Stay in the know about wildlife, water quality, and ecosystems on Sanibel and Captiva Islands and in Southwest Florida
Analysis: Amendment 2 – Right to Fish and Hunt
This November, Florida voters will find ‘Amendment 2 – Right to Fish and Hunt’ on their ballots.
While, on its face, the amendment seems to be straightforward, it is necessary to provide further analysis so that voters can make an informed decision about what they are enshrining in the Florida Constitution. SCCF Environmental Policy Director Matt DePaolis helps explain Amendment 2 below.
SCCF Analysis
Amendment 2 comes from a joint resolution of the Florida Legislature, being placed on the ballot after the previous legislative session. Other ways a proposed amendment to the state constitution can be placed on the ballot include a citizen initiative or a proposal of the Constitution Revision Commission.
Once part of the constitution, any amendment is very difficult to undo, and as such, constitutional amendments should not be taken lightly.
Amendment 2 plays directly on issues that are very important to many Floridians. The right to hunt and fish is inherent for many of us and is central to how we use the land, enjoy nature, and interact with the state that we love.
This shared experience is so vital to our state that protections for hunting and fishing have already been enshrined in the Florida Statutes: Title XXVIII, Chapter 379, Section 104: Right to Hunt and Fish. This right has legislative protections that recognize that hunting and fishing “play an important part in the state’s economy and in the conservation, preservation, and management of the state’s natural areas and resources” and enshrine the rights of Floridians to be able to “hunt, fish, and take game.” With these protections already in place, it’s important to understand what Amendment 2 will do.
The language of the Amendment will enshrine the right to hunt and fish in the state constitution, but it goes beyond what is already in the legislative protections. The amendment is mostly captured in one sentence:
“Fishing, hunting, and the taking of fish and wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, shall be preserved forever as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.”
Beyond simply the right to hunt and fish, this amendment grants the both the right to use “traditional methods” and the right to use hunting and fishing as the “preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.”
The vague nature with which this amendment has been written allows interpretation on the part of future lawmakers and courts as to what this means, and while people on both sides of the issue can claim to know what the amendment entails, until it is challenged in court, it is impossible to say.
What Amendment 2 does not say, is that management decisions will be based on scientific best practices, or what happens when the science says that hunting and fishing are not the management techniques most appropriate for a certain situation. Additionally, claims are being made on both sides as to what ‘traditional methods’ entail, but without a clear definition in the proposed amendment, this too will be something that will need to be sorted out through potentially dangerous trial and error.
The right to hunt and fish is inherent in the state of Florida, and as such, already provided protections in the Florida Statutes. While this right is one that is worth protecting, it is important that voters are making educated decisions about what they are providing constitutional protections for, and that they understand the inherent unknowns in the language of the current amendment being proposed.