I will find out what they are up to , I promise you that

[Hobbes]

I've heard of it happening for limited entry permits here in the West, but can't validate the claim.  If anyone ever gives a green light on grizzly, you can almost bet on something like that happening.

[HookedonHooks]

The same is now happening in Missouri for the extremely limited bear draw and more particularly, the next to impossible elk draw. There's less than a handful of elk tags handed out in total, and anti's were applying like crazy to try and draw the tag and not allow the conservation department their honest research and management of the heard in the area of reintroduction. It's honestly comical they think they're saving the recently reintroduced animals by taking the tag from a hunter, because then the heard management and logistical research for heard longevity doesn't take place.

[St. Augustine Strutter]

The seirra club I'm am going to look into there social media and meetings and I will find out what they are up to , I promise you that

Here they are, complaining about the Panther Refuge Hunt

https://www.sierraclub.org/florida/blog/2021/05/turkey-hunting-panther-refuge

[Ross R]

Here they are, complaining about the Panther Refuge Hunt

https://www.sierraclub.org/florida/blog/2021/05/turkey-hunting-panther-refuge

"There may be up to 230, but could be as low as 120 adult Florida panthers left in Florida.

That is the most laughable quote in there. 

[cracker4112]

Here they are, complaining about the Panther Refuge Hunt

https://www.sierraclub.org/florida/blog/2021/05/turkey-hunting-panther-refuge

"There may be up to 230, but could be as low as 120 adult Florida panthers left in Florida.

That is the most laughable quote in there.

\
I'll say.

[donjuan]

Not to sidetrack but is there anywhere to see the required points for Florida in the limited hunts and the trends over the years?

[GobbleNut]

So, since we're having some dialogue... Do you have any suggestions for such a measure? Also thoughts on ways to sway them towards willingness to make such necessary changes?

I think the most obvious and simplest solution to part of this problem is to have a "stand-by" option for hunts wherein someone that doesn't show up for a hunt gets replaced with a stand-by hunter (I am aware that systems like that are already in place in some places). That would eliminate those folks from applying that think if they get a permit with no intention of going, they are not accomplishing their goal of preventing someone else from hunting.  Of course, a system like that has its faults, as well, in that it obviously favors those hunters that live close to the hunt areas in question and can easily be at the check-in locations to see if someone does not show up, but it would make those folks that we are discussing think twice about wasting their time applying for these hunts.   

I personally believe provisions against this kind of stuff could be incorporated into the hunter harassment laws that a lot of states have.  Not sure if Florida has one, but if not, it is probably time for an effort to be made to get one.  Here in New Mexico, a part of the application process is that you have to check a box to "attest" to certain things, such being a resident (if applying for a resident license), or having completed a hunter safety course, or not being a felon, and such.  I see no reason why anybody applying for a hunting license could not be required to attest that they are actually planning on using the permit to go hunting and are not applying just to take away the opportunity for someone else to hunt. 

Attesting to such, and then being found out to be someone who is not a hunter and is just trying to impersonate an actual hunter could be ruled (through appropriate legislation) to constitute fraud and adequate deterrents could put in place such as significant fines and/or jail time.  Some language could be incorporated into the application process that said something like this:

"I attest that I am applying for this permit as an individual who has a legitimate interest in using this permit, should I be drawn, to hunt for the species of game being applied for.  Further, I attest that my intent in applying for this permit is not to eliminate the opportunity of another individual to obtain this permit in an effort to prevent the legal harvest of the game in question.  I understand that providing false testimony herein is a violation of ____ code and is subject to a fine of ___ dollars and/or imprisonment for up to ____ months/years. 

I think something like that legislated into law would probably eliminate the concerns for much of this kind of stuff.  No doubt, there are some folks who would probably show up and pretend like they were actually hunting as a last resort, but I doubt that would be a significant problem.  Keep in mind also that wildlife managers set harvest goals for these kinds of hunts.  Anti-hunters not using permits they might acquire would result in harvest goals not being met, which means that the number of hunts/permits could be increased correspondingly, which in turn would eventually make those folks realize that they were just spending their time and money needlessly. 

I suspect others here probably have good ideas as to how this kind of thing could be prevented, as well. 

Finally, as I stated before, states have to have a wildlife agency that actually wants to try to prevent this kind of stuff from happening and will go to the lengths needed to stop it.  There are no doubt agencies that are less inclined to do that than others.  I don't know how Florida fits into that picture.  Whether the wildlife management agency there can be swayed depends a lot on who is running the show, I think.  However, the first step is for sportsmen to unite and challenge the agency to do something about stuff like this and see what happens.   

[silvestris]

Florida's problem is making the state too attractive to those north of the Mason-Dixon Line for migration who bring their mores with them.  When you choose to move to the South, leave your liberal ideas where  you came from.  Assimilate.

[Jester87]

A take from the west....
Sierr@  and other organizations have been active in AZ for decades trying to sabotage hunting. They've moved on from the stone age protests, throwing paint, and slashing tires to playing the political field which has increased their success.

