Q&A of the Day – A Closer Look at Florida’s Amendment 2
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station’s page in the iHeart app.
Today’s Entry: Since recommending a “No” vote on Amendment 2 (Florida Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment) I’ve heard from a number of people who ordinarily agree with my positions on issues who’ve questioned that recommendation. For those who may have missed what I said it was this:
<<My recommendation is a “No” vote on Amendment 2 which will likely put me at odds with most Floridians as I expect that this amendment will pass. My reason for opposing this proposal is twofold. First, hunting and fishing as outlined in this proposed amendment is already legal in Florida. The passage of this proposal doesn’t inherently have a policy impact within the state. Second, as a conservationist, I’ve long fought to protect Florida’s waterways and natural habitats including threatened and endangered wildlife within them.
The amendment notes the use of “traditional methods”, however multiple forms of “traditional methods”, for example certain nets used for fishing, are currently banned in Florida. The passage of this amendment could result in legal challenges to Florida’s existing protections for wildlife, placing the outcome of these decisions in the hands of court rulings. At best, this proposed amendment is unnecessary. At worst, it could undermine existing conservation efforts.>>
Here are two of the thoughtful notes I’ve received in response:
1) Dear Brian, I appreciate your comprehensive approach to Amendment 2, but I believe there are some key details missing from your assessment. Contrary to your suggestion that the amendment is largely symbolic, it's a critical safeguard for sportsmen’s rights and the future of Florida's fishing and hunting traditions.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has explicitly clarified that Amendment 2 does not affect the net ban or any existing regulations.
FWC retains full regulatory authority over seasons, bag limits, and methods. Amendment 2 ensures the right to hunt and fish while keeping all regulatory structures intact. In other words, the fears about returning harmful practices like gill nets or undoing conservation efforts are entirely misplaced. This amendment simply enshrines in the constitution a fundamental right that’s key to Florida’s heritage and ongoing conservation.
Fishing and hunting are not just recreational activities—they are vital tools for conservation. Sportsmen contribute significant funding and play an active role in wildlife management, supporting the sustainability of Florida's ecosystems. Amendment 2 helps preserve that balance by ensuring we continue to protect our natural resources while securing these traditions for future generations.
2) Hi Brian- I know that you are against Amendment 2, and for very valid reasons. There are always unintended consequences of amendments, which are almost impossible to get rid of, and if something can be handled outside of amending the Constitution, of course it should be.
In this case, though, before I heard of our amendment, I heard of other radical leftist-controlled states that, just like they & the feds are trying to put small farmers and ranchers out of business so they can better control the food supply through their crony-corporatist ‘partners,’ floated moves to demonize & curtail providing for oneself by hunting, fishing, & growing food. Thus they can control the people- eat the bugs! - or worse- Stalin & Mao used starvation as a very effective control & culling tool. Since the Kerry, Gore, Gates, Schwab, & Harris crowd claim to believe there are already too many ‘dirty’ humans polluting the planet, & since we independent & resourceful Americans are the biggest thorn in their global tyranny scheme, if they can prevent people from hunting, fishing, farming, or even growing a veggie patch to sustain themselves & their families, all the better for them & the worse for us. I mean, look at how the EU has already destroyed independent fishing.
How do these considerations factor into your calculus here?
Thanks again for all you do!
Bottom Line: As I mentioned within my recommendation, I expected to be at odds with most, on this issue, and for that reason I’m not surprised that I’ve been questioned more about my position on Amendment 2 by listeners, than I have with my recommendations on the higher profile Amendments 3 and 4.
I’ll start by saying my stated position isn’t derived from a lack of information. As those who’re familiar with my work know, I thoroughly research the topics I cover, and my opinions are derived from facts based upon my findings. Amendment 2 certainly isn’t any different. I followed, and covered, the passage of the bill in Florida’s 2023 state legislative session and am well versed on the Bill’s brief text seeking to alter Article I Section 28 of Florida’s constitution. My summation/recommendation isn't based upon a lack of information but rather what I believe is the greater long-term risk in Florida.
