IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN ...
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
SPEAK UP WEKIVA, INC. and CHARLES W. O’NEAL, Plaintiffs, v.
Case No.:
15-CA-001781
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Defendant. ____________________________________/ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, Speak Up Wekiva, Inc. and Charles W. O’Neal, file this Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, attached hereto, to include additional facts regarding quota established by the FWC for the hunting of Florida Black Bear in support of Plaintiffs’ allegations that FWC Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g), F.A.C. is arbitrary and capricious and unconstitutional. Counsel has conferred and Counsel for Defendant does not object to this motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ralf Brookes, Attorney FL Bar No. 0778362 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway #107 Cape Coral, FL 33904 (239) 910-5464 (866) 341-6086 fax [email protected] [email protected] /s/ Christopher T. Byrd, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 058316 THE BYRD LAW GROUP, P.A. 3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 200
Orlando, Florida 32817 Telephone: (407) 567-2427 Facsimile: (407) 264-6152 [email protected] [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Petitioner hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing have been served on September 16, 2015 via designated service email on the following: General Counsel Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Ryan Osborne Esq. [email protected] 620 S Meridian St Tallahassee, FL 32399-6543 Office: 850-487-1764 Ryan Osborne Esq. Office of the Attorney General PL-01 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 3239900010 Office: 850-245-0140 [email protected] Ralf Brookes, Attorney FL Bar No. 0778362 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway #107 Cape Coral, FL 33904 (239) 910-5464 (866) 341-6086 fax [email protected] [email protected] Christopher T. Byrd, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 058316 THE BYRD LAW GROUP, P.A. 3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 200 Orlando, Florida 32817 Telephone: (407) 567-2427 Facsimile: (407) 264-6152 [email protected] [email protected]
Page 2 of 2
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
SPEAK UP WEKIVA, INC. and CHARLES W. O’NEAL, Plaintiffs, v.
Case No.:
15-CA-001781
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Defendant. ____________________________________/ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs, Speak Up Wekiva, Inc. and Charles W. O’Neal, file this Complaint against the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to challenge the constitutionality of the newly adopted Florida Black Bear Conservation Rule, 68A-4.009(2), Florida Administrative Code, (the “Conservation Rule”) and Black Bear Hunt Rules, Chapters 68A-1, 4, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 24, Florida Administrative Code (“Fla. Admin. Code”), (herein after referred to as the “Bear Hunt Rules”) and in support thereof allege the following: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1.
This is an action for declaratory judgment and supplemental relief.
2.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 26.012(2)(a) and
86.011, Florida Statutes (“Fla. Stat.”), as Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and the rights and interests therein are not quantifiable in monetary terms. To the extent those rights and interests are quantifiable in monetary terms, they exceed $15,000.
3.
Venue is proper pursuant to Section 47.011, Fla. Stat., as Defendant is a state
entity that maintains its principal headquarters in Leon County, Florida. PARTIES 4.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“FWC”) is a an
executive commission of the State of Florida, established in Article IV, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution. FWC maintains its principal office at the Farris Bryant Building, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600. 5.
FWC is responsible for the management, protection and conservation of wild
animal life and fresh water aquatic life pursuant to Article IV, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 379, Fla. Stat. 6.
Plaintiff, Speak Up Wekiva, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Speak Up”), is a
Florida not for profit corporation organized to conserve and protect Florida’s shared natural resources and lands held by the State of Florida in conservation for the People and the Greater Wekiva River Basin. Speak Up maintains a principal address in Lake Mary, Seminole County, Florida. 7.
Plaintiff, Charles W. O’Neal, is an individual who resides on property located in
Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. This property is comprised mainly of natural woodlands abutting other natural woodlands which provide habitat for all types of wildlife, including the Florida black bear. Mr. O’Neal is also a private real estate investor who specializes in properties like his own, lands abutting natural woodlands. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
Page 2 of 17
8.
In 1998, the overwhelming majority of Florida voters passed Ballot Amendment 5
by 72 percent thus creating the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission that we know today and dissolving the Florida Fish and Game Commission of the past. 9.
The unequivocal intent of Amendment 5 was to prohibit the regulation of fish and
wildlife by special law and to create a commission independent from the politics inherent in decisions previously being made by the Governor and Cabinet to make decisions based on sound science. 10.
The result of Amendment 5 brought the language in Article IV, Section 9 of the
Florida Constitution we know today: There shall be a fish and wildlife conservation commission, composed of seven members appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by the senate for staggered terms of five years. The commission shall exercise the regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life, and shall also exercise regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to marine life, except that all license fees for taking wild animal life, fresh water aquatic life, and marine life and penalties for violating regulations of the commission shall be prescribed by general law. The commission shall establish procedures to ensure adequate due process in the exercise of its regulatory and executive functions. The legislature may enact laws in aid of the commission, not inconsistent with this section, except that there shall be no special law or general law of local application pertaining to hunting or fishing. The commission’s exercise of executive powers in the area of planning, budgeting, personnel management, and purchasing shall be as provided by law. Revenue derived from license fees for the taking of wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life shall be appropriated to the commission by the legislature for the purposes of management, protection, and conservation of wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life. Revenue derived from license fees relating to marine life shall be appropriated by the legislature for the purposes of management, protection, and conservation of marine life as provided by law. The commission shall not be a unit of any other state agency and shall have its own staff, which includes management, research, and enforcement. Unless provided by general law, the commission shall have no authority to regulate matters relating to air and water pollution. (emphasis added). Art. IV § 9, Fla. Const.
Page 3 of 17
11.
Pursuant to this authority, FWC regulates all wild animal life in Florida, including
the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), a subspecies of the American black bear. 12.
On July 9, 2015, the proposed amendments to the Conservation Rule, 68A-4.009,
Fla. Admin. Code, became final with an effective date of July 29, 2015. A true and correct copy of the Final Rule is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 13.