Every year they introduce ballot initiatives to stop mt lion and bobcat hunts. This year they've included spring bear with the ultimate goal to ban it entirely. Our politicians play both sides of the fence and often agree to shorten seasons or decrease tags but won't go as far to ban it...yet. Its a victory for them, period. Their strategy is to end hunting one tag, season, or species at a time. Every bit they take away from us puts them closer to their end goal.   

I've met a few people that openly admit to putting in for the big game tags hoping to steal the opportunity from a real hunter. Though the exact numbers and their effects would be hard to determine. I have personally witnessed them picnic at water holes and meadows banging tambourines and pie pans hoping to scare away game.

Since the west has so much public land, they've spearheaded efforts to close roads and make areas "walk in" or "seasonal entry" only. Ex: If you can't ban guns, limit the ammo. If you can't ban hunting, limit the access. Along with shorter seasons, less tags, and decreasing access they hope to reach their ultimate goal eventually.

[Spurs Up]

So, since we're having some dialogue... Do you have any suggestions for such a measure? Also thoughts on ways to sway them towards willingness to make such necessary changes?

I think the most obvious and simplest solution to part of this problem is to have a "stand-by" option for hunts wherein someone that doesn't show up for a hunt gets replaced with a stand-by hunter (I am aware that systems like that are already in place in some places). That would eliminate those folks from applying that think if they get a permit with no intention of going, they are not accomplishing their goal of preventing someone else from hunting.  Of course, a system like that has its faults, as well, in that it obviously favors those hunters that live close to the hunt areas in question and can easily be at the check-in locations to see if someone does not show up, but it would make those folks that we are discussing think twice about wasting their time applying for these hunts.   

I personally believe provisions against this kind of stuff could be incorporated into the hunter harassment laws that a lot of states have.  Not sure if Florida has one, but if not, it is probably time for an effort to be made to get one.  Here in New Mexico, a part of the application process is that you have to check a box to "attest" to certain things, such being a resident (if applying for a resident license), or having completed a hunter safety course, or not being a felon, and such.  I see no reason why anybody applying for a hunting license could not be required to attest that they are actually planning on using the permit to go hunting and are not applying just to take away the opportunity for someone else to hunt. 

Attesting to such, and then being found out to be someone who is not a hunter and is just trying to impersonate an actual hunter could be ruled (through appropriate legislation) to constitute fraud and adequate deterrents could put in place such as significant fines and/or jail time.  Some language could be incorporated into the application process that said something like this:

"I attest that I am applying for this permit as an individual who has a legitimate interest in using this permit, should I be drawn, to hunt for the species of game being applied for.  Further, I attest that my intent in applying for this permit is not to eliminate the opportunity of another individual to obtain this permit in an effort to prevent the legal harvest of the game in question.  I understand that providing false testimony herein is a violation of ____ code and is subject to a fine of ___ dollars and/or imprisonment for up to ____ months/years. 

I think something like that legislated into law would probably eliminate the concerns for much of this kind of stuff.  No doubt, there are some folks who would probably show up and pretend like they were actually hunting as a last resort, but I doubt that would be a significant problem.  Keep in mind also that wildlife managers set harvest goals for these kinds of hunts.  Anti-hunters not using permits they might acquire would result in harvest goals not being met, which means that the number of hunts/permits could be increased correspondingly, which in turn would eventually make those folks realize that they were just spending their time and money needlessly. 

I suspect others here probably have good ideas as to how this kind of thing could be prevented, as well. 

Finally, as I stated before, states have to have a wildlife agency that actually wants to try to prevent this kind of stuff from happening and will go to the lengths needed to stop it.  There are no doubt agencies that are less inclined to do that than others.  I don't know how Florida fits into that picture.  Whether the wildlife management agency there can be swayed depends a lot on who is running the show, I think.  However, the first step is for sportsmen to unite and challenge the agency to do something about stuff like this and see what happens.   

Rather than create yet another law, why not just do away with limited entry permits altogether or issue them as hunters enter the area?

[TurkeyReaper69]

So, since we're having some dialogue... Do you have any suggestions for such a measure? Also thoughts on ways to sway them towards willingness to make such necessary changes?

I think the most obvious and simplest solution to part of this problem is to have a "stand-by" option for hunts wherein someone that doesn't show up for a hunt gets replaced with a stand-by hunter (I am aware that systems like that are already in place in some places). That would eliminate those folks from applying that think if they get a permit with no intention of going, they are not accomplishing their goal of preventing someone else from hunting.  Of course, a system like that has its faults, as well, in that it obviously favors those hunters that live close to the hunt areas in question and can easily be at the check-in locations to see if someone does not show up, but it would make those folks that we are discussing think twice about wasting their time applying for these hunts.   

I personally believe provisions against this kind of stuff could be incorporated into the hunter harassment laws that a lot of states have.  Not sure if Florida has one, but if not, it is probably time for an effort to be made to get one.  Here in New Mexico, a part of the application process is that you have to check a box to "attest" to certain things, such being a resident (if applying for a resident license), or having completed a hunter safety course, or not being a felon, and such.  I see no reason why anybody applying for a hunting license could not be required to attest that they are actually planning on using the permit to go hunting and are not applying just to take away the opportunity for someone else to hunt. 

