This Election Day, Nov. 5, voters will have a suite of amendments before them. Among these amendments is Amendment 2, the Right to Fish and Hunt.
The text exists in two parts; a declaration of rights and the amendment itself. The declaration offers the pretext for the amendment language. The amendment language itself puts into words the effect of the right itself. Here is the text in full:
ARTICLE I: DECLARATION OF RIGHTS: 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.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: ARTICLE I, SECTION 28: RIGHT TO FISH AND HUNT — Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to preserve forever fishing and hunting, including by the use of traditional methods, as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife. 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.
There’s a distinct difference between a statute and a constitutional right.
Floridia Statute 379.104 states in part, “hunting, fishing, and the taking of game are a valued part of the cultural heritage of Florida and should be forever preserved for Floridians …The Legislature intends that the citizens of Florida have a right to hunt, fish, and take game, subject to the regulations and restrictions prescribed by the State Constitution.”
However, statutes are laws that are capable of being easily changed or eliminated without any vote by the people. Laws can be augmented or removed by lawmakers during any session and are susceptible to the whims of those in power at any time. Statutes are also easier to challenge in court than constitutional rights. A judge in any court can suspend a statute until such time as the Florida Supreme Court can rule and provide an opinion.
Constitutional rights are stronger than statutes and are enacted through amendments that are voted on and passed by more than 60% of voters. Once an amendment is enacted, it can only be changed by another amendment.
The bar for change is high and more difficult to achieve. Therefore, the distinction between what is a right under statute and what is a constitutional right under an amendment is not only much stronger, but necessary to ensure the strength and longevity of our ability to hunt and fish into the future.
Opponents warn that because hunting and fishing are recognized as a “preferred means” of game and fish management, it somehow prevents FWC from using other methods of management. That’s false. FWC has constitutional authority to manage and enforce wildlife laws. This amendment does not affect the agency’s ability to function in any way.
There’s an active campaign to oppose this amendment. Articles and opinions have been published claiming that this amendment would somehow eliminate private property rights, make poaching legal and reverse currently banned methods of hunting and fishing. Nothing could be more false. Nowhere in the language of this amendment is there any reference, intention or legal authority that would or could be used to eliminate the rights of property owners or the ability of persons to ignore season dates, license requirements or any prohibitions currently in law. Those claims are simply fear tactics.
Bear Warriors United, Speak Up Wekiva and the Florida Bar’s Animal Laws Section have been leading the opposition. Their true concerns center around opposing bear hunting and eliminating hunting in suburban interface areas into the future.
The other view: Florida’s hunting amendment could bring unintended consequences | Tom Palmer
In a recent article by Macie J. H. Codina and Savannah Sherman of the Florida Bar Animal Rights Section, they claim that, “merely protecting hunting and fishing is not problematic, but the language that follows is far more concerning… (it) would create an easy path toward authorizing hunts that are contradictory to science and are done before any alternative means are implemented to manage wildlife.”
They go on to argue the danger of the amendment based on this fear and apply it to the black bear. “As Florida continues to develop at an astounding rate, it will continue to lose its precious natural landscapes, forcing wildlife big and small to either die off or learn to live among humans. This presents dangers to wildlife and humans alike, prompting the need for increased wildlife management. Under the proposed constitutional amendment, the primary means for responsibly managing and controlling wildlife would be hunting and fishing, even without first examining other non-lethal methods. This could be extremely dangerous to Florida’s wildlife, and especially the Florida black bear.”
The truth is that this amendment has no such effect. Because FWC’s authority is constitutionally derived, its ability to determine how management is implemented is not threatened. Opponents to this amendment are knowingly and intentionally fear mongering.
Amendment 2 also ensures that any outdated limitations to hunting or fishing have legal standing for challenge. Recent lawsuits filed in Virginia and Maine by sportsmen to open hunting on Sundays were ultimately defeated because their supreme courts found that because the right to hunt (or fish) is not guaranteed by constitutional right, there is no basis to deny the state’s ability to limit those rights.
A right authorized by statute is not a right at all. It is merely a privilege. Under the law, privileges can be granted or revoked.
If you consider yourself an avid outdoorsman, a hunter, a fisherman or a true conservationist, you are duty bound to vote in favor of Amendment 2 this November.
Chuck Echenique is an outdoorsman from Tampa who, along with Mike Elfenbein (Sir Isaac Walton League) and Travis Thompson (All Florida) was active in getting Amendment 2 on the ballot.
This article originally appeared on The Ledger: Florida’s Amendment 2 doesn’t make hunting a free-for-all | Column
EMEA Tribune is not involved in this news article, it is taken from our partners and or from the News Agencies. Copyright and Credit go to the News Agencies, email news@emeatribune.com Follow our WhatsApp verified Channel
