Will bear hunting in Florida be a reality in the future? 

At the December 2024 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) commission meeting the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) staff gave an update on black bear management in Florida. After concluding that the bear population continues to grow and expand its range steadily, we convinced the commission to entertain the idea of reinstating a bear hunt quota in Florida. A bear hunt has not occurred since 2015, after anti-conservation groups sued the state over the hunt and got it shut down. These same groups are now doing their best to squash this hunt yet again.

We ask you to TAKE ACTION and urge the FWC to support the return of a Florida bear hunt. 

Management History

Prior to the rapid urban development at the expense of Florida’s natural ecosystems, Black Bears were ubiquitous across the landscape, with some estimates as high as 11,000 bears in Florida. In the 1900s, bears we considered a pest and were killed and extirpated down to approximately 500 bears remaining in Florida. In the 1970s, bears were listed as a State-designated threatened species, triggering efforts to manage bears for recovery. By 2002 bears had recovered to 2,500 bears, by 2015 there were more than 4,000 bears. A new stock assessment is expected to be published in 2029.

After the 2002 stock assessment, bear-human conflicts were on the rise. Bears were becoming a nuisance in some areas, and vehicle collisions were becoming more common. FWC recognized the need for bears to be managed to reduce these conflicts. While conflict resolution was a goal in the 2015 hunt, more recent research has given us a better understanding of how this may work. Some works have indicated that hunting can shift bears to nocturnal activity (Ordiz et al., 2012) and while this may improve vehicle collision rates and direct conflict, it will not address indirect conflicts like trash raiding which make up the vast majority of reported conflicts. By 2011, bears had made such a strong recovery that they were delisted from the threatened species list. By 2015, bear-human conflicts were so high, and the population steady, that FWC deemed it appropriate to instate a limited quota bear hunt (quota set to 320 bears). Harvested bears would need to be checked in the day they were harvested, and the hunt would be closed when the quota was reached, or it would risk exceeding that quota the following day. This strategy was modelled after other states that have sustainable bear hunts, and a week long season was established based on average harvest success rates in those states. Upon the start of the Florida Bear Hunt, we quickly learned that there may be many more bears than stock assessments were accounting for as 295 bears were harvested in just the first two days. However, the commission closed the hunt so as not to exceed the allotted quota.

Despite the successful execution of the hunt without exceeding the quota, and the indication that population numbers may be much higher than expected, public emotional outcries cited the uncertainty of bear population numbers to have the hunt closed for future years so that more information could be gathered.

Take Action

Future of Bear Management in Florida

Now, 9 years later, FWC staff have updated the Bear Management Plan, Major points are summarized below:

• 7 bear management units (BMU) have been established to allow for region specific management of 7 genetically distinct subpopulations
• Bear Range has expanded in each unit from 6% to 26%
• Populations on 4 BMUs are thriving and have grown to 2.5 to 5 times above the minimum population objectives. Minimum population objectives are the minimum population need to maintain long-term genetic health of the population.
• Florida currently has more than 17,000 square miles of suitable bear habitat, 46% of which is protected. This is adequate habitat for current and the larger predicted future populations
• State-wide bear-related calls are at an all time high, with a 42% increase from 2016, These calls include both positive (bear sightings) and negative (complaints), the proportion of which has remained relatively consistent through the years (average 40% of calls are complaints).
• $2.1 million was provided to local governments to provide bear proofing for trash cans. This bear proofing has decreased bear-human conflicts on a local scale, and should be expanded to larger scales. However, complaint calls make up the same percentage of the increasing numbers of calls, indicating that a reduction in bear densities in select areas may be beneficial.
• Future bear management efforts should be directed at improving habitat corridors for improved population connectivity
• While definitive data is limited and a stock assessment won’t be complete until 2029, several currently available datasets suggest that the population has continued to grow consistently since 2015, though the exact population number remains unknown.
  • Indicators of population growth:
  • Harvest success rates in 2015 exceeded those of neighboring state’s hunts that have higher population densities. These success rates can be considered a Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE), a commonly used indicator of population density in ecological studies (Holsworth, 1973). This suggests that the true population in Florida was likely to be higher than estimated numbers.
  • A study published by Scheick et al in (Scheick et al., 2023) compared various types of bear presence data between historic (2001-2010) and contemporary (2011-2020) periods to show that the range occupied by bears has increased between 6% and 26% in each of the 7 BMUs. Established ecological theory dictates that abundance and range expansion are consistently positively correlated (Altwegg et al., 2013; Fronhofer et al., 2017; Hagen et al., 2015; Ochocki et al., n.d.; Preisser et al., 2008), suggesting that the population has also grown through this time.
  • While FWC staff wait for a generation to pass between abundance estimates, which won’t be completed until 2029, they do continue to monitor bear populations, collecting data for a variety of studies. They have estimated annual population growth rates for each of the BMUs and have shown these rates to be positive for the past 10 years. When these rates are compounded across years they suggest a substantial population increase since 2015 (FWC staff, unpublished).

