The Florida Amendment Series 2024: Amendment 2 – Recommendation

Conclusion: It will be six proposed constitutional amendments on Florida’s ballots in the November general election. Four of these amendments were introduced by the Florida Legislature and two were citizen-initiated proposals that met all the requirements for consideration by voters. The second of the six amendments on our ballot this year would constitutionally protect hunting and fishing in the state. Here’s how the proposal will appear on our ballot in November:

Changing the Right to Hunting and Fishing in Florida

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to forever preserve fishing and hunting, including through the use of traditional methods, as a public right and the preferred means of responsible management and control of fish and game. Specifies that the amendment does not limit the authority granted to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission under Section 9 of Article IV of the State Constitution.

“Yes” Voting supports Establishing a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Florida.

“NO” Voting is against Establishing a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Florida.

In support of the measure, the state representative who introduced the amendment said: (This) is about Florida’s heritage. Many people are unaware of the economic value that fishing and hunting bring to our great state, which together generate just over $15 billion annually. People come from all over the world to catch our tarpon and snapper and hunt our turkeys and ducks. The passage of this bill sends a strong message that we want to support and promote our fishing and hunting traditions and protect (them) for our future.

In counterargument to the proposed change, the organization NoTo2.org stated: “Even though the planet has lost 69% of its wildlife in the last 50 years, this amendment to Florida’s constitution would enshrine a fundamental right to hunt and fish using “traditional methods.” This unwise amendment could be used to override protections for fish stocks, such as lifting the ban on gill nets, which are a deadly wall in the ocean.”

My recommendation is a “No” vote on Amendment 2, which will likely put me at odds with most Floridians, as I expect this amendment to pass. I oppose this proposal for two reasons. First, hunting and fishing as described in this amendment is already legal in Florida. Passing this proposal will not necessarily impact policy within the state. Second, as a conservationist, I have long fought to protect Florida’s waterways and natural habitats, including the threatened and endangered wildlife that live therein.

The amendment mentions the use of “traditional methods,” but many forms of those “traditional methods,” such as certain nets used for fishing, are currently banned in Florida. Passing this amendment could lead to legal challenges to Florida’s existing wildlife protections, as it would put the outcome of those decisions in the hands of court rulings. At best, this amendment is unnecessary. At worst, it could undermine existing conservation efforts.

To be adopted, the proposed amendment requires at least 60% approval.