
Florida considers controversial black bear hunt amid strong opposition
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission met Wednesday in Ocala to consider a bear hunt for December and annually into the future, possibly allowing the use of up to six dogs to corner the bears. Methods could include bowhunting, similar to rules for hunting deer, and bear hunting in baited areas.
The commission staff says the goal is to 'begin managing population growth' for bears, which number about 4,000 in Florida. 'Managing population growth is important to balance species numbers with suitable habitat and maintain a healthy population,' the staff report says.
Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods, whose fast-growing county hosted the meeting, said his office has received 107 calls about bear encounters with humans over the past nine months — likely only a fraction of actual encounters because many rural residents don't report them. Woods said he supports the hunt.
'It needs to be regulated and it should be regulated. I think we keep not only our citizens safe but the state of Florida's citizens safe," Woods told the commission.
Several hunters and representatives of outdoors groups urged the commission to approve the hunt, noting Florida is one of only six states with significant black bear populations that does not allow it.
'Bear is a game species. It's time for us to have some level of bear hunt," said Travis Thompson, executive director at the All Florida conservation organization.
Hunt opponents contend there isn't enough scientific evidence to justify killing bears and that the most reasonable approach is to convince people in Florida's ever-sprawling developments to secure garbage and take other non-lethal steps to limit human-bear conflicts.
'I implore you to not allow the slaughter of these majestic animals we have in Florida,' said Leslie Carlile, an opponent whose family goes back several generations in Florida. 'Trophy hunting is pure evil in my opinion.'
The FWC has received more than 13,000 online comments about the proposal, about three-quarters of them opposed. At Wednesday's meeting, 170 people signed up to speak on both sides of the issue.
Hunt opponent Janet Osborne told the commission it would 'take a step backward' by approving the bear proposal.
'The problem is the overpopulation of people,' she said.
A final decision on whether to hold the bear hunt is expected in August.
Among other things, supporters of the hunt point to a black bear's extremely rare, fatal attack earlier this month on 89-year-old Robert Markel and his dog in a rural part of Collier County, in southwest Florida. Bears are also frequently seen in neighborhoods that stretch into their habitat, one even wandering onto Disney World's Magic Kingdom in 2023.
In the 2015 hunt, hunting permits were for anyone who could pay for them, leading to a chaotic event that was shut down days early. The 300-plus bears killed then included at least 38 females with cubs, meaning the little bears probably died too.
This time, the plan is to have a random, limited drawing of permits with a limit of 187. Hunters could kill only one bear each and only in certain parts of Florida where the bear population is large enough. There would be no killing of cubs and none of females with cubs, according to the FWC staff.
A permit would cost $100 for a Florida resident and $300 for a nonresident.
For 2025, the plan is to hold the hunt from Dec. 6 to Dec. 28. In the future, the FWC foresees a bear hunt between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, subject to more studies about the effect of hunting and the population of the animals.
Private landowners with 5,000 acres (2,023 hectares) or more could hold what the FWC calls a 'bear harvest program' on their property under the proposal. Bears could be hunted at bait feeding stations on private property.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
6 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Chinese hackers have seized control. How did we let this happen?
A civilisation that cannot defend itself really should not expect to survive, and after the latest cybersecurity news, I wonder how it can. An official advisory was recently sent out to the US military, warning that all forces must now assume their networks have been breached. The enemy is inside the house. What it means is that no system connected to the internet can be defended. Our own national cybersecurity agency asked UK businesses to make this presumption in 2020. The reason this hasn't been bigger news is that we've become fatalistic and weary, as one cybersecurity attack follows another. So when we discovered in early July that Chinese hackers had gained control of Microsoft servers at hundreds of US government agencies – including the US nuclear weapons agency – it was just another hacking story. What made this one noteworthy was that there wasn't immediately a fix or a patch, Microsoft admitted last Tuesday. Incredibly, confirmation of the US military's 'assume breach' alert had to be dragged out of the Department of Defense via Freedom of Information Act requests by a campaigning non-profit called Property of the People. These developments are the latest stage in an ongoing state-sponsored Chinese campaign, in which hacking has evolved from widespread commercial espionage a decade ago into something far more threatening. The latest phases, Salt Typhoon and now Volt Typhoon, are meticulous and sophisticated. They target not just government agencies like the National Guard, and China-critical MPs like Sir Iain Duncan Smith, but also private sector companies in the energy, telecoms, transport and water sectors. Ciaran Martin, former head of NCSC, the cybersecurity centre based at GCHQ, says that China's capabilities have been transformed. 'Now think of dozens or even hundreds of [individual] hacks at the same time – 'everything, everywhere, all at once' in the words of Jen Easterly, recently departed head of the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.' Software attacks on our computer systems can create unique damage in ways that conventional warfare cannot. Let's consider two. While aerial bombing can produce spectacular instant results, targets can be disassembled prior to attack, and can be quickly rebuilt after the attack. Both happened with the recent attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities. But recovering from cyber attacks is much harder. Ask the British Library, which has still not restored all of its services. 