Amendment to Enshrine the Right to Fish and Hunt Passed by 67%

Amendment 2 has passed with 67% of the vote, enshrining the right to fish and hunt in Florida’s constitution. 

The ballot measure went well beyond the necessary 60% threshold needed to pass an amendment, unlike citizen-generated amendments such as Amendment 3 and 4 – which would have legalized recreational marijuana and restored access to abortion – ballot initiatives also won a clear  majority of Florida voters but did not reach the bar of 60%. 

Many Floridians, however, are still wondering what exactly Amendment 2 will actually do and why it was necessary to have an amendment to ensure the right to hunt and fish.

Supporters believe that this will ensure that this right will remain protected and traditions will be preserved for future generations, guarding any future movements to impinge on this right. Florida is now the 23rd state to enshrine the right to hunt and fish in their constitution.

Amendment 2 doesn't change any rules or the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Commission, which was actually one of the groups who supported and contributed money to this. The amendment included that it “does not limit the Fish and Wildlife Conservations Commissions constitutional powers under Article IV, Section 9” to oversee the regulations put in place.

Groups like the CCA, the Coastal Conservation Association, pushed for support on Amendment 2. The CCA is a chapter based group by state, serving as an interest group, and their mission statement is “Ensuring the health and conservation of our marine resources and anglers’ access to them,” according to their website.

The Coastal Conservation Association said that their goal was to protect the right to fish for current and future generations. “We believe the sustainability of any natural resource is of utmost importance, and relying on science-based management proposed in the Amendment will help guide a healthy ecosystem,” said Trip Aukeman, CCA, Director of Government Relations, in an emailed response to MediaLab@FAU.

The amendment has officially created a fundamental right to hunt and fish using “traditional methods.” The traditional methods may have played a key role in voter’ choice. These methods include many different ways to hunt and fish, and there are many theories and opinions as to what exactly would fall into this traditional methods category. 

Gillnets are just one example. They were made illegal in 1994. While they are a very effective way to fish, they result in a mass catch with unintentional bycatch, which also includes species like turtle, manatees and dolphins. This was a traditional method that was used routinely, and critics worried that it could return to common usage if the amendment passed.

Allen de Olazarra, 66, was a hard no on this amendment, and argued that there is something much bigger here that gives him great concern. The Miami native has been fishing since he was six years old, and yet strongly opposed Amendment 2.

“I believe that this proposed amendment is intended to reopen the door to the use of gillnets in state waters, because it is undeniably a traditional method,” de Olazarra said.

Gillnets, a controversial fishing technique developed about 30 years ago, are a fishing device in which fish can swim into massive nets but can’t get through, resulting in their gills getting caught when trying to escape. A law restricting this method was enforced to avoid depleting fish stocks and to protect endangered species as well as coral reefs.

For example, mullet is a type of fish that is necessary for the ecosystem, serving as the basic building block of the game fishing industry, that was a popular catch with a gillnet. The improvement over the last 30 years, since the gillnets were banned, has been exponential in the increase of this particular fish, experts say. Mullet are known for being great biological filters for the water, but most importantly a primary source of food in Florida’s waters.

People who support the use of these gillnets have been lobbying for quite some time for the catch and cost efficiency it brings to the industry.

The Florida Wildlife Federation argued that Amendment 2 is too vague and could potentially undermine the conservation efforts needed to maintain a healthy ecosystem. Many major environmental groups, including Sierra Club Florida, opposed the measure. Some groups wondered if hunting and fishing could be expanded into state parks and wildlife preserves or bar homeowners from ejecting hunters from their property. 

People against the amendment also worry hunting and fishing rights would supersede personal property rights, and you wouldn't be able to keep hunters off your property. And they're worried hunting and fishing could be expanded into state parks and wildlife preserves.

“We fully support the right to hunt and fish as prescribed in Florida’s state statute. We see no threats to these rights that warrant enshrining them in our state constitution. Amendment 2 is unnecessary and could potentially complicate the very protections it seeks to uphold for the everyday Floridian,” said Sarah Gledhill, FWF President and CEO. 

The American SportFishing Association petitioned its members on the importance of Amendment 2. The group said the amendment would “enshrine fishing and hunting in the state's constitution and cement our status as the fishing capital of the world,” said the American SportFishing Association.

However, not every fisherman believes the amendment is truly the best for Florida’s fish and wildlife.

“It will basically undo 30 years of improving fish stocks that are, in my opinion, very substantially the result of the net ban that was put in place in 1994,” de Olazarra said.