The purpose and effect of the amendments as stated in the Notice of Development
of Rulemaking, published in the Florida Administrative Weekly (“FAW”) on May 13, 2015, are as follows: The Commission is considering amendments to the existing black bear conservation rule to remove duplicative and superfluous language for clarification purposes, to allow people to scare a bear away with non-lethal methods without requiring a permit, and to add a provision that would allow the agency to issue a permit for people to take a bear when it is damaging property and there are no reasonable options to prevent the damage. (emphasis added). A true and correct copy of the Notice of Development on Rulemaking is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 14.
Exactly one day later, on May 14, 2015, the FWC published its Notice of
Proposed Rule in the FAW stating the summary of the proposed rule as follows: Rule action would remove duplicative language from subsection (1) that is already defined in Florida Administrative Code 68A-1.004. References to the specific subspecies of the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) would be removed throughout the rule (including the title) to maintain consistency and avoid confusion as all other rules in the Florida Administrative Code refer to black bears, not the subspecies Florida black bear. Subsection (2)(b) would be removed, as first responders who have been trained by agency personnel on how to respond to bears no longer need a permit. A new subsection (2)(b) would be added that would allow intentional take permits to be issued for people experiencing property damage caused by bears. A new subsection (3) will allow members of the public to attempt to scare a bear away from people using non-lethal methods without a permit. Subsections were re-numbered to accommodate the changes accordingly.
Page 4 of 17
(emphasis added). A truce and correct copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 15.
The FWC delisted the Florida black bear from threatened status under the Florida
Endangered and Threatened Species Act, Section 379.2291, Fla. Stat, in 2012. 16.
Only after delisting did FWC allow the intentional take of the Florida black bear
in certain narrowly defined circumstances. Rule 68A-4.009(2), Fla. Admin. Code, which became effective on August 23, 2012, states in relevant part: (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. For purposes of this rule, a scientific or conservation purpose shall mean activities that further the conservation or survival of the species, including: (a) Collection of scientific data needed for conservation or management of the species; and (b) Removing bears from situations that constitute a human safety risk or a risk to the well being of the bear. Fla. Admin. Code R 68A-4.009 (2012). 17.
In comparison with the 2012 rule, FWC’s newly adopted 2015 rule adds
substantial, new provisions in which the intentional take of black bears will be permitted: (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 practical resolution to the damage, and the Commission is unable to capture the bear. Fla. Admin. Code R. 68A-4.009 (2015) (emphasis added). 18.
Without the new Conservation Rule authority to ostensibly regulate “property
damage” in Florida, the Bear Hunt Rules regulating the who, what, when, where and how of the Page 5 of 17
hunt, more specifically identified in the following list and in Composite Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein, cannot stand. Fla. Admin. Code Rules: -
68A-1.004;
-
68A-4.001, .004
-
68A-9.007
-
68A-12.002, .003, .004, .007
-
68A-13.001, 004
-
68A-15.005, .062, .063, .064, .065
-
68A-17.005
-
68A-24.002
19.
The Bear Hunt Rules are inextricably tied to and dependent upon the new
authority FWC granted itself to regulate “property” in the Conservation Rule. COUNT I THE 2015 RULE AMENDMENTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL 20.
Plaintiffs assert and re-allege, as if fully set forth herein, the allegations contained
in paragraphs 8 – 19. 21.
FWC, like any agency, has only the authority conferred upon it by the Legislature
via statute or by the Florida Constitution. Article IV, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution does not authorize FWC to regulate wildlife for the purposes of reducing or preventing property damage. 22.
The Conservation and Bear Hunt Rules (the “Rules”) are contrary to the intent
and plain language of the 1998 Ballot Amendment 5 creating an independent commission to conduct management, preservation and conservation decision-making based upon sound science.
Page 6 of 17
23.
The Rules are inconsistent the plain language of Article IV, Section 9 of the
Florida Constitution and thus, it exceeds the authority vested in FWC by the people of the State of Florida. 24.
The Rules are also directly adverse to the current will of the people as FWC’s
records indicate that approximately 75 percent of those who participated in the public engagement processes or otherwise expressed opinions on the matter oppose hunting Black Bears in Florida. 25.
Approximately 334 people participated in two public webinars and seven Bear
Stakeholder Group meetings. 26.
FWC received public input in the form of approximately 2,639 comments in at
least five different forms ranging from telephone calls and website entries to written letters and emails. 27.
The most frequently received comment theme by FWC has been characterized by
the FWC staff as “Protect bears/never kill bears/against hunting.” COUNT II THE BEAR HUNT RULES ARE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS 28.
Plaintiffs assert and re-allege, as if fully set forth herein, the allegations contained
in paragraphs 8 – 19. 29.
Under the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (“FWC”)
arbitrary and capricious Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g), hunters licensed hunters are authorized to kill an unlimited number of Florida black bears during the first two days of the week-long hunt. The Florida black bear open hunt season includes a two-day (48 hour) minimum which authorizes hunters to kill bears regardless of whether the FWC’s own harvest quota of 320 bears (which was
Page 7 of 17
intended to prevent over-harvesting) is surpassed. Therefore, Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g) is arbitrary and capricious and does not protect or conserve the Florida black bear. 30.
Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g) allows unlimited hunting of black bears in four principal
Bear Management Units: 68A- 13.004 (3) Open seasons: “(g) Bear: 1. East Panhandle, North, Central, and South BMUs: Opening the Saturday prior to the last Saturday in October and closing 6 days thereafter. If a BMUs harvest objective, established pursuant to subparagraph 2., is attained prior to the season close and on or after the second day of the season, that BMU's season shall close at 11:59 p.m. on the day its harvest objective is attained. 2. The harvest objective for each BMU shall be as established by Order of the Executive Director, after approval of the Commission, and shall be based on the proportion of the BMU population available for harvest consistent with biologically sustainable population objectives for each BMU. 3. All bear taken shall be checked and tagged within 12 hours of recovery at a Commission designated check station. The tag shall remain affixed to the hide until it is tanned or mounted.” (emphasis added). 31. Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g) allows for the sale of an unlimited number of permits to hunt bear and allows each hunter to kill one bear for the first two days of the week long hunt regardless of how many bears are taken in the bear management unit and regardless of how many bears are taken statewide. 32. As of September 10, 2015, 2,055 licenses have been sold to kill Florida black bears. Averaging the number of permits issued over the number of days available and with more than 40 days remaining until the hunt, that number could increase, but is not limited under Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g). 33. It is likely that some hunters will wait until a few days before the hunt to purchase the $100 resident and $300 non-resident permits. Based on the lack of any limitations on permits under Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g) there is a reasonable probability that hunters will kill more than the harvest objective of 320 bears. Page 8 of 17
34. The FWC established this harvest quota to ensure only a sustainable number of Florida black bears would be taken from the black bear populations. However, based on the number of licenses sold to date, the quota of 320 is likely to be exceeded in the first two days of the minimum two-day hunt. Therefore the rule is arbitrary and capricious and should be stricken or enjoined by this Court. 35. Plaintiffs file this motion pursuant to Rule 1.610(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring Defendant, FWC to postpone the hunt of Florida black bears currently scheduled to begin in October 2015. 36. Pursuant to Article IV, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution, FWC regulates all wild animal life in Florida, including the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), a subspecies of the American black bear. 37. On July 9, 2015, FWC finalized its proposed amendments to the Florida Black Bear Conservation Rule, 68A-4.009(2), Florida Administrative Code, (the “Conservation Rule”) and Black Bear Hunt Rules, Chapters 68A-1, 4, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 24, Florida Administrative Code (“Fla. Admin. Code”), (herein after referred to as the “Bear Hunt Rules”), with an effective date of July 29, 2015. 38. The FWC Governing Board established a harvest quota allowing the take of 320 Florida black bears by sports hunting on September 2, 2015 as set forth in the following FWC Table:
Page 9 of 17
39. Due to the deficiencies in Bear Hunt Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g), FWC has seemingly unwittingly and virtually guaranteed that hunters will exceed any science-based, conservation harvest quota. 40. Under the Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g). F.A.C., as adopted, Hunters will be able to exceed the harvest quota during the two-day minimum hunt. 41. Under the Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g). F.A.C., as adopted, FWC will not call off the hunt until 11:59 p.m. on any subsequent day on which the quota is exceeded. Finally, there will be a 12 hour lag time between when bears are killed and when they are reported. 42. Under the Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g). F.A.C., as adopted, even if the quota is reached or exceeded on day 2, but not reported until 12 hours later, into day 3, the hunt would continue the entire third day until 11:59 pm, regardless of how many bears are killed that exceed a BMU quota or statewide quota. 43. A motion by FWC Governing Board Member, Robert Spottswood, to give FWC Executive Director Nick Wiley the authority to close the hunt during the first two days was not approved by a majority of the FWC Governing Board members. The Governing Board vote on September 2, 2015 was initially a tie vote 2-2 which was broken by the Chairman who can vote in the event of a tie to approve the quota hunt by a narrow vote margin of 3-2. 44. The FWC delisted the Florida black bear from its threatened status under the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act, Section 379.2291, Fla. Stat, in 2012.
Page 10 of 17
45. The Bear Hunt Rules regulating the who, what, when, where and how of the hunt1, are rendered arbitrary and capricious by Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g) which allows for the sale of an unlimited number of permits to hunt bear and allows each hunter to kill one bear for the first two days of the hunt regardless of how many bears are taken in the bear management unit and regardless of how many bears are taken statewide. 46. The FWC bear management units overlay on FWC’s estimated bear population ranger are depicted in the FWC figure below:
47. The Bear Hunting Rules are inextricably tied to and dependent upon Rule 68A13.004 (3)(g) which allows for the sale of an unlimited number of permits to hunt bear and allows each hunter to kill one bear for the first two days of the hunt
See, Fla. Admin. Code Rules: 68A-1.004; 68A-4.001, 68A-4.004; 68A-4.009; 68A-9.007; 68A12.002, 68A-12.003, 68A-12.004, 68A-12.007; 68A-13.001, 68A-13.004; 68A-15.005, 68A15.062, 68A-15.063, 68A-15.064, 68A-15.065; 68A-17.005; 68A-24.002. 1
Page 11 of 17
regardless of how many bears are taken in the bear management unit and regardless of how many bears are taken statewide. 48. The FWC is a constitutional agency established under Florida Constitution Article IV Section 9: “Fish and wildlife conservation commission. There shall be a fish and wildlife conservation commission, composed of seven members appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by the senate for staggered terms of five years. The commission shall exercise the regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life, and shall also exercise regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to marine life, except that all license fees for taking wild animal life, fresh water aquatic life, and marine life and penalties for violating regulations of the commission shall be prescribed by general law. The commission shall establish procedures to ensure adequate due process in the exercise of its regulatory and executive functions. The legislature may enact laws in aid of the commission, not inconsistent with this section, except that there shall be no special law or general law of local application pertaining to hunting or fishing. The commission’s exercise of executive powers in the area of planning, budgeting, personnel management, and purchasing shall be as provided by law. Revenue derived from license fees for the taking of wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life shall be appropriated to the commission by the legislature for the purposes of management, protection, and conservation of wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life. Revenue derived from license fees relating to marine life shall be appropriated by the legislature for the purposes of management, protection, and conservation of marine life as provided by law. The commission shall not be a unit of any other state agency and shall have its own staff, which includes management, research, and enforcement. Unless provided by general law, the commission shall have no authority to regulate matters relating to air and water pollution.” History.— Am. C.S. for H.J.R. 637, 1973; adopted 1974; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission. Revision No. 5, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998. 49. Rule 68A-4.009 Florida Black Bear Conservation limits the the purpose of the Black Bear Hunt must either further “scientific or conservation purposes which will benefit the survival potential of the species or to reduce property damage caused by bears”: “(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 Page 12 of 17
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 practical resolution to the damage, and the Commission is unable to capture the bear. (3) The Commission authorizes members of the public to take a bear in an attempt to scare a bear away from people using methods considered non-lethal. Staff shall authorize specific methods and situations that qualify for this authorization at http://MyFWC.com/bear/. (4) The Commission will provide technical assistance to land owners and comments to permitting agencies in order to minimize and avoid potential negative humanbear interactions or impacts of land modifications on the conservation and management of black bears. The Commission will base its comments and recommendations on the goals and objectives of the approved Florida Black Bear Management Plan. The plan can be obtained at http://MyFWC.com/bear/.” Rulemaking Authority Art. IV, Sec. 9, Fla. Const. Law Implemented Art. IV., Sec. 9, Fla. Const., History–New 8-23-12, Amended 7-29-15. (emphasis added). 50. Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g) is arbitrary and capricious because the rule: (a) allows the harvest quota to be exceeded, (b) fails to conserve or protect the Florida Black Bear species, and (c) does not further a scientific or conservation purpose that will benefit the survival potential of the species or reduce property damage caused by bears after non-lethal means have been exhausted under Rule 68A-4.009 (2) F.A.C. 51.
