Announcing “The Angling Economy”: A Fresh Take on Fisheries Conservation
Cover Photo: The beauty of a redfish tail captured by the Dorsal Outdoors crew. ASGA
It can be difficult to keep up with what is going on in the world of fisheries and marine policy across state lines. Thankfully, our guides and advocate members keep a finger on the pulse and keep us in the fight. Recently, there has been a lot of attention to the Florida Constitutional Amendment coming up in November. Floridian voters will see “Amendment 2—The Right to Fish and Hunt” on their ballot.
How great is that? The right to fish and hunt is immortalized forever for all Floridians. The ballot measure only needs a 60% majority to pass. The initiative passed the Florida legislature with only one vote against, and 23 other states have passed similar measures.
The push for states to take these actions was spawned by a movement in Oregon, Proposition 13, that would have outlawed hunting and fishing. Initially introduced in 2022, Prop 13 would have criminalized hunting, fishing, trapping, pest removal, and possibly hitting a fly with your windshield (we joke… kind of). Prop 13 did not have enough interest to make the ballot in 2024. To date, no state has banned hunting or fishing. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to stay vigilant. As avid anglers and outdoorsmen, all is well and good. Our traditions and pastimes appear safe for now. So, why are we writing this blog?
The first issue that caught us off guard is that Florida has existing statutes that protect hunting and fishing. It only took a quick search to track it down – look here. Title XXVIII, Chapter 379, Section 104: Right to Hunt and Fish:
“The Legislature recognizes that 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 further recognizes that these activities play an important part in the state’s economy and in the conservation, preservation, and management of the state’s natural areas and resources. Therefore, 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 general law and by s. 9, Art. IV of the State Constitution.”
Is this intended redundancy? or is Amendment 2 aiming to do something different? Let’s take a look at the language.
Constitutional changes
See also: Article I, Florida Constitution
The amendment would amend Article I, Florida Constitution and Article I, Florida Constitution of the Florida Constitution. The following underlined text would be added and struck-through text would be deleted:
“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.[5]“
Immediately, alarm bells start ringing and red flags pop up in a few places. We love to hunt and fish. Our team and the community we represent grew up hunting and fishing – and will die hunting and fishing. That being said, we can’t honestly support that hunting and fishing are the preferred method of management. Our preferred management methods are based on the best available science. What does that even mean? Fisheries management is extremely polarizing. Does this mean that fishermen determine management? Would it all come down to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission? What happens after eventual power shifts on the Commission?
To make matters worse, there is no definition for “traditional” methods. Do you know which “traditional” methods have been utilized and fought against? Gill nets. Florida rejoiced in 1994 when Amendment 3, Limits on Fishing Nets Initiative, passed by almost a 3:1 margin. Experts have warned that when amendments contradict each other, the more recent action supersedes the previous measure. Supporters of Amendment 2 disagree saying that methods legal at the time of passage would remain as the only legal methods.
The truth is that anytime you are dealing with policy language, it shouldn’t be open in interpretation. Especially something as profound as protecting the right to hunt and fish. This one sentence conjures up some serious concerns for us. “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.”
Why can’t we keep things clear and simple?
If this amendment simply restated the existing statute, we’d be all for it. The “traditional” and “preferred” language leave a lot of room for interpretation and concern, especially within the bounds of management. We have had a considerable number of guides and Florida anglers reach out to us curious what’s going on with Amendment 2. There was one article in particular that pushed us to write this blog and it came from the Florida Bar Association. This article was in the March/April 2024 edition”
“Qualifying Hunting and Fishing as the Preferred Means of Managing Wildlife: A Potentially Dangerous Ballot Initiative that Provides Little Protection to Hunters and Fishermen“
It goes into great detail of the pro’s and con’s of Amendment 2. It is hard for us to disagree with the last paragraph:
Qualifying hunting and fishing as a constitutional right is not the issue. The danger of this amendment is listing these practices as the primary means of responsibly managing and controlling wildlife. For the future and health of Florida’s wildlife and environment, this constitutional amendment presents more harm than good.
We’ll keep you updated as the campaign for YES and NO “On 2” in Florida continues. Fishing must be protected for generations to come – but we need to do so in a way that also relies on best available science to conserve our shared natural resources.
Cover Photo: The beauty of a redfish tail captured by the Dorsal Outdoors crew. ASGA
Feature Photo: The details of a migratory striped bass landed during its migration back to
The Atlantic striped bass fishery is at a crossroads. On December 16th, 2024, the Atlantic
Nestled in the heart of Darien, Connecticut, The Compleat Angler has been a cornerstone of
We rely on our members and donations to keep fighting for a sustainable tomorrow in marine conservation.
GIVE THE GIFT OF FISHERIES CONSERVATION THIS HOLIDAY SEASON. SHOP ASGA GOODS THAT FUND FISHERIES RESEARCH & ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNS
JOIN ASGA IN CALLING FOR CRITICAL MANAGEMENT ACTION AFTER YEARS OF SPAWN FAILURES & POOR MANAGEMENT.
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. We use cookies to provide you with a great experience and to help our website run effectively. To learn more, please review our privacy policy.
7 Responses
Thanks for this thoughtful discussion. I support hunting and fishing in Florida %100!
