The Right to Fish in Florida: Amendment 2

It can be difficult to keep up with what is going on in the world of fisheries and marine policy across state lines. Thankfully, our guides and advocate members keep a finger on the pulse and keep us in the fight. Recently, there has been a lot of attention to the Florida Constitutional Amendment coming up in November. Floridian voters will see “Amendment 2—The Right to Fish and Hunt” on their ballot.

How great is that? The right to fish and hunt is immortalized forever for all Floridians. The ballot measure only needs a 60% majority to pass. The initiative passed the Florida legislature with only one vote against, and 23 other states have passed similar measures. 

The push for states to take these actions was spawned by a movement in Oregon, Proposition 13, that would have outlawed hunting and fishing. Initially introduced in 2022, Prop 13 would have criminalized hunting, fishing, trapping, pest removal, and possibly hitting a fly with your windshield (we joke… kind of). Prop 13 did not have enough interest to make the ballot in 2024.  To date, no state has banned hunting or fishing. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to stay vigilant. As avid anglers and outdoorsmen, all is well and good. Our traditions and pastimes appear safe for now. So, why are we writing this blog?

The first issue that caught us off guard is that Florida has existing statutes that protect hunting and fishing.  It only took a quick search to track it down – look here. Title XXVIII, Chapter 379, Section 104: Right to Hunt and Fish:

“The Legislature recognizes that hunting, fishing, and the taking of game are a valued part of the cultural heritage of Florida and should be forever preserved for Floridians. The Legislature further recognizes that these activities play an important part in the state’s economy and in the conservation, preservation, and management of the state’s natural areas and resources. Therefore, the Legislature intends that the citizens of Florida have a right to hunt, fish, and take game, subject to the regulations and restrictions prescribed by general law and by s. 9, Art. IV of the State Constitution.”

Is this intended redundancy? or is Amendment 2 aiming to do something different? Let’s take a look at the language.

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, Florida Constitution

The amendment would amend Article I, Florida Constitution and Article I, Florida Constitution of the Florida Constitution. The following underlined text would be added and struck-through text would be deleted:

“SECTION 28. Fishing, hunting, and the taking of fish and wildlife.—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. This section does not limit the authority granted to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission under Section 9 of Article IV.^[5]“

Immediately, alarm bells start ringing and red flags pop up in a few places. We love to hunt and fish. Our team and the community we represent grew up hunting and fishing – and will die hunting and fishing.  That being said, we can’t honestly support that hunting and fishing are the preferred method of management. Our preferred management methods are based on the best available science. What does that even mean? Fisheries management is extremely polarizing. Does this mean that fishermen determine management? Would it all come down to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission? What happens after eventual power shifts on the Commission?

To make matters worse, there is no definition for “traditional” methods. Do you know which “traditional” methods have been utilized and fought against? Gill nets. Florida rejoiced in 1994 when Amendment 3, Limits on Fishing Nets Initiative, passed by almost a 3:1 margin. Experts have warned that when amendments contradict each other, the more recent action supersedes the previous measure.  Supporters of Amendment 2 disagree saying that methods legal at the time of passage would remain as the only legal methods. 

The truth is that anytime you are dealing with policy language, it shouldn’t be open in interpretation.  Especially something as profound as protecting the right to hunt and fish.  This one sentence conjures up some serious concerns for us.  “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.”

Why can’t we keep things clear and simple?

If this amendment simply restated the existing statute, we’d be all for it. The “traditional” and “preferred” language leave a lot of room for interpretation and concern, especially within the bounds of management. We have had a considerable number of guides and Florida anglers reach out to us curious what’s going on with Amendment 2. There was one article in particular that pushed us to write this blog and it came from the Florida Bar Association.  This article was in the March/April 2024 edition”

“Qualifying Hunting and Fishing as the Preferred Means of Managing Wildlife: A Potentially Dangerous Ballot Initiative that Provides Little Protection to Hunters and Fishermen“

It goes into great detail of the pro’s and con’s of Amendment 2. It is hard for us to disagree with the last paragraph:

Qualifying hunting and fishing as a constitutional right is not the issue. The danger of this amendment is listing these practices as the primary means of responsibly managing and controlling wildlife. For the future and health of Florida’s wildlife and environment, this constitutional amendment presents more harm than good. 

We’ll keep you updated as the campaign for YES and NO “On 2” in Florida continues. Fishing must be protected for generations to come – but we need to do so in a way that also relies on best available science to conserve our shared natural resources.