Another frequently received comment theme by FWC has been characterized by
staff as “Hunting will not reduce human-bear conflicts.” This is in response to FWC’s initial position that there are too many human-bear conflicts currently in the state thus a limited hunt is justified. However, the hunts will take place in wildlife management areas far from the interfaces between bear habitat and intense residential development where human bear conflicts
Page 13 of 17
occur. There is no evidence to support the supposition that hunting bears in remote wildlife management areas will reduce conflicts in suburbia. 52.
The ability of the bear population to sustain a hunt is not supported by sound
science, especially in the face of a dearth of hard data regarding the actual current population and their rate of successful reproduction coupled with mounting threats from habitat fragmentation and degradation and mortality due to collisions with motor vehicles. 53.
While there have been sixteen human-bear incidents in Florida since 1976, of
those incidents approximately half involved intentional human interaction with the bear and negligence or torment on the part of the human actor. 54.
FWC also claims a hunting season is necessary because there has been an increase
in the number of calls reporting bear sightings. A mere increase in the number of phone calls regarding bear sightings is not sufficient to demonstrate that: 1) there has been a population increase sufficient to open hunting season; 2) there is a correlation between phone calls and population increase; and 3) that opening a hunting season is a sustainable solution to a potential increase in the Florida black bear population. 55.
FWC scientist, Dr. Thomas Eason states that 70% of the calls received about bear
concerns were regarding bears getting into trash, being in a yard, or up in tree in the general area, not regarding conflict. 56.
FWC points to no scientific information indicating that allowing hunting will
address these human-bear interactions. Instead, numerous studies have found that hunting does not lead to reduced conflicts between humans and bears. For example, a seven-year study of relationships among food availability, human bear conflicts, and hunting in Ontario found that “human–bear conflict was not correlated with prior harvests, providing no evidence that larger Page 14 of 17
harvests reduced subsequent HBC [human bear conflict].” The scientists concluded that "[a]lthough it may be intuitive to assume that harvesting more bears should reduce HBC, empirical support for this assumption is lacking despite considerable research (Garshelis 1989, Treves and Karanth 2003, Huygens et al. 2004, Treves 2005, Treves 2009, Howe et al. 2010, Treves et al. 2010).”2 57.
FWC’s own research indicates that better trash disposal systems, would reduce
human bear conflict. Dr. Thomas Eason, the Director of the Division of Habitat and Species Conservation, states that “most human-bear conflicts come from people inadvertently providing food to bears,” and that, “properly securing garbage and other attractants is the most important aspect of reducing conflict situations with bears.” 58.
Only recently has the use of bear resistant trashcans become prevalent in counties
with black bear populations. Currently, however, the burden of bearing these costs for these bear resistant trashcans (pun intended) is placed squarely on the backs of the private residents themselves. 59.
Furthermore, the Black bear population estimates being utilized by FWC in at
least two of the four subpopulations where hunting is proposed are over 13 years old, from 2002, while more current data is still being collected. 60.
The 2015 hunt of Black Bears in Florida is unconstitutional.
61.
Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g) is arbitrary and capricious.
Martyn E. Obbard, et. al. 2014. Relationships among food availability, harvest, and humanbear conflict at landscape scales in Ontario, Canada. Ursus 25(2): 98-110. 2
Page 15 of 17
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief be entered against the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission: (1)
a declaration that FWC Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g), F.A.C. is arbitrary and capricious
(2)
a declaration that the 2015 Florida Black Bear Conservation Rule, 68A-4.009, Fla. Admin. Code, and Black Bear Hunt Rules codified in Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g), F.A.C. and implemented through Chapters 68A-1, 68A-4, 68A-9, 68A-12, 68A-13, 68A-15, 68A-17 and 68A-24, Fla. Admin. Code, violate Article IV, section 9 of the Florida Constitution;
(3)
a declaration that all permits allowing the take of black bears issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission are invalid;
(4)
a declaration that the Black bear hunt currently scheduled for October 2015 violates Article IV, section 9 of the Florida Constitution; and
(5)
injunction stopping the Black bear hunt currently scheduled for October 2015
(6)
such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ralf Brookes, Attorney FL Bar No. 0778362 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway #107 Cape Coral, FL 33904 (239) 910-5464 (866) 341-6086 fax [email protected] [email protected] /s/ Christopher T. Byrd, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 058316 THE BYRD LAW GROUP, P.A. Page 16 of 17
3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 200 Orlando, Florida 32817 Telephone: (407) 567-2427 Facsimile: (407) 264-6152 [email protected] [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Petitioner hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing have been served on September 16, 2015 via designated service email on the following: General Counsel Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Ryan Osborne Esq. [email protected] 620 S Meridian St Tallahassee, FL 32399-6543 Office: 850-487-1764 Ryan Osborne Esq. Office of the Attorney General PL-01 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 3239900010 Office: 850-245-0140 [email protected] Ralf Brookes, Attorney FL Bar No. 0778362 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway #107 Cape Coral, FL 33904 (239) 910-5464 (866) 341-6086 fax [email protected] [email protected] Christopher T. Byrd, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 058316 THE BYRD LAW GROUP, P.A. 3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 200 Orlando, Florida 32817 Telephone: (407) 567-2427 Facsimile: (407) 264-6152 [email protected] [email protected] Page 17 of 17
SPEAK UP WEKIVA, INC. and CHARLES W. O’NEAL, Plaintiffs, v.
