Since 1936, the Florida Wildlife Federation (Federation) has advocated for science-based wildlife-management in balance with sustainable regulations and education for hunting and fishing. We are a citizen-based organization representing a diverse set of conservationist and recreationist, from bird watchers to turkey hunters. However, the Federation is opposed to the Legislature driven constitutional amendment, the Right to Hunt and Fish (Amendment 2), which will appear on the 2024 election ballot. Amendment 2 introduces unnecessary interference with the Florida Constitution and is overly vague in its language, leaving it vulnerable to misinterpretation or misuse, potentially undermining its intent.
”We fully support the right to hunt and fish as prescribed in Florida’s state statute. We see no threats to these rights that warrant enshrining them in our state constitution. Amendment 2 is unnecessary and could potentially complicate the very protections it seeks to uphold for the everyday Floridian.
Sarah GledhillFederation President & CEO
Unnecessary Amendment
Amendment 2 seeks to establish hunting and fishing as a constitutional right in Florida. However, the Federation emphasizes that these activities are already well-protected and guarded under current state laws, particularly Chapter 379.104 of Florida Statutes. The existing legal framework provides ample opportunities for responsible and ethical hunting and fishing, making the proposed amendment redundant. Furthermore, enshrining these activities in the state constitution could introduce legal complications, potentially leading to costly taxpayer-funded legal battles and undermining scientifically supported wildlife management practices.
”Whether one seeks to put fish, fowl, or game in a photo or on the grill, this unnecessary amendment does nothing towards addressing the real problem of species decline in Florida and can only complicate matters. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Joe AtterburyFederation Board Member and angler
Risks of Unintended Consequences
The Federation is deeply concerned about the unintended consequences that Amendment 2 could bring. The amendment’s vague preference of “traditional hunting methods” might open the door for the return of harmful and currently prohibited by law practices like the use of gill nets, which in Florida’s past have had major detrimental effects on Florida’s fisheries, coastal communities and their economies.
Photo by Adam Wordsworth
Additionally, the amendment designates hunting and fishing as the “preferred method of managing and controlling” wildlife populations, a mandate that could obstruct the use of more effective conservation strategies such as prescribed fire, nonnative species management, wildlife sanctuaries, marine protected areas, and habitat restoration efforts, all of which are supported by hunters and anglers.
”As an outdoorsman who hunts and fishes, I believe Amendment 2 is a threat to Florida's wildlife and ecosystems. At a time when wildlife populations are already in serious decline, this amendment could undermine important conservations measures. Allowing broad, unchecked access to outdated hunting and fishing practices could devastate fish populations and other species. We need to prioritize sustainable and responsible stewardship of our natural resources, not change our state constitution allowing a roll back of critical protections.
Clinton TrottaFederation Board Member, hunter, and angler
Impact on Private Property Rights
The Federation raises concerns about the amendment’s potential implications for private property rights. The proposed amendment lacks language to protect private property from trespassing, which could lead to legal disputes over hunting activities that could infringe on the private property rights of individual homeowners and landowners.
A Call for Collaboration
Rather than passing an unnecessary and potentially harmful constitutional amendment, the Florida Wildlife Federation advocates for continued collaboration and sustained partnerships among wildlife agencies, conservation organizations, hunters, anglers, and the broader public. By levering the unique perspectives and stewardship ethic of hunters and anglers alongside conservationists, we can continue to balance science, recreation, and agency input without the risks posed by Amendment 2.
”As a fisheries scientist working with many different stakeholders including anglers, Amendment 2 erodes years of work to bring us all together and tackle resource management issues. I see fishing guides supporting more habitat and fisheries protections because they see the value in management of our resources. Amending our state constitution to give unfettered access flies in the face of sound science-based wildlife management.
Jennifer RehageFederation Board Member and angler
We call on all Federation members and supporters to vote “NO” on Amendment 2, whether you vote by mail, early, or on November 5th.
FWF’s opposition to Amendment 2 is based on false premises and specious arguments. As someone who worked tirelessly to craft and promote this amendment, I take exception to your campaign of deception and fear mongering.
As I’m sure you’re well aware, the amendment does not threaten to reintroduce any outlawed or unethical hunting or fishing practices. It also has no power to undermine the constitutional authority of FWC or the agency’s ability to manage wildlife in a science based manner. Neither does this amendment usurp private property rights nor empower any unlawful activity. Furthermore, as you’re quite aware, statutes do not protect rights in the same manner as a constitutional amendment because laws are easily changed and challenged in court.
FWF’s position is anathema to true conservation and the rights of sportsmen who founded this organization. Shame on you for perpetuating these lies and shame on you for turning your back on the very people that created FWF.
Sincerely
Thank you for your comments, Chuck, regarding Amendment 2. You have responded to all of my concerns as I was reading the FWF article. I will be voting YES.
Thank you Chuck! I find it interesting that on the one hand, the FWF suggests that Amendment 2 is not necessary since the Florida Statutes already contain adequate protection of our rights to hunt and fish, but on the other hand, they are concerned that the existing statutes offering strict private property rights and restrictions on fish and wildlife taking practices, may be inadequate to protect us from this simple constitutional revision. Something don’t add up here. I am voting YES!
You worked tirelessly to craft that short paragraph? It should be more clear in its language. If it doesn’t do all the things FWF claims it does, then why not include that in the amendment? I am all for putting this into the constitution, but because of the lack of clarity, I will vote NO, unless you change my mind.
I have already voted NO! on Amendment 2. It is hard enough now to regulate the taking of our fish and game. We cannot go back to a free of all 200 hundred years ago.
I support the FWF, because like them, I too truly care about the conservation efforts. We must continue to care about the protections with all of our Rivers, our Bays, as well as the animals we love in the sea, and on our lands. God gave us these things beautiful things, so care about them! That’s why I am making a hard NO on Amendment 2.
It seems the arguments to vote for the amendment is it won’t change anything and the arguments to vote against it is that it could change things. It looks like neither side wants to change, so I’m voting no to change things
i wish i could have read this information sooner i would have voted no .ets hope this doesn’t make things worst
You put out this information too late. I voted the first day of early voting. Had I been aware I would have voted no.