Preliminary election results show that voters in Florida passed the No. 2 Amendment to “preserve forever” the right to fish and hunt in the state. It’s the 24th state to adopt such a resolution, according to the Congressional Sportsmen Foundation, as more wildlife-related ballot measures crop up across the U.S. and anti-hunters work to join wildlife commissions.
Ballot measures require 60 percent approval to pass in Florida, and voters there easily outstripped that margin with 67 percent of voters, or 6.8 million people, casting their ballots to protect hunting and fishing, according to the unofficial results posted Tuesday evening by the Florida Division of Elections. Roughly 33 percent of voters, or 3.3 million people, voted against adopting the amendment. (For comparison, roughly 1.2 million residents bought recreational fishing licenses in 2021, according to the American Sportfishing Association; about 207,000 residents bought hunting licenses that year.) Interestingly this trend bucks the urban-rural divide often seen in wildlife-based ballot measures; every single reporting county was in favor of the amendment, including the large metropolitan areas of Orlando, Tampa, and Jacksonville.
The ballot measure asked Floridians to vote yes or no on the following: 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.
Unsurprisingly, the amendment was vehemently opposed by anti-hunting organizations like the Humane Society of the U.S., who argued that the inclusion of “traditional methods” in the amendment would legalize gill net fishing, which was banned there in the 1990s. This is inaccurate, according to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission.
“Both our conservation and legal teams have stated that the current language proposed in Amendment 2 does not change or alter the existing net ban or the ability for it to be enforced. ‘Traditional methods’ does not undo regulation, nor reset FWC’s regulatory authority. Moreover, the net ban is protected by the constitution already, similar to private property rights. Nothing in Amendment 2’s language affects these laws,” FWC chairman Rodney Barreto said in September. “The FWC maintains regulatory authority over all fish and wildlife in our state. Seasons, bag limits, methods and licensing are still in place and will continue to govern time, place and manner should Amendment 2 pass.”
In other words, adopting Amendment 2 won’t change any existing fishing regulations or the agency’s ability to set seasons, bag limits, or methods, and sportsmen will still have to purchase fishing and hunting licenses.
“A constitutionally-protected right to hunt or fish would make it substantially more difficult for attempts by the state to ban or restrict the hunting or fishing of species of animals,” reads a guide to the state’s amendments. The measure was placed on the ballot with ready approval in the Florida legislature after it was introduced by state representative Lauren Melo. She referenced hunting and fishing’s economic contribution to the state and its role in funding the FWC.
Fishing is big business in Florida, with recreational fresh and saltwater fishing generating $13.8 billion annually in 2020.