Case No.:
15-CA-001781
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Defendant. ____________________________________/ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, Speak Up Wekiva, Inc. and Charles W. O’Neal, file this Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, attached hereto, to include additional facts regarding quota established by the FWC for the hunting of Florida Black Bear in support of Plaintiffs’ allegations that FWC Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g), F.A.C. is arbitrary and capricious and unconstitutional. Counsel has conferred and Counsel for Defendant does not object to this motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ralf Brookes, Attorney FL Bar No. 0778362 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway #107 Cape Coral, FL 33904 (239) 910-5464 (866) 341-6086 fax [email protected] [email protected] /s/ Christopher T. Byrd, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 058316 THE BYRD LAW GROUP, P.A. 3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 200
Orlando, Florida 32817 Telephone: (407) 567-2427 Facsimile: (407) 264-6152 [email protected] [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Petitioner hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing have been served on September 16, 2015 via designated service email on the following: General Counsel Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Ryan Osborne Esq. [email protected] 620 S Meridian St Tallahassee, FL 32399-6543 Office: 850-487-1764 Ryan Osborne Esq. Office of the Attorney General PL-01 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 3239900010 Office: 850-245-0140 [email protected] Ralf Brookes, Attorney FL Bar No. 0778362 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway #107 Cape Coral, FL 33904 (239) 910-5464 (866) 341-6086 fax [email protected] [email protected] Christopher T. Byrd, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 058316 THE BYRD LAW GROUP, P.A. 3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 200 Orlando, Florida 32817 Telephone: (407) 567-2427 Facsimile: (407) 264-6152 [email protected] [email protected]
Page 2 of 2
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
SPEAK UP WEKIVA, INC. and CHARLES W. O’NEAL, Plaintiffs, v.
Case No.:
15-CA-001781
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Defendant. ____________________________________/ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs, Speak Up Wekiva, Inc. and Charles W. O’Neal, file this Complaint against the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to challenge the constitutionality of the newly adopted Florida Black Bear Conservation Rule, 68A-4.009(2), Florida Administrative Code, (the “Conservation Rule”) and Black Bear Hunt Rules, Chapters 68A-1, 4, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 24, Florida Administrative Code (“Fla. Admin. Code”), (herein after referred to as the “Bear Hunt Rules”) and in support thereof allege the following: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1.
This is an action for declaratory judgment and supplemental relief.
2.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 26.012(2)(a) and
86.011, Florida Statutes (“Fla. Stat.”), as Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and the rights and interests therein are not quantifiable in monetary terms. To the extent those rights and interests are quantifiable in monetary terms, they exceed $15,000.
3.
Venue is proper pursuant to Section 47.011, Fla. Stat., as Defendant is a state
entity that maintains its principal headquarters in Leon County, Florida. PARTIES 4.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“FWC”) is a an
executive commission of the State of Florida, established in Article IV, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution. FWC maintains its principal office at the Farris Bryant Building, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600. 5.
FWC is responsible for the management, protection and conservation of wild
animal life and fresh water aquatic life pursuant to Article IV, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 379, Fla. Stat. 6.
Plaintiff, Speak Up Wekiva, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Speak Up”), is a
Florida not for profit corporation organized to conserve and protect Florida’s shared natural resources and lands held by the State of Florida in conservation for the People and the Greater Wekiva River Basin. Speak Up maintains a principal address in Lake Mary, Seminole County, Florida. 7.
Plaintiff, Charles W. O’Neal, is an individual who resides on property located in
Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. This property is comprised mainly of natural woodlands abutting other natural woodlands which provide habitat for all types of wildlife, including the Florida black bear. Mr. O’Neal is also a private real estate investor who specializes in properties like his own, lands abutting natural woodlands. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
Page 2 of 17
8.
In 1998, the overwhelming majority of Florida voters passed Ballot Amendment 5
by 72 percent thus creating the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission that we know today and dissolving the Florida Fish and Game Commission of the past. 9.
The unequivocal intent of Amendment 5 was to prohibit the regulation of fish and
wildlife by special law and to create a commission independent from the politics inherent in decisions previously being made by the Governor and Cabinet to make decisions based on sound science. 10.
The result of Amendment 5 brought the language in Article IV, Section 9 of the
Florida Constitution we know today: There shall be a fish and wildlife conservation commission, composed of seven members appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by the senate for staggered terms of five years. The commission shall exercise the regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life, and shall also exercise regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to marine life, except that all license fees for taking wild animal life, fresh water aquatic life, and marine life and penalties for violating regulations of the commission shall be prescribed by general law. The commission shall establish procedures to ensure adequate due process in the exercise of its regulatory and executive functions. The legislature may enact laws in aid of the commission, not inconsistent with this section, except that there shall be no special law or general law of local application pertaining to hunting or fishing. The commission’s exercise of executive powers in the area of planning, budgeting, personnel management, and purchasing shall be as provided by law. Revenue derived from license fees for the taking of wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life shall be appropriated to the commission by the legislature for the purposes of management, protection, and conservation of wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life. Revenue derived from license fees relating to marine life shall be appropriated by the legislature for the purposes of management, protection, and conservation of marine life as provided by law. The commission shall not be a unit of any other state agency and shall have its own staff, which includes management, research, and enforcement. Unless provided by general law, the commission shall have no authority to regulate matters relating to air and water pollution. (emphasis added). Art. IV § 9, Fla. Const.
Page 3 of 17
11.
Pursuant to this authority, FWC regulates all wild animal life in Florida, including
the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), a subspecies of the American black bear. 12.
On July 9, 2015, the proposed amendments to the Conservation Rule, 68A-4.009,
Fla. Admin. Code, became final with an effective date of July 29, 2015. A true and correct copy of the Final Rule is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 13.