Take Action

Proposed Bear Hunt

At the May 2025 commission meeting, the commission will be presented with a bear hunt proposal. The details of this proposal are detailed below:

Quota Determination

• Models used to set quotas depend on 2015 data even though recent data supports the conclusion that population has grown since then
• Models consider non-consumptive causes of death (ie. Vehicle strikes, removals, natural death) and potential harvests to ensure harvests do not exceed maximum sustainable harvest objectives
• Initial harvest targets are set to maintain a net positive population growth
  • Future quotas may be increased or decreased as new data becomes available
• Proposed 2025 quotas: Total 187 Bears
  • East Pandhandle BMU: 68
  • North BMU: 46
  • Central BMU: 18
  • South BMU: 55

Hunting Zones

• Bear Hunting Zones (BHZ) are limited to select areas within previously established Bear Management Units that have more than 200 bears in them
• BHZs highlight areas that have the highest bear densities in FL
• BHZs exclude areas that provide connectivity to less dense subpopulations that would benefit from immigration from dense subpopulations.

Season Timing

• The season can be set between October 1 and December 31 each year depending on management needs
• Current proposed season dates are the last 3 weeks of the above date range
  • This late season occurs during the time when most females and cubs begin denning, thus reducing the likelihood of harvesting females and cubs.

Permitting and Bag Limits

• Tag allocations will be limited to 1 tag per applicant, and 1 harvest per tag
• 187 Tags will be dispersed via draw only (with the exception of landowner tags detailed below)
• Tag application entries will cost $5 each, and each individual can purchase an unlimited number of entries
• If drawn, residents and non-residents will be charged $100 and $300 per tag, respectively
• A maximum of 10% of tags will be allocated to non-residents
• Tag holders may be accompanied by a single guest hunter when still hunting, or when dog hunting up to 9 guests may accompany to help control dogs

Methods of Legal Take

• All methods legal for deer will be allowed for bear including muzzleloader, shotgun, rifle, handgun, archery, crossbow and precharged pneumatic air guns

Feeding Stations

• Hunting over feeding stations is being proposed to encourage selectivity among hunters to harvest larger male bears and minimize female harvest
• Only pelleted feed of agricultural products may be used in established feeding stations (ie. No donuts, peanut butter, or other processed foods)
• Feeding stations may only be established on private lands

Use of Dogs

• Hunting with dogs is being proposed as the process of treeing a bear before harvest encourages hunters to be more selective based on age, size, and sex. This again ecourages the reduction in female harvest.
• Dog hunting won’t be allowed in 2025, training will be allowed in 2026, and hunting will be allowed in 2027

Private Lands Bear Program

• In 2026, land owners with large parcels may be eligible to receive guaranteed tags. Land owners must provide a land management plan that documents conservation practices that benefit bear populations
• Eligibility require a minimum of 5000 contiguous acres with at least 50% of suitable bear habitat, at least 5 bears documents, and a wildlife biologist must confirm

Reasons to support a bear hunt in Florida:

• The 2015 bear hunt generated close to $400k in revenue, which was reallocated to conservation efforts in the state. Establishing an annual hunt can generate similar funding on a yearly basis to be allocated toward habitat restoration and land acquisitions to improve connectivity between bear subpopulations
• The available data suggests that bear populations are steadily increasing. Populations were already above targeted population objectives during the 2015 hunt, and their numbers are likely even higher now.
• In the 4 BMUs where bear densities are particularly high, bear-human conflicts have become a huge problem. Bear-human conflicts often lead to the death of bears through vehicle collisions or euthanization of nuisance bears. While FWC has clarified that the proposed hunt is not designed to reduce bear-human conflicts, a reduction in bear densities in areas where bear-human conflicts have become a problem, may help reduce vehicle strikes and direct conflicts, though data suggests it is not likely to reduce trash raiding issues.
• Bears that are hit by cars and left to rot or nuisance bears that are euthanized are wasted, and in many cases suffer physical trauma, broken bones, and slow deaths, whereas when bears are harvested the hunters take care to make it quick and as painless as possible and the meat will go to feeding fellow Floridians.
• While staff and state resources are depleted to clean up vehicle collisions, transport or euthanize nuisance bears, a bear hunt could generate funding through license and tag sales that could be allocated toward future management objectives such as expanding on the bear-proof trashcan initiative, habitat restoration, and appropriate habitat corridors.

Take Action Support the Hunt

FAQ:

1. Will harvesting bears in one BMU negatively impact their positive population growth and range expansion in another BMU? Not if a hunt is managed appropriately. Bear populations and ranges are largely driven by food and habitat availability and habitat connectivity. FWC studies have shown that there is more than enough available habitat and food for current and future bear populations in Florida. However, the 7 BMUs were created based on genetically distinct subpopulations.. Furthermore, bear dispersal is typically driven by subadult males roaming to find their own territory. Therefore it is important to minimize harvest of young males, especially in areas where these bears might disperse to less-densely populated BMUs. For this reason, the proposed Bear Hunting Zones are limited to the core of densely populated BMUs, so as not to limit potential dispersal around corridors that provide connectivity between BMUs.
2. Why would some want to harvest a bear? Are they even good to eat? Bear hunting has a rich history in the U.S. and continues to be a regulated in 34 of the 40 states that have bears (85%). Despite popular believe, bears provide excellent table fair. Much like pork, bear meat must be heated to a minimum temperature to prevent potential transfer of parasites. Bear meat is rich in flavor, that is often described as somewhere between pork and venison, with a sweet hint depending on what they have been feeding on. Fall harvested bears are the best as the have greater fat stores often derived from a berry-rich diet, leading to sweet flavors. This fat can be rendered to oil and used for frying and sweet baking recipes.
3. During the last bear hunt, we came dangerously close to exceeding the quota, how can we prevent that from happening in the future? FWC recognizes that the previous bear hunt quota system was flawed, and the new proposal addresses the concerns raised in 2015. This time around the number of tags issued will be equal to the quota preventing the possibility of too many tags to be filled.
4. Florida’s wildlife is already facing hardships due to habitat loss and urban sprawl, should we be worried that added hunting pressure will be too much for our bear population? Black bears are the most adaptable big game animal in the world. Despite increasing urban sprawl and development across all of its range, black bear populations continue to thrive (Beckmann & Berger, 2003; Garshelis et al., 2020; van Bommel et al., 2022). So much so, that the North American population of black bear is twice as large as all other bear species combined globally. It owes its success to its ability to adapt and find food in a variety of landscapes, include suburban landscapes. While development in Florida certainly has impacts on all wildlife, their populations are closely monitored, and this impact is modest compared to other types of wildlife. Thus the addition of a limited bear hunt will not be overly taxing to the current bear population.
5. Florida doesn’t have many hunters, can hunting really generate enough funding to impact conservation efforts? During the 2015 hunt, $376,000 was generated, and it is expected that a similar amount of funding can be generated year after year that can be allocated toward conservation efforts that benefit the bear population. Furthermore, in 2023, hunting license and tag sales as well as federal contributions through the Pitman-Robertson fund contributed $29 million to FWC’s budget, making up 28.5% of the total budget for the year. The Pitman-Robertson fund is derived of a voluntary 11% excise tax applied to guns and ammo across the nation. The collected funds are apportioned to different states based on the number of hunting license sold each year. These funds, as well as the funds generated directly from license and tag sales are restricted to spending on specific objectives such as habitat restoration, conservation, and access to public lands.

Additional Resources

• The Scientific Outdoorsmen Podcast - Episode 5: Is Florida Ready for a Black Bear Hunt? 
• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission: Update on Implementation of the Florida Black Bear Management Plan. December 2024.

Works Cited

Altwegg, R., Collingham, Y. C., Erni, B., & Huntley, B. (2013). Density-dependent dispersal and the speed of range expansions. Diversity and Distributions, 19(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2012.00943.x

Beckmann, J. P., & Berger, J. (2003). Rapid ecological and behavioural changes in carnivores: The responses of black bears (Ursus americanus) to altered food. Journal of Zoology, 261(2), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836903004126

Fronhofer, E. A., Gut, S., & Altermatt, F. (2017). Evolution of density-dependent movement during experimental range expansions. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 30(12), 2165–2176. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13182

Garshelis, D. L., Noyce, K. V., Ditmer, M. A., Coy, P. L., Tri, A. N., Laske, T. G., & Iaizzo, P. A. (2020). Remarkable Adaptations of the American Black Bear Help Explain Why it is the Most Common Bear: A Long-Term Study from the Center of its Range. In Bears of the World: Ecology, Conservation and Management (pp. 53–62). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108692571.006

Hagen, S. B., Kopatz, A., Aspi, J., Kojola, I., & Geir Eiken, H. (2015). Evidence of rapid change in genetic structure and diversity during range expansion in a recovering large terrestrial carnivore. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1807). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0092

Holsworth, W. N. (1973). Hunting Efficiency and White-Tailed Deer Density. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 37(3), 336–342. https://doi.org/10.2307/3800124

Ochocki, B. M., Saltz, J. B., & Miller, T. E. X. (n.d.). Demography-Dispersal Trait Correlations Modify the Eco-Evolutionary Dynamics of Range Expansion. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.n804b6d

Ordiz, A., Støen, O. G., Sæbø, S., Kindberg, J., Delibes, M., & Swenson, J. E. (2012). Do bears know they are being hunted? Biological Conservation, 152, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2012.04.006

Preisser, E. L., Lodge, A. G., Orwig, D. A., & Elkinton, J. S. (2008). Range expansion and population dynamics of co-occurring invasive herbivores. Biological Invasions, 10(2), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-007-9123-z

Scheick, B. K., Barrett, M. A., & Doran-Myers, D. (2023). Change in black bear range and distribution in Florida using two decadal datasets from 2001–2020. Journal of Wildlife Management, 87(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22394

van Bommel, J. K., Sun, C., Ford, A. T., Todd, M., & Burton, A. C. (2022). Coexistence or conflict: Black bear habitat use along an urban-wildland gradient. PLoS ONE, 17(11 November). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276448

Take Action Now!