There are many reasons I love this state and will forever call it home. Nature and wildlife are a big part of it. While Florida has been led by outstanding public policy, especially over the past decade or so, something our state has historically fallen short on by way of public policy is its most precious resource. Nature. Florida’s historical track record in protecting the natural environment and the wildlife that live within it, has been poor to say the least. In fact, all of the meaningful process that’s been made in recent years (Everglades Restoration Project, New Army Corps of Engineers Operating Manuel for Lake O’ discharges, construction of the EAA Reservoirs) has been aimed at attempting to mitigate the long-term damage that we’ve long done due to poor public policy decisions that long prioritized commercial interests over the conservation of Florida’s environment and wildlife. My concern is that passing Amendment 2 would open the door to new problems. In specifically addressing today’s notes...
It was stated that Amendment 2 is a critical safeguard for the protection of hunting and fishing in Florida. My question is, who is it that currently threatens these rights in Florida sufficiently to necessitate a constitutional amendment to protect them? The partisan makeup of the state certainly doesn't represent a threat, and on that note, this isn't even a partisan matter. The bill passed the House 116-0 and the Senate 38-1 to arrive on our ballots. I don't see a current, near term, or foreseeable threat to Florida's existing laws enabling what the amendment is said to be aimed at protecting. Yes, there have been efforts to ban hunting and fishing in other states. No, that hasn’t been under consideration in Florida, and with 154 legislators to 1 voting in favor of the bill to establish this proposed amendment, there’s no risk of that occurring within this state.
It is possible that the amendment passes, and nothing changes. However, it's also possible that legal challenges will be presented to test the language and definitions presented in the text, and FWC's interpretation of what's appropriate. It was only in 1994 that gill, trammel and related nets were banned in Florida (which happened via a voter referendum), and the only way to potentially oust an existing constitutional amendment, is through a subsequent amendment. That’s what this amendment could potentially represent. The ability for legal challenges that would effectively remove Florida, Fish and Wildlife from the role of directing policy, instead placing it within the legal system and perhaps at the discretion of a judge.
As for concerns regarding food supply, etc. That’s not part of the calculus here as the proposed amendment is in regard to recreational activities as opposed to commercial activities.
Anytime it’s stated that we need to pass a constitutional amendment to keep what’s already in place, in place, one should be dubious of the bigger picture considerations. It took a mass starvation event for Florida’s manatees, for most Floridians to realize the extent of the waterway crisis that had developed due to the Lake O’ discharges. In 2015, the state opened up bear hunting due to the population of Florida’s bears having recovered after having previously being hunted almost into extinction. The hunt had to be called off after two days due to 300 bears having been killed tripling expectations in most locations. We are prolific at wiping out nature and wildlife when the door is opened to do so. And while many do act responsibly, many others do not. Even with the current policies in place I’ve watched illegal fishing practices being carried out in protected estuaries. I’ve also had people say to me that FWC won’t do anything anyway (which in my dealings with them has been a mixed bag).
As is stated by the Florida Wildlife Federation: Amendment 2 introduces unnecessary interference with the Florida Constitution and is overly vague in its language, leaving it vulnerable to misinterpretation or misuse, potentially undermining its intent.
And by the Humane Society: Amendment 2 could also impact current protections for Florida’s marine life and make it more difficult to enact new measures to protect dolphins, manatees, sea turtles and other marine species. By enshrining the use of “traditional methods” of fishing in the state constitution, Amendment 2 could override these protections, leading to a resurgence of dangerous, destructive practices in water as well as on land. Here’s another:
Amendment 2 omits private property protections, which were originally included in its language but later removed. If passed, Amendment 2 could allow hunters to trespass on private land in pursuit of animals, potentially creating situations where firearms are used near homes and families without the property owner’s knowledge or consent.
It’s possible my concerns aren’t justified. However, the same could be said for the advocates of this amendment. It's my view that the benefit/risk analysis of this amendment doesn't justify its passage.