by Mark Chesnut - Friday, September 27, 2024
As Floridians prepare to vote on Nov. 5 on a state ballot question that would enshrine the right to hunt in fish into the state constitution known as Amendment 2, opponents of the ballot measure are becoming vocal in efforts to try to kill the initiative.
The ballot amendment seeking to add a Right to Hunt and Fish (RTHF) amendment to Florida’s constitution reads: “Fishing, hunting and the taking of fish and wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, shall be preserved forever as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife. This section does not limit the authority granted to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission under Section 9 of Article IV.”
But anti-hunters, as usual, are playing word games in seeking to garner “no” votes on the measure, accusing supporters of wanting to legalize “the cruelest forms of hunting.” Leading the opposition to the NRA-backed Amendment 2 is the group NoTo2.org, which claims the passage of a RTHF amendment “will strip Florida citizens of their power to protect and conserve wild animals”—yet hunters and legal, regulated hunting are the primary tools that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission relies on to sustain the states wildlife populations and habitats into the future.
Of course, as we’ve witnessed and as this national award-winning NRA hunting website regularly reports, well-funded anti-hunting groups are against legal, regulated hunting because they seek to limit hunting opportunities across the country a small bite at a time, with the end goal of making a complete meal of American hunting—a way of life for many. That’s why working to ensure that every state has a RTHF amendment in its state constitution has been a goal of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) for the past two decades. If Florida’s Amendment 2 passes, Florida will become the 24th state to have a RTHF amendment, guaranteeing these traditional outdoor activities are protected into the future.
“Hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife are not only cherished American traditions, but when paired with science are an integral part of wildlife management and conservation,” said NRA-ILA, in a statement applauding the move to put the ballot initiative to a vote. “Unfortunately, misguided extremists have been trying for decades to incrementally, or outright, ban hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife. This amendment guarantees the sporting traditions that you have enjoyed will still be around for future generations of Americans and that regulations will be based on sound science.”
Anti-hunters are also against the move because some feel Florida could become the location of the next major state anti-hunting push.
“There has been an undertone across the country of states wanting to pass hunting and fishing bans,” Josh Kellam, chair of the Yes on 2 political committee, told Politico. “It has been brought to our attention Florida was a potential threat. So, we took a very proactive approach.”
Opponents to the measure are telling lies or half-truths to try to top the amendment’s passage, including asserting that the amendment is a threat to wildlife, private property rights and marine populations. Of course, the real threat to wildlife would be the lack of conservation funding that would occur should anti-hunters get their way and end hunting, as most conservation efforts are funded by hunters through license fees, tag fees and a federal excise tax on guns, ammo and archery tackle. And property rights aren’t even mentioned in the state question.
One bone of contention among opponents is the phrase “traditional methods,” which they claim will open the door to nearly any method of harvest. However, according to VoteYesOn2Florida.com, “traditional methods” actually mean “that which is legal at the time of passage.” “It doesn’t undo decades of wildlife policy, or reverse the net ban, or any of the other fear-mongering-type ideas that are mentioned—it really just protects that which is legal at the time of passage,” the website explains.
A list of groups supporting the “no” effort reads like a who’s-who of anti-hunting, animal rights organizations, including: the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, Humane Society of the United States, Wildlife for All, World Animal Protection and several Sierra Club chapters. Interestingly, one very vocal opponent of the measure, according to the website Florida’s Voice is activist Chuck O’Neal, a longtime registered agent for a lab-grown meat company.
Supporters of the NRA-backed ballot initiative, on the other hand, include Florida Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson, Chairman Rodney Barreto of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and a vast array of conservation-minded groups like the American Sportfishing Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, Florida Sportsman's Conservation Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation and Safari Club International.
In considering the legislation to put the question on this year’s ballot, the Florida House voted 116-0 and the Florida Senate voted 38-1 in favor of the amendment. With 23 states currently having RTHF laws on the books, supporters of such an amendment in Florida hope to make their state No. 24.
About the Author
Freelance writer and editor Mark Chesnut is the owner/editorial director at Red Setter Communications LLC in Jenks, Okla. An avid hunter, shooter and field-trialer, he has been covering Second Amendment issues and politics on a near-daily basis for over 25 years.