The purpose and effect of the amendments as stated in the Notice of Development
of Rulemaking, published in the Florida Administrative Weekly (“FAW”) on May 13, 2015, are as follows: The Commission is considering amendments to the existing black bear conservation rule to remove duplicative and superfluous language for clarification purposes, to allow people to scare a bear away with non-lethal methods without requiring a permit, and to add a provision that would allow the agency to issue a permit for people to take a bear when it is damaging property and there are no reasonable options to prevent the damage. (emphasis added). A true and correct copy of the Notice of Development on Rulemaking is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 14.
Exactly one day later, on May 14, 2015, the FWC published its Notice of
Proposed Rule in the FAW stating the summary of the proposed rule as follows: Rule action would remove duplicative language from subsection (1) that is already defined in Florida Administrative Code 68A-1.004. References to the specific subspecies of the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) would be removed throughout the rule (including the title) to maintain consistency and avoid confusion as all other rules in the Florida Administrative Code refer to black bears, not the subspecies Florida black bear. Subsection (2)(b) would be removed, as first responders who have been trained by agency personnel on how to respond to bears no longer need a permit. A new subsection (2)(b) would be added that would allow intentional take permits to be issued for people experiencing property damage caused by bears. A new subsection (3) will allow members of the public to attempt to scare a bear away from people using non-lethal methods without a permit. Subsections were re-numbered to accommodate the changes accordingly.
Page 4 of 17
(emphasis added). A truce and correct copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 15.
The FWC delisted the Florida black bear from threatened status under the Florida
Endangered and Threatened Species Act, Section 379.2291, Fla. Stat, in 2012. 16.
Only after delisting did FWC allow the intentional take of the Florida black bear
in certain narrowly defined circumstances. Rule 68A-4.009(2), Fla. Admin. Code, which became effective on August 23, 2012, states in relevant part: (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. For purposes of this rule, a scientific or conservation purpose shall mean activities that further the conservation or survival of the species, including: (a) Collection of scientific data needed for conservation or management of the species; and (b) Removing bears from situations that constitute a human safety risk or a risk to the well being of the bear. Fla. Admin. Code R 68A-4.009 (2012). 17.
In comparison with the 2012 rule, FWC’s newly adopted 2015 rule adds
substantial, new provisions in which the intentional take of black bears will be permitted: (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 practical resolution to the damage, and the Commission is unable to capture the bear. Fla. Admin. Code R. 68A-4.009 (2015) (emphasis added). 18.
Without the new Conservation Rule authority to ostensibly regulate “property
damage” in Florida, the Bear Hunt Rules regulating the who, what, when, where and how of the Page 5 of 17
hunt, more specifically identified in the following list and in Composite Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein, cannot stand. Fla. Admin. Code Rules: -
68A-1.004;
-
68A-4.001, .004
-
68A-9.007
-
68A-12.002, .003, .004, .007
-
68A-13.001, 004
-
68A-15.005, .062, .063, .064, .065
-
68A-17.005
-
68A-24.002
19.
The Bear Hunt Rules are inextricably tied to and dependent upon the new
authority FWC granted itself to regulate “property” in the Conservation Rule. COUNT I THE 2015 RULE AMENDMENTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL 20.
Plaintiffs assert and re-allege, as if fully set forth herein, the allegations contained
in paragraphs 8 – 19. 21.
FWC, like any agency, has only the authority conferred upon it by the Legislature
via statute or by the Florida Constitution. Article IV, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution does not authorize FWC to regulate wildlife for the purposes of reducing or preventing property damage. 22.
The Conservation and Bear Hunt Rules (the “Rules”) are contrary to the intent
and plain language of the 1998 Ballot Amendment 5 creating an independent commission to conduct management, preservation and conservation decision-making based upon sound science.
Page 6 of 17
23.
The Rules are inconsistent the plain language of Article IV, Section 9 of the
Florida Constitution and thus, it exceeds the authority vested in FWC by the people of the State of Florida. 24.
The Rules are also directly adverse to the current will of the people as FWC’s
records indicate that approximately 75 percent of those who participated in the public engagement processes or otherwise expressed opinions on the matter oppose hunting Black Bears in Florida. 25.
Approximately 334 people participated in two public webinars and seven Bear
Stakeholder Group meetings. 26.
FWC received public input in the form of approximately 2,639 comments in at
least five different forms ranging from telephone calls and website entries to written letters and emails. 27.
The most frequently received comment theme by FWC has been characterized by
the FWC staff as “Protect bears/never kill bears/against hunting.” COUNT II THE BEAR HUNT RULES ARE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS 28.
Plaintiffs assert and re-allege, as if fully set forth herein, the allegations contained
in paragraphs 8 – 19. 29.
Under the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (“FWC”)
arbitrary and capricious Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g), hunters licensed hunters are authorized to kill an unlimited number of Florida black bears during the first two days of the week-long hunt. The Florida black bear open hunt season includes a two-day (48 hour) minimum which authorizes hunters to kill bears regardless of whether the FWC’s own harvest quota of 320 bears (which was
Page 7 of 17
intended to prevent over-harvesting) is surpassed. Therefore, Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g) is arbitrary and capricious and does not protect or conserve the Florida black bear. 30.
Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g) allows unlimited hunting of black bears in four principal
Bear Management Units: 68A- 13.004 (3) Open seasons: “(g) Bear: 1. East Panhandle, North, Central, and South BMUs: Opening the Saturday prior to the last Saturday in October and closing 6 days thereafter. If a BMUs harvest objective, established pursuant to subparagraph 2., is attained prior to the season close and on or after the second day of the season, that BMU's season shall close at 11:59 p.m. on the day its harvest objective is attained. 2. The harvest objective for each BMU shall be as established by Order of the Executive Director, after approval of the Commission, and shall be based on the proportion of the BMU population available for harvest consistent with biologically sustainable population objectives for each BMU. 3. All bear taken shall be checked and tagged within 12 hours of recovery at a Commission designated check station. The tag shall remain affixed to the hide until it is tanned or mounted.” (emphasis added). 31. Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g) allows for the sale of an unlimited number of permits to hunt bear and allows each hunter to kill one bear for the first two days of the week long hunt regardless of how many bears are taken in the bear management unit and regardless of how many bears are taken statewide. 32. As of September 10, 2015, 2,055 licenses have been sold to kill Florida black bears. Averaging the number of permits issued over the number of days available and with more than 40 days remaining until the hunt, that number could increase, but is not limited under Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g). 33. It is likely that some hunters will wait until a few days before the hunt to purchase the $100 resident and $300 non-resident permits. Based on the lack of any limitations on permits under Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g) there is a reasonable probability that hunters will kill more than the harvest objective of 320 bears. Page 8 of 17
34. The FWC established this harvest quota to ensure only a sustainable number of Florida black bears would be taken from the black bear populations. However, based on the number of licenses sold to date, the quota of 320 is likely to be exceeded in the first two days of the minimum two-day hunt. Therefore the rule is arbitrary and capricious and should be stricken or enjoined by this Court. 35. Plaintiffs file this motion pursuant to Rule 1.610(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring Defendant, FWC to postpone the hunt of Florida black bears currently scheduled to begin in October 2015. 36. Pursuant to Article IV, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution, FWC regulates all wild animal life in Florida, including the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), a subspecies of the American black bear. 37. On July 9, 2015, FWC finalized its proposed amendments to the Florida Black Bear Conservation Rule, 68A-4.009(2), Florida Administrative Code, (the “Conservation Rule”) and Black Bear Hunt Rules, Chapters 68A-1, 4, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 24, Florida Administrative Code (“Fla. Admin. Code”), (herein after referred to as the “Bear Hunt Rules”), with an effective date of July 29, 2015. 38. The FWC Governing Board established a harvest quota allowing the take of 320 Florida black bears by sports hunting on September 2, 2015 as set forth in the following FWC Table:
Page 9 of 17
39. Due to the deficiencies in Bear Hunt Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g), FWC has seemingly unwittingly and virtually guaranteed that hunters will exceed any science-based, conservation harvest quota. 40. Under the Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g). F.A.C., as adopted, Hunters will be able to exceed the harvest quota during the two-day minimum hunt. 41. Under the Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g). F.A.C., as adopted, FWC will not call off the hunt until 11:59 p.m. on any subsequent day on which the quota is exceeded. Finally, there will be a 12 hour lag time between when bears are killed and when they are reported. 42. Under the Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g). F.A.C., as adopted, even if the quota is reached or exceeded on day 2, but not reported until 12 hours later, into day 3, the hunt would continue the entire third day until 11:59 pm, regardless of how many bears are killed that exceed a BMU quota or statewide quota. 43. A motion by FWC Governing Board Member, Robert Spottswood, to give FWC Executive Director Nick Wiley the authority to close the hunt during the first two days was not approved by a majority of the FWC Governing Board members. The Governing Board vote on September 2, 2015 was initially a tie vote 2-2 which was broken by the Chairman who can vote in the event of a tie to approve the quota hunt by a narrow vote margin of 3-2. 44. The FWC delisted the Florida black bear from its threatened status under the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act, Section 379.2291, Fla. Stat, in 2012.
Page 10 of 17
45. The Bear Hunt Rules regulating the who, what, when, where and how of the hunt1, are rendered arbitrary and capricious by Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g) which allows for the sale of an unlimited number of permits to hunt bear and allows each hunter to kill one bear for the first two days of the hunt regardless of how many bears are taken in the bear management unit and regardless of how many bears are taken statewide. 46. The FWC bear management units overlay on FWC’s estimated bear population ranger are depicted in the FWC figure below:
47. The Bear Hunting Rules are inextricably tied to and dependent upon Rule 68A13.004 (3)(g) which allows for the sale of an unlimited number of permits to hunt bear and allows each hunter to kill one bear for the first two days of the hunt
See, Fla. Admin. Code Rules: 68A-1.004; 68A-4.001, 68A-4.004; 68A-4.009; 68A-9.007; 68A12.002, 68A-12.003, 68A-12.004, 68A-12.007; 68A-13.001, 68A-13.004; 68A-15.005, 68A15.062, 68A-15.063, 68A-15.064, 68A-15.065; 68A-17.005; 68A-24.002. 1
Page 11 of 17
regardless of how many bears are taken in the bear management unit and regardless of how many bears are taken statewide. 48. The FWC is a constitutional agency established under Florida Constitution Article IV Section 9: “Fish and wildlife conservation commission. There shall be a fish and wildlife conservation commission, composed of seven members appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by the senate for staggered terms of five years. The commission shall exercise the regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life, and shall also exercise regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to marine life, except that all license fees for taking wild animal life, fresh water aquatic life, and marine life and penalties for violating regulations of the commission shall be prescribed by general law. The commission shall establish procedures to ensure adequate due process in the exercise of its regulatory and executive functions. The legislature may enact laws in aid of the commission, not inconsistent with this section, except that there shall be no special law or general law of local application pertaining to hunting or fishing. The commission’s exercise of executive powers in the area of planning, budgeting, personnel management, and purchasing shall be as provided by law. Revenue derived from license fees for the taking of wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life shall be appropriated to the commission by the legislature for the purposes of management, protection, and conservation of wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life. Revenue derived from license fees relating to marine life shall be appropriated by the legislature for the purposes of management, protection, and conservation of marine life as provided by law. The commission shall not be a unit of any other state agency and shall have its own staff, which includes management, research, and enforcement. Unless provided by general law, the commission shall have no authority to regulate matters relating to air and water pollution.” History.— Am. C.S. for H.J.R. 637, 1973; adopted 1974; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission. Revision No. 5, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998. 49. Rule 68A-4.009 Florida Black Bear Conservation limits the the purpose of the Black Bear Hunt must either further “scientific or conservation purposes which will benefit the survival potential of the species or to reduce property damage caused by bears”: “(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 Page 12 of 17
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 practical resolution to the damage, and the Commission is unable to capture the bear. (3) The Commission authorizes members of the public to take a bear in an attempt to scare a bear away from people using methods considered non-lethal. Staff shall authorize specific methods and situations that qualify for this authorization at http://MyFWC.com/bear/. (4) The Commission will provide technical assistance to land owners and comments to permitting agencies in order to minimize and avoid potential negative humanbear interactions or impacts of land modifications on the conservation and management of black bears. The Commission will base its comments and recommendations on the goals and objectives of the approved Florida Black Bear Management Plan. The plan can be obtained at http://MyFWC.com/bear/.” Rulemaking Authority Art. IV, Sec. 9, Fla. Const. Law Implemented Art. IV., Sec. 9, Fla. Const., History–New 8-23-12, Amended 7-29-15. (emphasis added). 50. Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g) is arbitrary and capricious because the rule: (a) allows the harvest quota to be exceeded, (b) fails to conserve or protect the Florida Black Bear species, and (c) does not further a scientific or conservation purpose that will benefit the survival potential of the species or reduce property damage caused by bears after non-lethal means have been exhausted under Rule 68A-4.009 (2) F.A.C. 51.
