Outdoor enthusiasts and wildlife conservationists may be interested in a proposal going on the November ballot. Voters will see it as Amendment 2 -- Right to Fish and Hunt.
“Members, this is a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution to preserve hunting and fishing and the taking of fish and wildlife, including the use of traditional methods in perpetuity as a public right, and that is the resolution.”
That was Sen. Jason Brodeur, R-Lake Mary, on the Senate floor last year as a sponsor of what became House Joint Resolution 1157. It was approved by the 2023 Florida Legislature with just one vote against it.
Florida statutes already allow fishing and hunting. During a legislative committee meeting, Rep. Lauren Melo, R-Naples, explained a constitutional amendment is needed because several states are making moves to ban these activities.
“Due to that, we feel that we would like to get ahead and make sure that we preserve the right,” Melo said. “There are 23 states that have already passed this.”
Melo added that Florida is the only southeastern state not to make this change.
Yet no state has outlawed these activities. An attempted initiative in Oregon did not qualify for this year’s ballot.
The Vote Yes on Amendment 2 political committee has raised over $700,000 for the proposal that it says will preserve Florida’s rich traditions while providing the fundamentals of conservation.
But some of the ballot language is raising red flags.
“It establishes as the preferred method of wildlife management, hunting and fishing,” says Tallahassee attorney Ralph DeMeo. “That's an outrageous position to take because no legitimate wildlife biologist would tell you that the best way to manage wildlife is through killing it.”
DeMeo is an attorney at Guilday Law and an adjunct professor of animal law at FSU and Stetson. He also writes articles and serves as the editor for the Animal Law Section of the Florida Bar.
“If it was limited to simply putting in the Constitution the statutory protections that already exist for hunting and fishing, we would probably be okay with that,” DeMeo says. “But the switch came when they added that provision that it's also the preferred method of wildlife management, and frankly, that blindsided a lot of the wildlife and animal welfare groups.”
The amendment also creates a protection for “traditional” methods of hunting and fishing, without defining those methods.
Opponents argue the vague language in the amendment could lead to litigation over what methods should be allowed. They have concerns, such as a potential renewed effort to bring back the hunting of black bears after a state-sanctioned hunt in 2015 ended early.
Chuck O'Neal chairs the NoTo2.org political committee.
“Constitutional scholars have looked at this language and have come to the conclusion that this right to hunt with traditional methods is in direct conflict with the 1994 gill net ban,” says O’Neal. “What they say is that the more recent of the two constitutional measures is the governing measure.”
Mike Elfenbein says the amendment would not reverse the constitutional net ban.
He’s executive director of the Cypress chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, a conservation organization in Charlotte County.
“Traditional means of hunting and fishing means those methods which are legal at the time that the constitutional amendment passes,” Elfenbein says, “like archery equipment, black powder or muzzle loader equipment, general guns, which are rifles.”
Elfenbein is a board member of The Future of Hunting in Florida, and he says he was there as this resolution was being crafted.
“The constitutional amendment doesn't give everybody carte blanche to do what they want. Everything has to be done within the bounds of the law, “Elfenbein says. “The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission remains the authority on that.”
Elfenbein calls the amendment’s creation a grassroots effort by Floridians, and he says hunting and fishing have long been the preferred methods for wildlife management.
“If you enjoy clean water and you enjoy green spaces, and you want to know that the land that's out there has lots of little critters running around on it and that everything's healthy and doing well, you have to vote yes on Amendment 2.”
This proposed constitutional amendment was placed on the November ballot by the Florida Legislature. That means the proposal doesn’t have to go to the Florida Supreme Court for a review of the ballot language like other proposed amendments.
The NoTo2.org campaign has raised less than $4,000. But O’Neal is doing the best he can to promote his cause, and he says he hopes people understand what they’re voting for. “We are definitely in the David versus Goliath fight on this measure. We're just asking for people to read. Just read the measure.”
We requested an interview with Sen. Jason Brodeur. His office offered this statement:
"This amendment seeks to protect in perpetuity our enduring right to hunt and fish, cherished as a tradition passed down by our ancestors. Many Floridians, rather than purchasing their meat and fish from supermarkets, prefer these time-honored methods. Recently, this fundamental right has faced challenges, with other states like Oregon, New Mexico, and Washington attempting to criminalize these activities.
Florida aims to affirm its support for the millions who uphold these traditions, safeguarding their ability to continue hunting and fishing. There is a misconception that this amendment grants unrestricted access, allowing individuals to disregard existing laws. Let me assure you, this is not the case.
The amendment explicitly recognizes that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) retains authority to regulate these activities. Participants must still adhere to the strict hunting and fishing regulations set by the state and the FWC".
--Senator Jason Brodeur
The amendment needs support from 60 percent of the voters who cast ballots in November to pass.
