2024 Florida Amendment 2

2024 Florida Amendment 2, also known as the Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment,^[1] was a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Florida to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish, including by the usage of traditional methods. The ballot measure passed, receiving over 67% of the vote, and the backing of all 67 Florida counties.

House Joint Resolution 1157 (HJR 1157) placed the measure on the ballot. On April 25, 2023, it passed the State House in a 116 to 0 vote, with 3 not voting,^[2] and on April 28, it was agreed to by the State Senate in a 38 to 1 vote, with 1 not voting.^[3] The sole opposition vote came from former State Sen. Lauren Book.^[3] The resolution was introduced by State Rep. Lauren Melo.^[4]

On the ballot, the title for the amendment was: "RIGHT TO FISH AND HUNT."^[5]

The summary provided to voters was: "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."^[5]

The amendment added Section 28 to Article 1 of the state's constitution, which states: "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]

State House Speaker Paul Renner praised State Rep. Lauren Melo for introducing HJR 1157, saying that the filing of the resolution was "in hopes of permanently preserving Floridians’ right to fish and hunt." Renner went on to say, "For generations, Floridians have used fishing and hunting as a means to provide for themselves and their families."^[6]

State Sen. Jim Boyd backed the amendment, saying that it was, "really hard to believe that there are states that are outlawing fishing and hunting" and that "Florida will not be one of those states."^[6]

State Sen. Bobby Powell was unsure of the amendment's purpose, as he had not seen any push for such changes within Florida. "I haven't seen it happening anywhere in the state of Florida. I don't know where it's happening nationally. I'm going to be in support of this legislation today based on the fact that I don't see it happening here." In response, State Sen. Jason Brodeur brought up an unsuccessful ballot initiative in Oregon that had sought to ban hunting and fishing. It fell 20,000 signatures short of the required 112,000 needed to get on the ballot.^[6]

State Sen. Jason Brodeur supported the measure, explaining that, "Hunting and fishing's been a way of life not only for all of human civilization, but Florida in particular" and that the amendment "would allow voters the opportunity to memorialize that in our constitution."^[6]

State Rep. Lauren Melo, who was the introducer of the legislation which placed the measure on the ballot, said, after it passed the State House, "HJR 1157 is about the heritage of Florida." Melo believed that many people did not "realize the economic value fishing and hunting provides our great state," and that, "Passing this legislation is a powerful statement that we support and champion our fishing and hunting traditions, and we want to protect (them) for our future."^[6]

The Orlando Sentinel opposed the amendment, saying that the amendment addressed "an imaginary problem" and that it "could create consequences that are unimaginable."^[7]

The Miami Herald believed the amendment was "misleading" because of there being "no credible proposals to stop Floridians from hunting or fishing," and if there were, "it's virtually impossible that the conservative Legislature or state regulators would go along."^[7]

The Tampa Bay Times called Amendment 2 "a ridiculous amendment that doesn't belong in the state constitution, whether you are an outdoors enthusiast or not." They went on to say that hunting and fishing "are wildly popular pastimes that are engrained in Florida culture," and that "You might as well amend Florida's constitution to protect cockroaches, humidity and golf."^[7]

The Sun Sentinel did not support the measure, explaining that, "The Florida Constitution recognizes only a handful of rights," and that "Most of those rights come with exemptions". "But no guardrails constrain a 'public right' to fish and hunt. Nothing for private landowners to keep hunters off their land. No carve-out for endangered species. Not even a 'please don't shoot squirrels on a playground where kids are present.'"^[7]

The Palm Beach Post "strongly urge[d] voters to vote 'no' on this troublesome amendment," writing that it came "with big problems that should alarm anyone who appreciates the state's wildlife and natural habitats," and that "If there were ever a right that doesn't belong enshrined in the Florida Constitution, it's this one."^[7]

TC Palm recommended individuals to vote no on the ballot measure, reasoning that it had "been almost 190 years since Florida created its constitution," and so they saw "no reason to change the constitution for something that has never been a source of controversy."^[7]

All 67 of Florida's counties voted in favor. Calhoun County had the highest percentage of its population vote in favor with 87%, and Alachua County had the least, with 52%.

• Hunting in the United States