This November, Florida voters will decide on Amendment 2: the Right to Hunt and Fish, a 2024 ballot measure proposing to enshrine hunting and fishing in the state constitution.
The amendment seeks to protect hunting, fishing, and the taking of wildlife as a "public right" and establish them as the preferred method of wildlife management in Florida. It requires a 60% vote to pass. If adopted, Florida would join 23 other states with similar constitutional protections. The proposal has sparked significant debate, dividing advocates and environmental groups.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Florida Sportsman’s Conservation Association are among the leading supporters. They argue that hunting and fishing traditions are essential to wildlife conservation, pointing to the significant funding generated by hunters and anglers through license fees and equipment taxes. While other groups, many hunting and fishing oriented, including Ducks Unlimited and the American Sportfishing Association, also support the measure, they assert that hunting and fishing are key to controlling wildlife populations and preserving habitats. The amendment has garnered bipartisan backing, with the Florida House voting 116-0 in favor.
However, many Florida-based organizations oppose it.
Sierra Club Florida, the Florida Native Plant Society (FNPS), and Wildlife Consulting of South Florida argue that the right to hunt and fish is already well-protected under current law, rendering the amendment unnecessary. They warn that enshrining these activities as the preferred methods for wildlife management could weaken existing protections. Critics also point to the amendment’s endorsement of “traditional methods” of hunting, fearing this vague language could lead to less regulated and harmful practices that threaten endangered and beloved Florida species. Additionally, the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund worries the amendment could limit Florida’s ability to adapt its wildlife management policies to evolving ecological conditions.
The FNPS highlights potential negative impacts on other recreational activities, such as hiking and birdwatching, which may receive less recognition if hunting becomes constitutionally prioritized. They also note that public lands often prioritize hunters during hunting season, at the expense of other users. FNPS further argues that many native species will not benefit from hunting-based management methods.
While hunting and fishing should remain rights in Florida, critics question why this measure is needed when these activities face no imminent threats, and conservation funding through licensing and regulated seasons already exists.
In conclusion, as you prepare to step into the voting booth this November, I encourage you to research Amendment 2 and the other amendments on the ballot. See how they align with your own values and beliefs. Your vote is your right, you owe it to yourself to make it well-informed.
Sign up to receive the OutFAU newsletter here
