Florida Amendment 2- Right to Fish and Hunt

Ballot Language:

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 of Article IV of the State Constitution.

Synopsis:

The right to hunt and fish is presently in the Florida Statutes. In 2002, Florida Statute Title XXVIII, Chapter 372 recognized that “hunting, fishing, and the taking of game are a valued part of the cultural heritage of Florida, and as such, should be preserved for Floridians”. 

The proposed Amendment 2 contains two provisions. One would provide and preserve forever a state constitutional right to hunt and fish. The second would declare that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of "responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife." 

This amendment was referred to the ballot by a majority vote of the 2023 Legislature. (Senate: 38 Yes to 1 No; House: 116 Yes to 0 No) 

As of 2023, a total of 23 states had constitutional provisions that protected the right to hunt and fish. However, only 11 of these 23 states specify in their constitutions that hunting and fishing shall be the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife and fish. 

Supporters of this amendment, including All Florida, American Sportfishing Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Bonefish & Tarpon Trust, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsman Foundation, Delta Waterfowl, Everglades Coordinating Council, Florida Airboat Association, Florida Guides Association, Florida Sportsman’s Conservation Association, Future Hunting in Florida, International Order of T. Roosevelt, National Deer Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Safari Club International, state the economic value of fishing and hunting provides Florida with approximately $15 billion annually and that enshrining the right in the constitutions will ensure that there are no future bans on fishing and hunting. 

Opponents, including Sierra Club Florida, Humane Wildlife Consulting of South Florida, American Ecosystems, Inc., Animal Wellness Action, Bear Defenders, Center for a Humane Economy, Florida Bar Animal Law Section, Humane Society of the US, League of Humane Voters of Florida, One Protest, Paws and Recreation, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Save-a-Turtle.org, Speak Up for Wildlife, World Animal Protection, are concerned that science-based methods of managing and controlling wildlife and fish will become secondary to hunting and fishing. The phrase “traditional methods” could be interpreted as a return to currently prohibited methods of hunting and fishing, such as steel traps, spearfishing and gill nets. They also say, if we have a statute protecting the right to hunt and fish already, why does this need to be placed in the Constitution now? Opponents warn of potential interference with private property rights by trespassing hunters.

A Yes Vote Would...:  Establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Florida and the preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife. 

A No Vote Would...:  Not establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish, but the 2002 Florida statute preserving the right to hunt and fish would remain in place.