The right to fish and hunt already exists—don’t fall for Florida’s Amendment No. 2

Florida’s Amendment 2 about the great outdoors asks voters, in part, “to preserve forever fishing and hunting, including by the use of traditional methods, as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.”

The thing is—that right already exists. Sure, there are pros and cons, but wildlife advocates say this amendment could put local wildlife, residents and communities in danger while also impacting conservation efforts. Cocaine bears aren’t a real problem, and nature needs more protections, not less.

As CL previously reported, despite the Amendment’s qualification that it does not “limit the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,” because Amendment 2 is a state constitutional amendment, if it passes, implementing and enforcing new regulations could become more difficult.

“It would be a Herculean task to get a new regulation passed,” said Melissa Zepeda, a St. Petersburg animal activist, and corporate lawyer, “because now you’re saying that the right to hunt is like our freedom of speech.”

Vote “No” on Florida’s Amendment 2 about the right to fish and hunt, and read the full ballot language below.

No. 2 Constitutional Amendment Article I, Section 28

Right to Fish and Hunt
Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to preserve forever fishing and hunting, including by the use of traditional methods, as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife. Specifies that the amendment does not limit the authority granted to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission under Section 9 of Article IV of the State Constitution

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.

Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter

This article appears in Oct 17-23, 2024.