Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the exact text of the proposed amendment on the ballot?

RIGHT TO FISH AND HUNT.— 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. (FL Senate, 2013)

2. When do we vote on this ballot measure?

Amendment 2 will be on the Florida ballot on November 5, 2024 election.

3. Why should property owners be concerned and vote “no” on

Amendment 2?

The original language of this amendment (line 32) included protections for property rights and trespass laws, but that language was taken out. If this amendment passes and hunting becomes a constitutional right, then it can be argued that a stranger will be allowed to trespass on another person’s property in order to hunt an animal. It means someone could fire a weapon on your property.

4. Does voting “No” on Amendment 2 mean I don’t have the right to hunt

or fish?

- Voting “No” on Amendment 2 does NOT mean you will not have the right to hunt. An existing law, §379.104, states that Florida citizens have the right to hunt and fish.

- Voting “No” on Amendment 2 will keep the right to hunt as it stands and allow future regulations to protect wildlife.

- Current Florida law: §379.104 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.

5. Why is the right to hunt and fish on the ballot if there is already a right to hunt and fish in Florida law?

- If passed, the right to hunt and fish will be enshrined in our Florida Constitution as a public right and elevated to a public right similar to the fundamental right of free speech. The proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution is unnecessary, and one should be concerned about the ulterior motives of the organizations pushing for its passage.

6. What is the difference between Amendment 2’s “right to hunt” and the Florida law that provides for the right to hunt and fish?

This proposed Amendment 2 expands the right to hunt in three ways:

(i) Amendment 2 expands hunting rights to be the “preferred means” of managing wildlife. This means that violent, lethal means are required to be the “preferred means” to deal with wildlife instead of peaceful, humane methods of treating wildlife.

(ii) Amendment 2 elevates the right to hunt to a Constitutional "public right" open not just to Floridians but also to international hunters and commercial fishing operations.

(iii) Amendment 2 expands hunting rights to include “the use of traditional methods,” which sounds unassuming, except that steel traps, spears, clubs, and poison, to name a few, are “traditional methods” that inflict maximum pain and suffering to the animal.

Voting “no” on Amendment 2 will keep hunting rights as it currently stands and allows for future regulations to protect wildlife and marine life.

7. I care about dolphins, manatees, turtles, and other marine life – how does Amendment 2 affect Florida’s marine animals?

- If Amendment 2 passes, then it could be used to override protections for marine life, such as overturning the prohibition on Gill Nets that snare innocent dolphins, turtles, and other marine life, which often means a death sentence for animals trapped by the nets. Right now, gill nets are prohibited by law [link], but if Amendment 2 passes, then the prohibition on gill nets could be challenged in court because of the words “including by the use of traditional methods” in the amendment, as gill nets were a “traditional method” of fishing. Currently, there are limits to catching certain fish to ensure the sustainability of fish life; reasonable limitations on the number of marine life catches may be jeopardized if Amendment 2 passes because of the language that makes fishing the “preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish.”

- Voting “no” on Amendment 2 will save the current protections afforded to marine life and allow future regulations to protect marine life.

8. I am concerned about the Florida panther, wild birds, black bear, and deer – how does Amendment 2 affect wildlife?

- If passed, Amendment 2 makes clear that violent, lethal hunting methods will be the “preferred means” of wildlife management, which means that peaceful, non-violent means of handling wildlife issues will not be the first option.

- Amendment 2, if passed, may be used to bring back the use of cruel and painful steel traps to catch wildlife because of the words “…the use of traditional methods, shall be preserved forever as a public right…” Steel traps were a traditional method to catch wildlife until regulations changed to prohibit their use.

- Voting “no” on Amendment 2 safeguards current regulations that protect animals and allows for future regulations to protect wildlife and marine life.

9. Why should conscientious hunters vote “no” on Amendment 2?

There are three reasons why hunters should vote “No” on Amendment 2:

(i) Hunters and anglers already have the right to hunt under Florida law [Link to statute], and voting “no” on Amendment 2 will not change that.

(ii) Hunters have different opinions on what is ethical when killing animals. Some hunters believe in quotas or consider age before killing an animal. Those hunters may not be able to help set guidelines in the sport if this amendment passes because it will be argued that there cannot be limitations no matter how reasonable since the right to hunt is now a state constitutional right.

(iii) Hunters value property rights, and this clause to protect property rights (line 32) was deleted from the final language of the amendment; therefore, it could be argued if a stranger walks onto your property to hunt an animal, that stranger’s new Constitutional “right to hunt” may trump your property rights.

10. Can we repeal Amendment 2 later if we do not like the results?

If Amendment 2 becomes part of the Florida State Constitution, it would be a herculean effort that would take years or decades, if ever, and substantial sums of money to support a citizens' initiative to repeal it. In 2022, the average signature drive for a citizen initiative was over $4 million per Ballotpedia.

11. What is the difference between HB87, 2024, and Amendment 2?

HB87, 2024 is targeted at bears. It enables anyone to kill a bear if they or their property feels threatened. Lawmakers voted on it during the FL 2024 legislative session. It is not a constitutional amendment.

Amendment 2 is a constitutional amendment created by the joint resolution HJR 1157, 2023. FL lawmakers voted on it, and the public can vote on November 5, 2024. It requires a 60% majority to pass.

12. There are 22 other states with the constitutional right to hunt and fish. Why is FL so concerned?

The short answer is that it is not going well in those states. To name a few examples:

- Shortly after North Carolina adopted its constitutional version in 2018, Black Bear hunting was authorized on 92,500 acres of land previously designated as a bear refuge. (src1)(src2)

- In Montana, legislation was introduced to allow hunting on sovereign tribal lands, (src)

- In Nebraska, 2014, Governor Heineman vetoed state legislation to stop the hunting of mountain lions two years after they were opened up to hunting. His rationale in vetoing the bill was that banning a cougar hunt might violate the "preferred means" of conservation provision of Nebraska's Right to Hunt constitutional amendment passed in 2012. (Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation guidebook on Right to Hunt initiatives.)