Another frequently received comment theme by FWC has been characterized by
staff as “Hunting will not reduce human-bear conflicts.” This is in response to FWC’s initial position that there are too many human-bear conflicts currently in the state thus a limited hunt is justified. However, the hunts will take place in wildlife management areas far from the interfaces between bear habitat and intense residential development where human bear conflicts
Page 13 of 17
occur. There is no evidence to support the supposition that hunting bears in remote wildlife management areas will reduce conflicts in suburbia. 52.
The ability of the bear population to sustain a hunt is not supported by sound
science, especially in the face of a dearth of hard data regarding the actual current population and their rate of successful reproduction coupled with mounting threats from habitat fragmentation and degradation and mortality due to collisions with motor vehicles. 53.
While there have been sixteen human-bear incidents in Florida since 1976, of
those incidents approximately half involved intentional human interaction with the bear and negligence or torment on the part of the human actor. 54.
FWC also claims a hunting season is necessary because there has been an increase
in the number of calls reporting bear sightings. A mere increase in the number of phone calls regarding bear sightings is not sufficient to demonstrate that: 1) there has been a population increase sufficient to open hunting season; 2) there is a correlation between phone calls and population increase; and 3) that opening a hunting season is a sustainable solution to a potential increase in the Florida black bear population. 55.
FWC scientist, Dr. Thomas Eason states that 70% of the calls received about bear
concerns were regarding bears getting into trash, being in a yard, or up in tree in the general area, not regarding conflict. 56.
FWC points to no scientific information indicating that allowing hunting will
address these human-bear interactions. Instead, numerous studies have found that hunting does not lead to reduced conflicts between humans and bears. For example, a seven-year study of relationships among food availability, human bear conflicts, and hunting in Ontario found that “human–bear conflict was not correlated with prior harvests, providing no evidence that larger Page 14 of 17
harvests reduced subsequent HBC [human bear conflict].” The scientists concluded that "[a]lthough it may be intuitive to assume that harvesting more bears should reduce HBC, empirical support for this assumption is lacking despite considerable research (Garshelis 1989, Treves and Karanth 2003, Huygens et al. 2004, Treves 2005, Treves 2009, Howe et al. 2010, Treves et al. 2010).”2 57.
FWC’s own research indicates that better trash disposal systems, would reduce
human bear conflict. Dr. Thomas Eason, the Director of the Division of Habitat and Species Conservation, states that “most human-bear conflicts come from people inadvertently providing food to bears,” and that, “properly securing garbage and other attractants is the most important aspect of reducing conflict situations with bears.” 58.
Only recently has the use of bear resistant trashcans become prevalent in counties
with black bear populations. Currently, however, the burden of bearing these costs for these bear resistant trashcans (pun intended) is placed squarely on the backs of the private residents themselves. 59.
Furthermore, the Black bear population estimates being utilized by FWC in at
least two of the four subpopulations where hunting is proposed are over 13 years old, from 2002, while more current data is still being collected. 60.
The 2015 hunt of Black Bears in Florida is unconstitutional.
61.
Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g) is arbitrary and capricious.
Martyn E. Obbard, et. al. 2014. Relationships among food availability, harvest, and humanbear conflict at landscape scales in Ontario, Canada. Ursus 25(2): 98-110. 2
Page 15 of 17
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief be entered against the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission: (1)
a declaration that FWC Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g), F.A.C. is arbitrary and capricious
(2)
a declaration that the 2015 Florida Black Bear Conservation Rule, 68A-4.009, Fla. Admin. Code, and Black Bear Hunt Rules codified in Rule 68A- 13.004 (3)(g), F.A.C. and implemented through Chapters 68A-1, 68A-4, 68A-9, 68A-12, 68A-13, 68A-15, 68A-17 and 68A-24, Fla. Admin. Code, violate Article IV, section 9 of the Florida Constitution;
(3)
a declaration that all permits allowing the take of black bears issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission are invalid;
(4)
a declaration that the Black bear hunt currently scheduled for October 2015 violates Article IV, section 9 of the Florida Constitution; and
(5)
injunction stopping the Black bear hunt currently scheduled for October 2015
(6)
such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ralf Brookes, Attorney FL Bar No. 0778362 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway #107 Cape Coral, FL 33904 (239) 910-5464 (866) 341-6086 fax [email protected] [email protected] /s/ Christopher T. Byrd, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 058316 THE BYRD LAW GROUP, P.A. Page 16 of 17
3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 200 Orlando, Florida 32817 Telephone: (407) 567-2427 Facsimile: (407) 264-6152 [email protected] [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Petitioner hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing have been served on September 16, 2015 via designated service email on the following: General Counsel Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Ryan Osborne Esq. [email protected] 620 S Meridian St Tallahassee, FL 32399-6543 Office: 850-487-1764 Ryan Osborne Esq. Office of the Attorney General PL-01 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 3239900010 Office: 850-245-0140 [email protected] Ralf Brookes, Attorney FL Bar No. 0778362 1217 E Cape Coral Parkway #107 Cape Coral, FL 33904 (239) 910-5464 (866) 341-6086 fax [email protected] [email protected] Christopher T. Byrd, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 058316 THE BYRD LAW GROUP, P.A. 3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 200 Orlando, Florida 32817 Telephone: (407) 567-2427 Facsimile: (407) 264-6152 [email protected] [email protected] Page 17 of 17
