by Tim Martin
With so much at stake in this upcoming election, it’s understandable if Amendment 2 hasn’t caught your attention. This proposal seeks to enshrine the right to hunt and fish in Florida’s state constitution. While it might appear to be a harmless endorsement of outdoor traditions, a closer examination reveals significant concerns that should prompt you to vote against it.
Potential Opening of Conservation Lands
One of the most concerning aspects of Amendment 2 is the potential pressure to open public conservation lands to hunting. Currently, many state parks, preserves, gopher tortoise mitigation areas, some state forest lands, and water management district (WMD) lands are off-limits to hunters. This amendment could create legal and public pressure to allow hunting in these areas, jeopardizing the safety and tranquility of spaces crucial for wildlife preservation. Non-hunting outdoor enthusiasts such as hikers, bird watchers, and families seeking recreational activities would likely face increased risks and reduced enjoyment if these areas are opened to hunting.
Potential Conflicts with Private Property Rights
Another major concern is the potential conflict with private property rights. Critics argue that the amendment could be interpreted to allow hunting on private lands without the owner’s consent, infringing on property rights and leading to legal disputes. The original proposal included language stating it would not modify laws related to trespass or property rights, but this was omitted from the final version. This omission has led to fears that the amendment could prioritize hunting rights over property rights, making it difficult for landowners to restrict hunting on their property.
Conflicts with Wildlife Management Goals
Amendment 2’s declaration of making hunting and fishing the “preferred means” of wildlife management could lead to increased pressure on species currently protected by state regulations. This might include lifting bans on certain wildlife species, increasing bag and creel limits, and extending hunting seasons beyond what is ecologically sustainable. Thoughtful sportsmen and women should see this as an obvious risk. Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission does a commendable job managing wildlife species for hunting so that people can enjoy these activities responsibly. Such changes could disrupt delicate ecosystems and lead to the overharvesting of vulnerable species, threatening Florida’s biodiversity and long-term ecological health.
States like Alabama, where hunting is constitutionally protected, have faced similar challenges. This amendment could undermine Florida’s ability to adapt its wildlife management strategies to meet conservation goals and respond to changing environmental conditions.
Reintroduction of Harmful Hunting Practices
A reference to “traditional methods” of hunting in the amendment’s wording is not clearly defined, opening the door to potentially harmful and outdated practices. This could include the reintroduction of inhumane methods like steel jaw traps and gill nets, which have long been criticized for their cruelty and ecological impact. For example, hound hunting for the Florida Black Bear involves using packs of dogs to chase and corner bears, causing extreme stress and exhaustion to the animals. In November 2019, three people were arrested in Florida for using dogs to hunt and kill a Florida black bear in the Ocala National Forest. Amendment 2 could encourage others to adopt these dreadful methods.
Conclusion
Amendment 2, with its broad and ambiguous language, poses significant risks to Florida’s wildlife and public lands. The potential opening of conservation lands to hunting, the increased pressure to hunt protected species, and the reintroduction of harmful hunting practices are all serious concerns that voters need to consider. Instead of enshrining hunting and fishing rights in the state constitution, Florida should focus on balanced, scientifically informed wildlife management policies that ensure the long-term health and sustainability of its natural resources.
Furthermore, the motivations behind this amendment appear politically driven rather than based on genuine conservation needs. Some analysts suggest that the amendment is designed to mobilize a particular voter base by falsely suggesting that hunting and fishing rights are under threat. This tactic diverts attention from more pressing issues and risks enshrining poorly conceived policies into the state constitution.
For these reasons, voters should vote “No” on Amendment 2.
Tim Martin is the former Conservation Chair for the Florida Sierra Club, and a member of their committee to oppose Amendment 2. He also manages 20 forested acres for wildlife conservation in north Alachua county.