Attesting to such, and then being found out to be someone who is not a hunter and is just trying to impersonate an actual hunter could be ruled (through appropriate legislation) to constitute fraud and adequate deterrents could put in place such as significant fines and/or jail time.  Some language could be incorporated into the application process that said something like this:

"I attest that I am applying for this permit as an individual who has a legitimate interest in using this permit, should I be drawn, to hunt for the species of game being applied for.  Further, I attest that my intent in applying for this permit is not to eliminate the opportunity of another individual to obtain this permit in an effort to prevent the legal harvest of the game in question.  I understand that providing false testimony herein is a violation of ____ code and is subject to a fine of ___ dollars and/or imprisonment for up to ____ months/years. 

I think something like that legislated into law would probably eliminate the concerns for much of this kind of stuff.  No doubt, there are some folks who would probably show up and pretend like they were actually hunting as a last resort, but I doubt that would be a significant problem.  Keep in mind also that wildlife managers set harvest goals for these kinds of hunts.  Anti-hunters not using permits they might acquire would result in harvest goals not being met, which means that the number of hunts/permits could be increased correspondingly, which in turn would eventually make those folks realize that they were just spending their time and money needlessly. 

I suspect others here probably have good ideas as to how this kind of thing could be prevented, as well. 

Finally, as I stated before, states have to have a wildlife agency that actually wants to try to prevent this kind of stuff from happening and will go to the lengths needed to stop it.  There are no doubt agencies that are less inclined to do that than others.  I don't know how Florida fits into that picture.  Whether the wildlife management agency there can be swayed depends a lot on who is running the show, I think.  However, the first step is for sportsmen to unite and challenge the agency to do something about stuff like this and see what happens.   

Rather than create yet another law, why not just do away with limited entry permits altogether or issue them as hunters enter the area?

That would be terrible to do away with any limited entry/ quota hunts, or to "issue them as hunters enter the area". On one hand areas such as South FL pub land limited entry WMA's which boast good harvest numbers would within a year or two more than likely produce similar harvest stats to what say Big Cypress or Corbett is on a harvest-to acreage level (forgive me as the last sentence might not have made much sense, I was struggling to come up with the correct terminology). Hunter enjoyment would absolutely plummet from South Florida to Alaska. High value units for Elk or Mule Deer in say Wyoming would be over run with hunters, the reason being they are so sought after due to either high success, or big bulls would be ruined.

If I am reading the second part of your statement correctly, that also would be very unfair. For example I live in Mississippi, I have wanted to hunt Bighorn Sheep for as long as I remember. If the tags were issued based on who "enters the area first" that would heavily favor local hunters. How could I possibly get from Mississippi before a fella from say Cody WY could get into primo Sheep territory?

[Old Gobbler]

Thanks for the links ...yes you can see they are doing thier best to undermine hunting..the "Panthers " don't get me started that is the biggest hoax ever sold to Florida taxpayers ..they pull that card out anytime they want to obstruct

The anti's went full bore with the bear hunt and succeeded..the then governor caved right away

As you can see they are well organized...the question is , are we going to live in denial , and wait till the horse runs off before we close the gate ?

Replacement hunts like what are done at the Florida s.t.a. waterfowl hunts are a huge success , but when there were 120-160 guys trying to get in on a handful of available permits things went out of control ..and then the fwc started doing the replacement hunts online

I think a better alternative would be what California has with Thier waterfowl hunts and do the lotto the night before ...in person

[GobbleNut]

Rather than create yet another law, why not just do away with limited entry permits altogether or issue them as hunters enter the area?

I am assuming by this comment you mean that in limited-permit hunt areas, that it would be on a first-come, first-served basis until the max number of hunters was met.  If this is the case, I can tell you exactly what will happen because we used to have a similar system here in NM for leftover big game tags.  Our G&F Dept. would allot the leftovers at a certain date and time at several locations around the state on that FC/FS system. 

People would start lining up at the sales locations DAYS in advance of the sale, some camping out in front of the sales location in parking lots and such.  Although I did not witness any (because I was not willing to stand in line for days), supposedly fights broke out between hunters when someone had to go use the bathroom and left their spot and then tried to get back in line.  Those of us that were not willing to stand in line for hours or days had no chance of getting a permit because the guys that had the time and wherewithal to do that would get them. 

I can tell you without hesitation that doing what you are suggesting would be a nightmare for both hunters and the agency managing the hunts.  Well-written hunter-harassment laws are the way to go with sufficient penalties to discourage the type of stuff this thread is about.  Do that, and have a fair lottery system in place for permits.  That is the way to go. 

[btodd00]

Don't you have to have a management area stamp/ hunting license to apply for our permits? If so that would mean they are also taking  the hunters safety course to purchase the license/management area stamp....unless they are all born prior to '75