One of the constitutional amendments to pass with a 67.35% majority in Florida was Amendment 2, which enshrined within the state constitution the right to hunt and fish. 23 states have preceded Florida in guaranteeing the right.
One of the reasons that proponents of this amendment advocate for its necessity is the perceived threat on hunting and fishing seen in other states. As detailed by Florida State Senator Jim Boyd, “It’s really hard to believe that there are states that are outlawing fishing and hunting. Florida will not be one of those states.” According to the Florida Bar Association, no states have outlawed hunting. Senator Boyd is referring to an Oregon initiative that sought to hold hunting and fishing punishable under animal cruelty laws, though it did not receive enough signatures to be placed on the ballot this election cycle. There is also a statute existing in the Florida Constitution 379.104 that recognizes the cultural heritage associated with fishing and hunting in Florida, and guarantees its preservation. Attacks on our “sporting heritage” seem to be superfluous given the existing statute.
This amendment promotes hunting and fishing, as well as other traditional methods, as the “preferred” means of managing and controlling wildlife. Opponents of Amendment 2 have stated that the language used, specifically regarding “traditional methods,” is intentionally vague. This ambiguity may lead to excessive animal cruelty. Attorney and animal rights advocate Melissa Zepada details that traditional methods may include “steel traps, poison, and clubbing an animal.” Given the scientific advancements and how numerous wildlife management methods have been introduced outside of hunting — such as bear-resistant trash cans with the Florida Black Bear — it is questionable whether these methods will maintain preference given the passage of Amendment 2. Defenders of Wildlife rep Fleming states that the language utilized “writes out science” and leaves room for previously outlawed, inhumane management methods to take its place. Other opponents of the amendment such as the Sierra Club write similar opinions about the implications on Florida wildlife management.
Most Florida environmental organizations support the previous statute protecting hunting and fishing. It is longstanding Florida history that we are outdoorsmen, however, the misunderstood implications of Amendment 2 may lead to inhumane treatment of animals and widespread environmental degradation. There has already been legislation passed giving property owners the right to shoot black bears on their land without a permit. Floridians should remain vigilant to what this amendment is used to justify when reviewing environmental management methods, as poor management techniques may lead to habitat and species loss in Florida’s endemic ecosystems.Â