'Printed catalogues and handlists are available in our Reading Rooms', it still advises visitors to its website. The attack took place in October 2023. A second way in which cyber attacks now present a unique challenge is the ability of Chinese hackers to 'live off the land' after they break through. Rather like special forces embedded behind enemy lines, hackers conceal themselves undetected for months or years. To the guardians of the network, they are just another innocent user. 'Both Salt and Volt Typhoon were in play for years before being detected,' writes Martin. 'And they are strategic compromises of the West on a scale hitherto unseen by any other cyber power.' Not only do we not know when the attack is over, we don't even know when it has begun. How did this happen? If I haven't depressed you enough, this is where it gets particularly troubling. Cybersecurity is a gnarly failure of accountability and regulation that spans decades of indifference, and implicates business complacency and government apathy. The internet protocols (IP) we use today are completely rotten. The great and the good of the IT and telecommunications industries spent the entire 1980s in international committees devising complex secure networking protocols, only to be met with mistrust and specifications no one really wanted. Fed up with waiting, we adopted today's protocols, which were cheap and simple to implement, but not secure. Now, the international standards bodies that might devise a successor to IP are dominated by China. When they fail, suppliers can hide behind licensing agreements and expensive lawyers. No one goes to prison for bad security design. Their customers – us – are guilty of negligence too. Salt Typhoon took advantage of a bug in Cisco routers that users had not bothered to fix for seven years. As a society, we rush to implement technologies without thinking too hard about externalities. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) opens up lots of new holes, and also lowers the bar so that even the technically unskilled can plant hacks. All in all, then, this may not seem a good time to force Britons to use a new government identity service. Especially when you know that 'red team' penetration testing proved in March that this could be penetrated by hostile foreign agents without them being detected. This is what Baroness Neville Jones calls 'a piece of critical infrastructure'. Chinese agents may already be 'living off the land' inside the One Login system, on which your government wallet has been built, and soon perhaps, your digital ID. But don't expect Peter Kyle, the Science and Technology Minister, to put the brakes on the One Login project when he's its biggest fan. To survive and prosper, we need serious and technically aware people in his position, who listen to the security professionals. Kyle appeared on Newsnight last week wearing jeans and a T-shirt and trainers, all of which were intended to signal to viewers his youthful love of digital technology. He is 54.


Reuters
6 minutes ago
- Reuters
European leaders react to US-EU trade deal
July 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. struck a framework trade agreement with the European Union on Sunday, imposing a 15% import tariff on most EU goods and averting a bigger trade war between the two allies that account for almost a third of global trade. Following are reactions from European leaders to the deal. "It is a sombre day when an alliance of free peoples, brought together to affirm their common values and to defend their common interests, resigns itself to submission." "This is not an agreement ... Donald Trump ate von der Leyen for breakfast, this is what happened and we suspected this would happen as the U.S. president is a heavyweight when it comes to negotiations while Madame President is featherweight." "This agreement has succeeded in averting a trade conflict that would have hit the export-orientated German economy hard. This applies in particular to the automotive industry, where the current tariffs of 27.5% will be almost halved to 15%." "I consider it positive that there is an agreement, but if I don't see the details I am not able to judge it in the best way." "The agreement brings much-needed predictability to the global economy and Finnish companies. Work must continue to dismantle trade barriers. Only free transatlantic trade benefits both sides the most." "This agreement does not make anyone richer, but it may be the least bad alternative. What appears to be positive for Sweden, based on an initial assessment, is that the agreement creates some predictability." "A deal provides a measure of much needed certainty for Irish, European and American businesses who together represent the most integrated trading relationship in the world. While Ireland regrets that the baseline tariff of 15% is included in the agreement, it is important that we now have more certainty on the foundations for the EU-US trade relationship, which is essential for jobs, growth and investment."


Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
French ministers say EU-US trade deal has merits but is also unbalanced
PARIS, July 28 (Reuters) - French government ministers said a framework trade deal between the United States and European Union had some merits - such as exemptions for some key French business sectors such as spirits - but was nevertheless unbalanced. "The trade agreement negotiated by the European Commission with the United States will bring temporary stability to economic actors threatened by the escalation of American tariffs, but it is unbalanced," wrote French European Affairs Minister Benjamin Haddad on X. That view was echoed by France's industry minister Marc Ferracci, who said more talks - which could last weeks or months - would be needed before the deal could be formally concluded. Ferracci told RTL radio that more needed to be done in terms of rebalancing the EU's trade relations with the U.S. "This is not the end of the story," Ferracci told RTL.