Private property rights are not impacted by Florida's Amendment 2. As noted in Article 1, Section 2 of the state constitution, these rights are already protected.
An individual's rights to one thing does not supersede someone else's rights. For example, you have the right to free speech, but you can't trespass on someone else's property to exercise that right.
Courts have even found that people who trespass with a defense of exercising fundamental rights can still be punished for violations of private property rights (See Virginia vs. Hicks, 2003).
Florida passed the Gill Net Ban in 1994, and it is found in Article X, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution.
According to Gray v Bryant, "Where a constitutional provision will bear two constructions, one consistent and the other inconsistent with an intention clearly expressed in another provision, that construction which is consistent should be adopted so that both sections may stand and have effect. A construction that nullifies a specific clause will not be given to a constitution unless absolutely required by the context."
Additionally, Tennessee found that the constitutional right to fish and hunt does not limit the states power to regulate commercial activity. This amendment pertains to recreational fishing and hunting.
North Carolina passed a constitutional right to fish and hunt in 2016. Their amendment contained the phrases "traditional methods" and "preferred means" of managing fish and game.
In a recent court case, the court's opinion stated:
"However, the right to hunt and fish does not exist in the abstract. The public must have access to harvestable wildlife and fish to have meaningful opportunity to exercise these rights."
While North Carolina does not have a gill net ban, this shows the power the right gives to recreational anglers as it pertains to protecting fisheries from commercial overreach.
The full text of FAC 62D-2.014(10) reads as:
"Hunting and Firearms. Hunting, trapping or the pursuit of wildlife is prohibited on all park property, except in Reserves, as authorized by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission."
The second sentence of Amendment 2 states:
This section does not limit the authority granted to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission under Section 9 of Article IV
Because of FWC's authority in governing hunting on public lands, this amendment has no bearing on whether or not hunting would be permitted on State Park property. That determination would rest with the State of Florida.
We frequently hear that Amendment 2 is an end-around to re-establishing a bear hunt.
Yet, the last bear hunt was brought forward without a right to fish and hunt amendment.
No different than the idea that you can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater despite your right to free speech, Amendment 2 allows FWC to operate with restrictions on these rights. That’s why seasons will continue to be regulated, alongside bag limits and quotas and licensing requirements and education requirements, and, yes, species that are permitted to be taken.
Using popular opinion to determine management of species is the opposite of conservation; it’s what we would term “ballot box biology.” It is the OPPOSITE of ensuring best science is used in wildlife management.
If bears in Florida need management, science, utilized by the public trust agency in charge of that wildlife, should determine what that management looks like. Thats not opinion; that’s the North American Model of Conservation, inarguably the most successful conservation program in the history of the world.
Will there ever be another bear hunt in Florida? That’s for the agency to decide, and stakeholders of all stripes can help inform that management decision alongside science.
Which is what should happen regardless of a right to fish and hunt. Spinning this amendment to be about bears is disingenuous, and ignores the safeguards the amendment provides within the context of the amendment itself.
Traditional = that which is legal at the time of passage.
This word is critical to ensuring the practices currently legal are protected by the amendment; it does not “press reset” on all fish and game regulations.
This is a common term used in states that have constitutional rights to fish and hunt. 23 states currently have a right, with more on the horizon.
If you scan Florida administrative code, you’ll discover prohibited practices, actions such as hunting at night, set guns, taking swimming or young animals - these are not legal at the time of passage, nor will they be made legal after passage.
Maintaining FWC’s authority in this amendment ensures that prohibited practices stay prohibited, legal stays legal, unless FWC chooses to regulate in a different manner given their authority. Amendment 2 and the phrase “traditional methods” does not put any conservation management best practices at risk.
"Preferred" means given a consideration.
When lionfish invaded Florida reefs, the state's first reaction wasn't poison, or some other method. It was to use fishermen and divers to manage the species.
There are plenty of instances where hunting or angling are not the chosen method. However, giving them preference gives them consideration in solution-making.
It's also worth noting that hunting and angling do not cost the taxpayer when used as management methods; they actually generate funding for the broader conservation of fish and wildlife. Other methods would be taxpayer funded.
Opposition to Amendment 2 is, in and of itself, a threat to the future of fishing and hunting in our state.
Groups that undermine the basic tenets of wildlife management, the tools that have created restoration of deer and turkeys and elk and waterfowl, along with providing habitat for animals like panthers and snail kites and gopher tortoises and shorebirds, are not conservation groups.
Passing amendment 2 is a strategic long term protection. It changes nothing in terms of wildlife management. However, it protects against these threats gaining a foothold in Florida when it passes.
States that see threats to hunting, fishing, farming, even ranching, are states without a constitutional protection like Amendment 2.