Instead of the usual fishing report today I want to share my thoughts on Amendment 2 that’s on our state ballot this year. As a fishing guide I’ve been asked about the amendment by a few people over the last couple weeks and it’s actually something I’ve been working on for quite some time.
I’m a board member of All Florida, a conservation non profit focused specifically on our state. Our organization led by executive director Travis Thompson has been involved with this amendment since before it reached the legislature, where it garnished bi partisan support to reach the ballot. Not because it’s a backdoor to undermine the net ban but because it’s a common sense conservation amendment that helps protect our recreational fishing and hunting rights for generations to come.
A Yes on 2 is a vote for conservation. Plain and simple. The North American model of conservation is based around science based management using recreational hunting and fishing as tools. We do not have the right to fish and hunt in the Florida constitution. That’s the only point of this amendment, to put it there. We currently have a statutory privilege to hunt and fish, this seeks to give us an actual constitutional right that will be much harder to change by future politicians. Over 20 states already have this amendment, many with identical wording. There is no hidden agenda here or fine print. This is one of the few cases the ballot summary is the same wording as the actual amendment.
Why do we need it? There is a well funded anti hunting and fishing lobby that’s been attacking these traditions nationwide. The North American Model of Conservation which uses recreational hunting as a management tool has been incredibly successful in restoring our wildlife populations after they were decimated by market hunting. Excise taxes on fishing and hunting goods are the funding mechanism that drives dollars to conservation projects, land management, and wildlife resources agencies.
In Florida alone we all see the benefits of these funds even if you never fish or hunt. Birders, hikers, bikers, anyone who enjoys our public wild places benefits from that money. 19% of the land acquired for the Florida wildlife corridor was purchased with funds from this program.
Despite the clear success of science based wildlife management animal rights extremist groups have been attacking this model for years and gaining steam, particularly around charismatic mega fauna and predator hunting.
Here in our state we see this with opposition to predator hunting and the uproar around the last bear hunt. We’ve also seen municipalities attempting to make Restricted Hunting Areas at the behest of developers who build homes on marshes and lakes that have been hunted on for generations. On the fishing side it was just last year we saw many of the same no on 2 supporters attempt to close the sunshine bridge to fishing, the largest fishing pier in the state.
These anti hunting groups seem oblivious to the fact that wildlife management agencies still are responsible for population management. If they succeed in removing hunters from the equation that doesn’t have any change on the stock level a species in question is managed at. Resource managers just end up using private contractors to do the killing, costing taxpayers money instead of generating funds for further conservation work by selling licenses and permits.
The biggest lie I’ve seen pushed all over social media is that Amendment 2 is some sneaky back door attempt to undue Floridas gill net ban. The fact is this does nothing to overdue the gill net ban, which is already in our constitution. The net ban is its own constitutional amendment. Amendments work in harmony, why my right to free speech ends at your private property.
Let’s go back to the supporters of Amendment 2. Bonefish Tarpon Trust and CCA Florida are two fishery non profits that have spent decades funding private restoration efforts and conducting research on Floridas gamefish. CCA Florida fought extremely hard for the gill net ban back in the 1990’s and has help defend against efforts to overturn it for 30 years.
Both of these groups are vocal supporters of Amendment 2. 11 states have the right to fish and hunt Amendment with the same wording as on our ballot. Texas is one of those states. Texas banned Gill nets in 1981, and got their constitutional Right to Fish and Hunt in 2015. Gill nets are still illegal in Texas.
The FWC has also addressed the gill net claims at their Commission meeting in September, The ballot language clearly states FWC maintains its authority. None of these Wild West outcomes are based in fact, after all the misinformation by the No on 2 campaign the FWC commissioners and legal team even put out a statement with clarifications that I will copy in full at the end of this article.
“Traditional methods means basically anything that people used to do to harvest animals/ fish, and would remove all protections."
When I discussed this with a lawyer he explained that “Traditional methods” in this context are those that are legal at the time passage. I’ve heard complaints that this is vague and not well defined. This clause is necessary because the alternative isn’t feasible, there are so many legal means of take under the categories of hunting and fishing it’s unrealistic to list them all in the ballot language. Again, there are 11 states that have the same Amendment with the same wording. 0 of them have had this claim happen. It does not change what is currently legal/ illegal. The 11 other states with this exact wording in their constitution still have laws on means of take and time, place, and manner, just like every other state in the nation. Again, as clearly stated in the Amendment, it does not "limit the authority of the FWC"
"This Amendment removes private property rights" This claim really shouldn’t need explained but since many authors of the articles opposed this amendment seemingly failed 7th grade civics let’s dive in. Those opposed claim that because the original draft of the Amendment include a clause that it would not affect private property rights, which was removed, that this Amendment would somehow allow people to trespass on your property while hunting and fishing. First, let's again refer to those 11 states that have the same Amendment with the same wording, and the 23 states in total that have the Right to Fish and Hunt. Exactly 0 of those states allow trespassing of any kind.
The wording was removed because it’s redundant. Our private property rights are not only protected by the State Constitution, but by the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution as well. This Amendment not stating it doesn't affect private property rights is like saying you can break into someone's house to exercise your right to free speech, since the 1st Amendment doesn't specifically say it does not affect private property rights. Amendments (and all portions of the Constitution) must be read “in pari materia”. That’s just a fancy Latin term that means any one Amendment or portion of the Constitution must be read in conjunction with all other Amendments and portions. One Right cannot trample another Right. Rights must work in Harmony
"This will open up hunting in State Parks"
The FWC already has the authority to manage all wildlife in the state, that also includes State Parks. From the State Parks website: "Hunting, trapping or the pursuit of wildlife is prohibited on all state park property, except in Reserves, as authorized by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission." There's also 0 mention of parks in the Amendment. This is why the sentence "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." Is in the Amendment.
This amendment seeks to protect the statutory privileges to fish and hunt we have now in perpetuity by enshrining them as actual rights in the state constitution. It doesn’t interfere with FWC’s ability to regulate hunting and fishing, it doesn’t undo the net ban, it doesn’t allow for trespassing on private property, those are all fear mongering by these anti hunting and fishing groups that have pumped a bunch of money into opposing this amendment. Look at the No On 2 supporter list you’ll see many of them. These groups have spent thousands spreading heaps of misinformation about this amendment superseding private property rights, reversing the net ban, all nonsense. Meanwhile the Yes on 2 list is full of conservation non profits doing real work benefiting our state from across the spectrum. Bonefish Tarpon Trust, CCA Florida, the American Sport fishing Association, Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl to name a few.
I’m happy to discuss the amendment further with anyone interested in learning more. Vote however you want but at least do your own research and look who is opposed compared to who supports this initiative. Everyone I’ve spoken to with FWC, DEP, CCA, BTT, DU, all do.
Statement on Amendment 2 from FWC Chairman Rodney Barreto
"Recently, there have been a number of concerns expressed surrounding Florida’s Amendment 2 and how it would affect the net ban.
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.
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." -- FWC Chairman Rodney Barreto
Captain Chris
FishJax Charters
9043073237
Comentarios