Black bears in Florida could soon again be in the crosshairs of trophy hunters after a controversial wildlife ballot measure was approved by voters, environmental advocates say.
The fear stems from amendment 2, which enshrines into the state constitution legal protections for citizens’ right to hunt and fish.
The law, critics say, was written deliberately vaguely in order to present it as a conservation measure instead of a vehicle they claim will speed the rolling back of environmental protections and open a pathway to future legislation permitting inhumane measures such as steel-jawed traps and hunting with dogs.
Bear hunting has been banned in Florida since 1994, except for a limited single season in 2015, and while the amendment does not specifically reintroduce it, activists say it is a significant step on the way.
Earlier this year, state legislators passed a law allowing the shooting and killing of black bears in self-defense, with opponents at the time pointing out it could be abused, especially in rural areas, by landowners simply wanting to eliminate what they saw as nuisance animals.
The run-up to Tuesday’s election saw a cascade of TV commercials and other media attention in Florida dedicated to more prominent ballot measures such as a protection of abortion rights and the legalization of recreational marijuana. Both failed.
“The approval of amendment 2 is disappointing, as it suggests that many voters may not have been fully informed about the implications of this measure,” said Kate MacFall, Florida state director for the Humane Society of the US.
“Unfortunately, our state’s constitution now includes language that could lead to attempts to legalize outdated, cruel and harmful practices, such as the trophy hunting of black bears, trapping, snaring and baiting – activities that most Floridians neither participate in nor support.”
She said the amendment that establishes hunting as the “preferred means” of wildlife management in Florida ignored the availability of “proven, non-lethal conflict-prevention measures”.
Efforts by the Florida fish and wildlife conservation commission (FWC) to pass essential wildlife protections affecting hunting and fishing could also be compromised, she added.
Scientists and conservationists warned ahead of election day that the language of the amendment, specifically a vague reference to “traditional methods” as the preferred form of legalized hunting, could supersede science-based wildlife management.
“That language is open to applying chicanery,” David Guest, a retired Earthjustice lawyer based in Florida, told the Guardian.
“Does that mean that you can use explosives [in the destructive practice called “blast fishing”]? I mean, what in the world is this?”
There is no legal or other definition of “traditional methods” in the subsequent language of the amendment, Guest said, leaving its interpretation wide open.
Opponents say that vagueness could enable worst-case possibilities such as the use of steel-jaw leg-hold traps, which are considered cruel and illegal in more than 100 countries; using hounds to hunt bears and other game, which is banned or restricted in several states; and more relaxed killing limits.
Meanwhile, a Florida Bar analysis suggested that organized hunts are likely to become more common.
The amendment received 67% support, far surpassing the 60% needed. With its passage, Florida became the 24th state, and last in the south-east, to add hunting and fishing as a constitutional right.
Conservative-leaning groups such as the National Rifle Association and Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation are behind a number of similar “sportsmen’s bills of rights” measures across the country. They view hunting as a cultural tradition, and legislation they sponsor is intended to counter proposals to limit hunting and fishing.
“Despite this discouraging result, the Humane Society of the US will continue to fight to protect Florida’s wildlife from these cruel practices at all levels,” MacFall said.
