The Florida State Legislature has proposed a Right to Hunt and Fish amendment to the Florida State Constitution. The Amendment will appear on the November 5, 2024 election ballot as Amendment 2. The amendment will require a supermajority of 60% of the vote to approve the measure. The amendment reads as follows:
SECTION 28.
Fishing, hunting, and the taking of fish and wildlife.—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.
The first state to protect hunting and fishing in its constitution was Vermont in 1777. Here is Vermont’s version:
§ 67. [Hunting; fowling and fishing]
The inhabitants of this State shall have liberty in seasonable times, to hunt and fowl on the lands they hold, and on other lands not inclosed, and in like manner to fish in all boatable and other waters (not private property) under proper regulations, to be made and provided by the General Assembly.
The limitations on government provided by the federal and state constitutions, as well as the abundance of fish and game, showed the amendment in Vermont was ahead of its time.
After World War II, increasing urbanization and the Disneyfication of animals in the public mind led to a rise in attitudes against hunting and fishing. Twenty-two more states codified protections of the right to hunt and fish into their state constitutions, beginning with Alabama in 1996.
The 23 states which have such amendments are Alabama – 1996, Arkansas – 2010, Georgia – 2006, Idaho – 2012, Indiana – 2016, Kansas – 2016, Kentucky – 2016, Louisiana – 2004, Mississippi – 2014, Minnesota – 1998, Montana – 2004, Nebraska – 2012, North Carolina – 2018, North Dakota – 2000, Oklahoma – 2008, South Carolina – 2010, Tennessee – 2010, Texas – 2015, Vermont – 1777, Utah – 2020, Virginia – 2000, Wisconsin – 2003, and Wyoming – 2012.
Missouri is considering such an amendment.
Rhode Island passed an amendment protecting the right to fish in 1844, and California passed a fishing-only amendment in 1910.
There is serious opposition to the Florida amendment, including a number of “animal rights” type groups. They are listed on the Ballotpedia page about the amendment. The primary opposition is NoTo2.org.
Conservationists and sportsmen’s groups are among the amendment’s supporters, and they are also listed on the Ballotpedia page. The primary proponent is Yes on 2.
The right to hunt and fish amendments are another facet of the pushback against unlimited government power. The Vermont amendment in 1777 was in direct opposition to royal power, where game animals were considered the property of the King and/or nobles.
Common people only hunted or fished by poaching. In the new world, everyone hunted and fished. Game animals were abundant. No one wanted to allow a king or government to control their right to hunt and fish. These amendments are a facet of the conflict between people in rural areas and people in urban centers.
After 1900, game and fish were less abundant. Conservationists, such as President Theodore Roosevelt, pushed for the conservation of wild animals and fish. Others went beyond the concept of wise resource conservation to the idea that animals should be treated as people.
Today, there are numerous organizations that raise millions of dollars by appealing to emotion. The ideology seems to be animals should never be killed, at least not by humans. The proponents don’t seem to be bothered by animals killing one another. The greatest number of bears that are killed are cubs killed and eaten by bigger bears. There was opposition to a mild restoration of the right of humans to protect themselves and their property, where less than fifty bears are likely to be killed in such circumstances in a year. The opposition ignored the hundreds of bears killed by other bears. It is typical that such opposition comes from people in urban centers who do not live with the consequences of the laws they push, which mostly affect people in rural areas.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
But the folks in the cities all want meat and fish on their dinner tables. Where do they think food comes from? OH ! the grocery store.
do these dumbies know how much money for conservation comes from hunting and fishing license fees through the pittman-robertson act?
idiots!
most of those against these amendments for outdoor activities don’t go outdoors or do any activity except complain. they are ignorant of the need to keep wildlife population levels in check to prevent deaths by disease and starvation. and they wouldn’t know which end of a fishing rod or firearm to hold.