09/28/2024
The Florida Native Plant Society (FNPS) opposes the Right to Fish and Hunt Amendment, which will be listed as Amendment 2 on the 2024 election ballot, and urges our members to vote against it. The basis for our position is explained below. The full text of Amendment 2 is provided for your consideration at the conclusion of this statement.
FNPS does not oppose fishing or hunting. They are compatible, sustainable recreational activities when properly managed and regulated, and many FNPS members participate. However, Amendment 2 would designate hunting as the preferred method of wildlife management and enshrine that designation in the Florida Constitution. The most effective tools for managing wildlife are rooted in habitat management. We support the use of prescribed fire, the control of invasive nonnative species, the maintenance or restoration of natural hydrology, and the prevention of physical destruction or degradation as central to the proper management of native plant communities, i.e., “wildlife habitat”. These are among the wildlife management measures that should remain at the forefront of wildlife conservation in Florida and could be deemphasized with passage of Amendment 2. Consider whether the red-cockaded woodpecker, flatwoods salamander, gopher tortoise, monarch butterfly, and a whole host of other native wildlife species realize any benefit from hunting as a management methodology.
We are unaware of any organized effort to prohibit or impose new limitations on fishing and hunting in Florida. Most public conservation land in Florida is already available for seasonal hunting and hunters are often given priority access during hunting season. Hunters already enjoy legal protection of their pastime under Florida Statute (FS. 379.104, Right to Hunt and Fish). Passive recreational uses like botanizing, hiking and birding do not receive equivalent recognition. When it comes to the recreational enjoyment of public conservation lands, nonhunters must often acquiesce to the special access and privileges afforded to hunters during the hunting season. The passage of Amendment 2 could further tip the scales of access in favor of fishing and hunting.
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?
In summary, the public’s right to fish and hunt is already protected in statute, and Amendment 2 could increase the disproportionate access to public conservation land already afforded to hunters during hunting season. Enshrining fishing and hunting as the “preferred means” of managing wildlife ignores widely recognized and more fundamentally important habitat management methodologies like the use of prescribed fire, control of nonnative species and hydrologic restoration. Protecting the use of “traditional methods” could restore methods the public has rejected through legal mechanisms. Amendment 2 amounts to unjustified meddling with the Florida Constitution and is far too ambiguous in its wording to ensure protection from unintended, or nefarious, interpretations.
We ask the members of FNPS to reject Amendment 2 by voting “no” on November 5th, or when voting early or by mail-in ballot.
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.
