Protect sustainable hunting and fishing: Vote no on Amendment 2 | Opinion

With so much on the line in this election, it’s understandable if Amendment 2 hasn’t caught your attention. This proposal aims to enshrine the right to hunt and fish in the Florida Constitution. While it might seem like a simple nod to outdoor traditions, there are serious concerns that should make you think twice before supporting it.

The Florida Sierra Club agrees on the long-standing tradition of all Floridians being permitted to hunt and fish sustainably, provided these actions are compatible with the conservation and protection of Florida’s fish and wildlife and their habitats.

Grant Gelhardt is chair of the Florida Sierra Club's Conservation Committee. (courtesy, Grant Gelhardt)
Grant Gelhardt is chair of the Florida Sierra Club’s Conservation Committee. (courtesy, Grant Gelhardt)

The principle and right to hunt and fish have been the law in Florida for generations. Florida law already recognizes that hunting and fishing and the taking of game are part of Florida’s cultural heritage and traditions, provided they are done in concert with the conservation and protection of those species and their habitats through regulations promulgated and updated annually as needed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).

Amendment 2 includes two ill-conceived elements that conflict with science-based hunting and fishing regulations and threaten the conservation and habitats of Florida’s fish and wildlife.

First, the amendment would dictate that hunting and fishing are the preferred ways of managing fish and wildlife. That is in total conflict with a century of continually developing fish and wildlife science to guide the management of these species and their aquatic and terrestrial habitats. If adopted, Amendment 2 could overturn and threaten sustainably managing and conserving fish and wildlife and their habitats in Florida. The amendment designates hunting as a preferred method of managing wildlife and seems to require state and local governments to manage wildlife such as deer and bears in city parks, county parks, state parks and wildlife sanctuaries by hunting these animals.

Second, the wording of the proposed amendment to permit “all traditional methods” of fishing and hunting would open the door to allowing so-called traditional methods of taking game and fish that have long been banned in Florida as inhumane and “unfair sport.” Such formerly traditional methods included hunting bears with dogs. Traditional methods of taking fish included the use of near-shore seine nets. These are now banned by Florida’s constitution because of their devastating impacts on aquatic habitats in Florida’s near-shore marine environment.

Amendment 2, with its broad and unclear language, poses significant risks to Florida’s wildlife and public lands. The ambiguous wording of the proposed amendment would open a Pandora’s box for potential court battles, including opening conservation lands to hunting and the return of bear hunting with dogs.

Rather than enshrining hunting and fishing rights in the constitution, Florida should focus on balanced, science-based wildlife management that supports long-term sustainability. Given these risks, voters should consider voting “no” on Amendment 2.

Grant Gelhardt is chair of the Florida Sierra Club’s Conservation Committee.

Originally Published: