Ballot measure 2 would provide a state constitutional right to hunt and fish and declare that hunting and fishing are the preferred means for “responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife” and “shall be preserved forever as a public right.”
Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board: “This amendment could also have a significant impact on the state’s ability to manage public lands against wildfires and flooding. Some analysts have suggested that this amendment could even trump the rights of private property owners to restrict hunting on their own land. It could certainly tie the hands of future lawmakers to respond to currently unforeseen environmental consequences of hunting, such as Florida’s ban on gill-net fishing or its most recent laws against the gruesome “Internet hunt” sites that allow online users to fire real guns, loaded with real ammunition, at Florida wildlife using remote control and webcams— a practice so dangerous and wasteful that it’s banned in 42 states. That’s why this amendment seems so scary. Nobody can say exactly what it could do, or how much harm it could cause. Meanwhile, the only arguments in its favor seem to rest on the fallacy that hunting and fishing in Florida are under attack. So what’s the point of putting it on the ballot? The best argument we can see for this stinker is that it’s bait — intended to draw out low-information, far-right voters who can be easily swindled into believing that their rights are somehow under attack and who will, presumably, be voting conservative across the rest of the ballot.”