Pros and cons on Florida's Amendment 2: Preserving the right to hunt and fish

[RandySF]

Among the less publicized constitutional amendments Florida voters will decide next month is a measure that would enshrine the right to hunt and fish in the state’s Constitution with Amendment 2.

The ballot language says this:

“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.”

“Yes, that’s the language that’s in the statute, but a future legislator could come in in a few years and say, ‘We don’t like this anymore,” said Martha Guyas, Southeast fisheries policy director for the American Sportfishing Association based in Tallahassee, which supports the initiative.




https://floridaphoenix.com/2024/10/22/pros-and-cons-on-floridas-amendment-2-preserving-the-right-to-hunt-and-fish/

[radical noodle]

1. I was told that Florida Democrats' official stand on this is NO

and that's the way I just voted on it.

[Jerry2144]

2. I'd vote no

If there is a reason to stop allowing hunting of a certain animal, that amendment would block the logical reason. For instance, a species is endangered or on the verge of extinction, the state or fed can’t block a hunter’s “right” to kill it

[Deuxcents]

3. I voted NO. It wants to encroach on the Fish and Wildlife Conservation responsibilities too much for me