Amendment 2 Preserves Fishing and Hunting in Florida. What Supporters and Opponents Say

Fishing and hunting have long been integral to Florida’s culture, economy, and outdoor lifestyle. As these activities continue to shape the identity of the state, voters will decide in November whether to enshrine the right to hunt and fish in the state constitution with Amendment 2. Supporters argue that this measure is crucial for safeguarding these traditions from future legal restrictions, while opponents see the amendment as redundant and unnecessary.

Supporters: Protecting a Way of Life

Proponents of Amendment 2 believe that formal constitutional protection is essential to preserve the right to fish and hunt for future generations. Veteran Miami charter boat captain Bouncer Smith expressed concerns about potential changes to existing laws that could restrict these activities. Smith points out that activists opposed to fishing and hunting have, in the past, taken extreme measures to block access to fishing areas. He argues that the constitutional amendment would provide necessary legal protections against such disruptions.

Smith, along with other supporters, also highlights the importance of traditional fishing and hunting methods. According to the amendment, it seeks 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.” For many, this language ensures that sports like fishing and hunting remain a vital part of Florida’s environmental management strategy.

Opponents: A Redundant Amendment

Critics of Amendment 2, like Eve Samples, executive director of Friends of the Everglades, argue that the proposed amendment is a waste of time and resources. Samples contend that Florida already protects the right to fish and hunt under state statutes, which face no immediate threat. She questions the need for constitutional protection, especially when no significant efforts exist to erode these rights. Opponents are also concerned about the potential reintroduction of harmful and outdated fishing techniques. Samples point to the ban on nearshore gill-netting, which was added to the state constitution years ago to protect marine ecosystems from overfishing. She fears that Amendment 2’s vague reference to “traditional methods” could inadvertently open the door to the return of such destructive practices.

Addressing Concerns: Does the Amendment Change Fishing Regulations?

One major point of debate revolves around whether the amendment would affect existing fishing regulations, such as bag limits (the number of fish caught per day) and size limits (the minimum size of fish that can be kept). Smith believes that these regulations would remain unchanged and that Amendment 2 would not reverse the gill-netting ban or undermine current marine conservation efforts. He reassures fellow fishermen that the amendment aims to protect hunting and fishing without compromising environmental safeguards. However, these reassurances have done little to sway opponents. The wording of the amendment, they argue, leaves room for potential misinterpretation, which could lead to future legal battles over its implementation.

The Voters’ Decision

As the November election approaches, both supporters and opponents of Amendment 2 have two weeks to sway voters. In order for the amendment to pass, it requires 60% approval from voters, and the debate over whether constitutional protection is necessary will likely continue until the ballots are cast.