At first glance, Amendment 2 seems unnecessary: “The citizens of Florida have a right to hunt, fish, and take game.”
Before Florida was Florida, people had been catching fish and trapping chickens, pigs, and deer.
The Spanish imported cattle to the Caribbean in the early 1500s, and by the end of the next century milk, butter, and beef were staples in the 13 British colonies.
By 2002, “The Right to Hunt and Fish” statute was incorporated into Florida law, recognizing those activities as part of the state’s cultural heritage. The law guarantees hunting and fishing will be forever allowed, mentioning that the activities contribute to the state’s economy and help conserve natural areas.
Republican State Sen. Jeff Brandes of St. Petersburg, however, decided the state law does not go far enough.
He authored Amendment 2 to not only enshrine hunting and fishing into the Florida Constitution but also to make the activities the preferred way to cull fish and wildlife populations when necessary.
Republican State Rep. Lauren Melo, R-Naples., said Amendment 2 is important because it is also focused on the heritage of Florida.
“Many people don’t realize the economic value fishing and hunting provides our great state, combining just over $15 billion annually,” she said. “Passing this legislation is a powerful statement that we support and champion our fishing and hunting traditions, and we want to protect (them) for our future.”
Mirrors ideological split
It’s doubtful that deciding whether to vote for or against Amendment 2 will be one of those political decisions that will keep voters up late before the election.
That’s because the issue appears to mirror the ideological split running from Vermont to Southern California, splitting Washington D.C., in half along the way.
Amendment 2 is largely backed by pro-hunting and pro-fishing groups, who worry the long-term future of hunting and fishing without constitutional protection will become increasingly restrictive due to changing political and social pressures.
Groups like the Florida Wildlife Federation, a key conservation organization with ties to the hunting community, also support the amendment, pointing out that the fees from licenses, permits, and other hunting-related activities fund much of the state’s wildlife and land management efforts.
Florida Division of Elections Committee Tracking System reports that Vote Yes on Amendment 2 registered to support the amendment. The committee reported $1.01 million in contributions as of September 2024.
Supporters include charter captains' associations, hunting and shooting clubs as well as the Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation, Everglades Coordinating Council, and the International Order of T. Roosevelt.
'A ridiculous amendment'
Opponents of Amendment 2 include environmentalists and animal welfare organizations like the Humane Society of the United States, who are often vocal in opposition.
These groups typically oppose hunting on ethical grounds, believing that wildlife should be protected from practices they see as inhumane. Not wanting to ban hunting outright, they often seek stricter regulations on specific hunting practices and more progressive wildlife management policies.
The opponents of Amendment 2 fear that a constitutional amendment could lock the state into an inflexible position, hindering future conservation measures or changes in wildlife policy.
Other opponents argue that the amendment is unnecessary because hunting and fishing rights are not currently under threat in Florida and see it as redundant since state laws already protect many outdoor pursuits.
Florida’s largest newspapers have not been supportive of Amendment 2.
The South Florida Sun Sentinel’s editorial board, which, like other newspapers, is composed of opinion writers separate from the newsroom and the journalists who write the news stories, said the amendment might just be a way to get far-right voters to the polls where they will presumably vote conservatively across the rest of the ballot.
“Nobody can say exactly what it could do, or how much harm it could cause,” the Sun-Sentinel’s editorial board wrote. “Meanwhile, the only arguments in its favor seem to rest on the fallacy that hunting and fishing in Florida are under attack.”
The Tampa Bay Times editorial board put it more bluntly: “This is a ridiculous amendment that doesn’t belong in the state constitution.”
NoTo2.org registered to oppose the amendment. The committee reported $99,215 in contributions as of November 2024.
Members of the committee include the Florida Bar Animal Law Section, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Sarasota Vegan Society.
Jay Henderson, Florida Audubon Society’s president emeritus, does not see any logic to Amendment 2.
“The amendment goes too far in declaring this right to hunt and fish as a 'public right,” Henderson said. “The biggest concern for me … is that the amendment proclaims hunting and fishing the 'preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.' Really? Often the preferred means to conserve fish and wildlife is to limit hunting and fishing to protect their numbers.”
Environmental reporting for WGCU is funded in part by VoLo Foundation, a non-profit with a mission to accelerate change and global impact by supporting science-based climate solutions, enhancing education, and improving health.
Sign up for WGCU's monthly environmental newsletter, the Green Flash, today.
WGCU is your trusted source for news and information in Southwest Florida. We are a nonprofit public service, and your support is more critical than ever. Keep public media strong and donate now. Thank you.
Copyright 2024 WGCU