And, NO on 2. In my view this amendment is sneaky and weird. Everything I’ve learned tells me that Amendment 2 will lead to BAD outcomes for fishing. Short term profits for big commercial fisheries thru using amendment 2 to bring back gilnets means: Big Fish take way too much too fast. What’s left for regular fishing, for anglers? What’s the investment in sustainability for the future?
Not much. Leave hunting and fishing alone! No on 2.
Thanks for the comment! We are anglers to our core. It’s how we were born and who we represent now. That being said, we are cautious of what doors this campaign may open. Maybe voting Yes will not open those doors, if so then no harm, but what if it does? And why should we take those risks right now? What is the ROI? We’re not opposed the campaigns core mission but still have some questions about the who, what, when & why.
Like any amendment, the devil is in the details. Details would, in my opinion, require a definition of any part of the wording that could have an interpretation outside of what is currently law. Traditional methods need to be described and identified with specifics. Both hunting and fishing. Also, just curious as to who sponsored the amendment proposal, was it circulated for approval and what was their background reasoning and purpose since it already seems to be protected as mentioned above
Fishing has been passion since I was very young unfortunately my business forced me to court many times the phrase of what is the definition of is is mean reeks throughout this amendment. This is nothing more than the commercial fishing industry trying to use the courts to rewrite the original net ban amendment to open everything back up . The phrase using all traditional means to fish & hunt will land all this back in court for judge to decide.
I’m leaning towards a YES on amendment 2. I realize that state statutes protect our right to hunt and fish. However, just look how fast the country turned left, courts, judges, schools. Could that happen in FL, say 10 years after the Ron Desantis era ends? I do remember about 20 years ago when state hunting regs became too complex and licenses required for everything. Well people stopped buying licenses. The FWC panicked at the loss of revenue, as the licenses basically fund the FWC. The FWC resorted to local community input sessions to try to get the hunters and fisherman back. The bottom line is this: the leftists in the FWC want our money but do NOT want us in the woods. Let me make this clear, they do NOT want us in the woods or hunting or fishing. The FWC exists to grow government control over lands and people out in the woods. The last time I hunted public land in FL, Hilochee Osprey Unit, was 2 years ago. I was hunting with my 10, 13, and 15 year old kids. I got stopped 5 times. 5 times in one day!! That’s a problem. And they weren’t nice about it. I’m thinking about voting YES on Amendment 2.
Bill,
It is 100% your right to vote however you like and we support that right. It sounds like you have some life experiences that have put you on the path to believe in this amendment as written. Again, we support your right to vote with your heart.
We don’t support this for the reasons we listed in the blog. Simplify the language. Make it more straight forward and it would be a slam dunk. It is OK to disagree on issues BTW. Division in this country is at an all time high. Polarizing hunting and fishing is the last thing we need. ASGA represents people from all walks of life. Our strategy from the first day was to only discuss fishery issues with the idea that we could bring people together in agreement despite their affiliations. It is working for us. I would strongly suggest the leaders of the A2 movement to adopt this strategy. There are an awful lot ofpeople that love hunting and fishing. You are shooting yourself in the foot (pun intended) by taking this approach.
My name is Capt Jeff Kraynik and since 1994, I’ve been the owner/operator of The Coastal Sportsmen of Florida specializing in light-tackle inshore/nearshore saltwater fishing, trophy alligator and waterfowl hunts. From 1985-2013, I was a certified full time law enforcement officer here in central Florida. I am a member of conservation organizations like the ASGA, the Coastal Conservation Association/Florida, the South East Alaska Guides Organization (SEAGO) and Ducks Unlimited.
For 10 years, I sat on Ducks Unlimited/Florida State Council as the MARSH chair (Matching Aid to Restore State Habitat). My duties included working with DU’s biologists on projects to include land acquisitions, perpetuity lands and infrastructure upgrades. For 18 years, I was appointed by Ducks Unlimited to sit on the St Johns River Water Management District WRAC committee. This committee was made up of user groups, stakeholders, district personnel and politicians. I don’t post this information to boast or brag but to show I’m deeply involved in the State of Florida’s conservation efforts and sadly we are loosing the battle.
Roughly 1000 people a day are moving to Florida and 1000’s of acres of pastures and marshes are being bulldozed and paved over in concrete and asphalt. The builders here in Florida also oppose A-2, fearing that it will slow down the urban sprawl and make it harder for them to mitigate new developments on parcels that currently have hunting leases on them. If they oppose it, then they must realize the negative impact A-2 will have on their multimillion dollar businesses.
I make my living in Florida as a full time USCG licensed hunting and fishing guide. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has debunked all the bullet points that the bunny hugger groups have posted on social media platforms. They’ve done their job so well that it has longtime Florida outdoorsmen and sportsmen questioning a YES vote.
I applaud the ASGA for taking a stand on Amendment 2. I believe this is the first issue in Florida that the ASGA has taken a position on. I’m glad to see their willingness to get involved on an issue that may ultimately effect future Florida guides from joining organization. I have nothing but respect for their leaders and I will continue to support their initiatives within the guiding community and look forward to working with them on future conservation initiatives.
That being said The Coastal Sportsmen and Crew have voted YES on Amendment 2.