Right to Hunt and Fish- Constitutional Amendment

Absolutely.

Thought we already did that. Musta been the marriage thing...

So Florida already does have something statutory about the right to hunt and fish ( not in our constitution), we are covered. What this law says, is that it would be the preferred way to manage game. So the take is, it was basically written so that bear hunts would be instituted instead of using non-hunting means to manage the population. So basically it is saying always use a hunt, despite what the science says.


www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/qualifying-hunting-and-fishing-as-the-preferred-means-of-managing-wildlife-a-potentially-dangerous-ballot-initiative-that-provides-little-protection-to-hunters-and-fishermen/

Constitutional Amendment; Article I, Section 28

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.[1]

While Florida voters may hold favorably the idea of enshrining hunting and fishing as a constitutional right, the proposed amendment would have a broader effect on wildlife than the average recreational hunter or fisherman. The amendment begins by promising to “preserve forever fishing and hunting…as a public right.”[2] This language may draw voters in, as hunting and fishing are widely practiced and cherished by many Floridians. However, the text that follows presents a more drastic effect of the amendment. It would make hunting and fishing the “preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.”[3] This proposed amendment would place hunting and fishing ahead of other, non-lethal means for managing Florida’s wildlife.[4] If passed, this constitutional amendment would make authorizing a hunt of these animals easier and quicker, potentially even before other science-backed measures are implemented for decreasing human-animal interactions. Using hunting and fishing as the first-rung approach for managing wildlife could have a catastrophic effect on wildlife populations throughout the state, and such a drastic change would only require 60% of votes to be enacted.[5] This amendment presents a controversial topic for many Floridians, sparking a debate about the balance between wildlife conservation, alternative means for management, and preempting any future threats to hunting and fishing. This article examines the issue from both angles and presents a case study of the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) to highlight the way the amendment may affect the species.

Sounds like something peta wrote. Name one time where regulated recreational hunting has had catastrophic effects on our states wildlife. The fact that bears need to be managed remains no matter who does the killing. I would rather a hunter who values the resource and desires the meat than us paying someone to do it.

I think we should have constitutional protection for hunting and fishing in Florida. As of now, its is only protected statutorily. The legislature could outlaw hunting tomorrow (not that there is any threat of that today). I also believe that hunting and fishing should be tool #1 for managing the resource, including and especially the bears. Not holding a bear hunt in Florida is a great example. The science says we should hunt some bears, but politics and feels get in the way.

I usually agree with Art, and vote no on all of them, but I'm voting for this one. I foresee a time when our state is under control of the transplants and bleeding hearts, who won't care about my kids ability to hunt and fish in this state.

I vote no as well. It went too far when we passed one to protect pregnant pigs.

I will have to read it thoroughly. It's always a legalese word game with these kooks

As some have said I also tend to vote no on most amendments, but I see no bait and switch in this one. The link to the article that Cyclist posted was submitted on behalf of the Animal Law Section, Ashley Baillargeon, chair, Macie J. H. Codina, editor, and Ralph A. DeMeo, special editor. This group is all about animal rights and the article is very slanted on behalf of animal right groups. I can see why these groups would not support this amendment because it does put hunting and fishing as the first tool to use in the management of game species.

I will be supporting it.

  exactly.     colorado lost certain hunting privledges because of 1 word they changed in a bill most hunters voted for thinking it was good for hunting.    not 100% sure but think they changed sport to trophy or some bullshit and that 1 word change screwed them. 

Agree 100% with cracker!

This is not just about a bear hunt, but it could force the FWC to use hunting to control the population and that's what the animal rights groups are afraid of.

Here's some more info on the pro's and con's of this amendment, you decide.

AI copilot....
The Florida Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment, which will be on the ballot in Florida on November 5, 2024, aims to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish in the state. Let’s explore the pros and cons of this proposed amendment:

Pros:
Preserving Tradition: Supporters argue that this amendment recognizes and preserves Florida’s rich heritage of hunting and fishing. It acknowledges the economic value these activities bring to the state, with fishing and hunting contributing over $15 billion annually1.
Public Right: The amendment explicitly declares hunting and fishing as a public right and the preferred means for responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife. By enshrining this in the state constitution, proponents believe it reinforces the importance of these activities.
No Limitation on Authority: The amendment does not limit the constitutional powers of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission under Article IV, Section 9. This ensures that existing regulatory authority remains intact2.
Cons:
Environmental Concerns: Critics worry that the amendment could authorize practices beyond recreational fishing and hunting. For instance, it might open the door to using gill nets (which can harm marine life) or even allow hunting of species like Black Bears1.
Overriding Protections: Some opponents argue that the amendment might override existing protections for fish stocks and wildlife. For instance, it could potentially weaken regulations that prohibit certain harmful fishing methods1.
Unnecessary Constitutionalization: Skeptics question whether hunting and fishing need to be constitutionally protected. State law already safeguards Floridians’ ability to engage in these activities, and some believe that constitutional amendments should be reserved for more fundamental rights3.
In summary, the Florida Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment seeks to balance tradition and conservation. Supporters emphasize heritage and economic benefits, while opponents express concerns about unintended consequences and environmental impact4. Ultimately, voters will decide its fate in the upcoming election.

"Clay Henderson, author of “Forces of Nature: A History of Florida Land Conservation" and president emeritus of the Florida Audubon Society: "The amendment goes too far in declaring this right to hunt and fish as a 'public right.' No other right in our constitution is described in this way. It seems to imply this right is even more important than our other fundamental rights. Perhaps it means this right to hunt is more important than one’s right to 'possess and protect property.' The language in the original NRA proposal states, “this section shall not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass or property rights,” but the Florida Legislature didn’t include that important restriction. ... The biggest concern for me and other mainstream conservationists is that the amendment proclaims hunting and fishing the “preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.” Really? Often the preferred means to conserve fish and wildlife is to limit hunting and fishing to protect their numbers. That’s why we have limits on the size of fish that can be taken and seasons for hunting. These are reasonable rules to protect numbers of fish and game. Populations of grouper, red snapper, and redfish have been severely regulated as their numbers have declined. Allowing more fishing will not increase their numbers. We don’t allow bear hunting in Florida because the bear population is confined to isolated areas and may not be sustainable. Many of us think this proposal is just a door to bring back bear hunting. As one of a few lawyers who have drafted most of the environmental provisions of Florida’s constitution, I can tell you that every word matters in a proposed amendment. That’s why another section of this proposal is scary. It proclaims this right to hunt and fish includes 'the use of traditional methods, shall be preserved forever.' What does this mean? To me it clearly means return to steel jaw traps, spears, spearfishing, gill nets, and other inhumane means of hunting and fishing."

I don’t assume no democrats hunt. I know and count members of my family as hunting democrats, hell even though I lean conservative on some things, since I live in Tampa and want my vote to count, I’m a registered democrat. The amendment specifically reaffirms the FWC’s power to regulate hunting and fishing. If a bear hunt isn’t scientifically viable, they certainly won’t have to hold one.

I for one could give 2 shits about a bear hunt. Never shot one, don’t plan to ever shoot one in the future. If the scientists say some bears need killing, then I think the bear hunters should have at it. Its not for me.

I don’t think they are an issue here either. Yet.

You don't mention the science or bear genetics, and you assume much. How did you feel when you shot the cub over bait? Are you really comparing deer and bear in FL?