Friends of the Everglades, which was founded by Marjory Stoneman Douglas in 1969, urges voters to oppose Amendment 2, “The Right to Fish and Hunt,” which will appear on the November 2024 ballot in Florida.
We oppose Amendment 2 because:
There’s no need for this amendment to the Florida Constitution.
Hunting and fish are already protected in state law, specifically Chapter 379.104 of Florida Statutes.
The amendment is not based on science.
Amendment 2 would designate hunting as the “preferred” method of wildlife management in the Florida Constitution. This risks supplanting methods rooted in habitat management — such as hydrologic restoration and prescribed fire — which are vital, science-backed methods of wildlife conservation and management.
It could have unintended consequences.
Amendment 2 specifically cites preservation of “the use of traditional methods” of hunting and fishing, without explanation. Could this open the door to hunting and fishing methods that have been previously banned, such as gill netting or baiting of bears? Such legal questions could end up being decided by a court of law, with uncertain outcomes.
It’s driven by special interests.
Amendment 2 was placed on the ballot by the Florida Legislature, not by citizen petition, and the campaign has received financial support from polluting interests including U.S. Sugar, which donated $25,000 to support the amendment on October 2.
It could threaten private property rights.
The vague wording of the amendment may enable hunters to trespass on private property in pursuit of prey.
We urge Florida voters to vote “no” on Amendment 2 on November 5, 2024, and during early voting.
Amendment 2 text:
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.
See who’s standing with us:
Published concerns about Amendment 2:
Read more about our concerns about Amendment 2 in this op-ed written by Friends of the Everglades board member Richard Trotta and published by the Miami Herald: I fish and hunt in Florida, but I say “No” to Amendment 2
American Saltwater Guides Association
“We love to hunt and fish. Our team and the community we represent grew up hunting and fishing – and will die hunting and fishing. That being said, we can’t honestly support that hunting and fishing are the preferred method of management. Our preferred management methods are based on the best available science.”
Florida Bar Association article:
“Qualifying hunting and fishing as a constitutional right is not the issue. The danger of this amendment is listing these practices as the primary means of responsibly managing and controlling wildlife. For the future and health of Florida’s wildlife and environment, this constitutional amendment presents more harm than good.”
Florida Native Plant Society
“Amendment 2 would also enshrine protection for the use of ‘traditional methods’ of hunting. Without any additional explanation of what is meant by the phrase ‘traditional methods’, it is conceivable this could open the door to any number of traditional hunting and fishing methods that have properly been prohibited by law. Fishing with gill nets in nearshore waters? Fishing with dynamite or electrofishing? Inhuman methods of trapping? In the event the Florida black bear is ever again subject to hunting, would traditional methods include baiting?”
Florida Wildlife Federation
“Amendment 2 introduces unnecessary interference with the Florida Constitution and is overly vague in its language, leaving it vulnerable to misinterpretation or misuse, potentially undermining its intent.”
Blair Wickstrom, Senior Editor of Florida Sportsman Magazine
“The vast majority of our state representatives are complicit in the degradation of our fishery habitat,” wrote Wickstrom. “That degradation is the single largest threat to quality fishing in our state… I don’t trust them and will be voting No on Amendment 2.”
Michael F. Chenoweth, President, Florida Keys Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America
“I am a person who relies on science to guide decision-making. This proposed amendment would place obstacles in the way of science and could pave the way for endless delays in implementation of critically needed measures to protect Florida’s natural resources. I’m sure the people who wrote the proposed language were well intentioned, but their efforts failed.”
