|
Post by james243 on Apr 4, 2024 6:39:56 GMT -5
On the ballot this November.
What say ye?:
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
|
|
|
Post by jmarkb on Apr 4, 2024 6:56:24 GMT -5
Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by cracker4112 on Apr 4, 2024 7:17:21 GMT -5
Absolutely
|
|
|
Post by richm on Apr 4, 2024 7:52:26 GMT -5
Thought we already did that. Musta been the marriage thing...
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Apr 4, 2024 8:17:20 GMT -5
It sounds good, on the surface, but lots of these amendments sound good. How does it affect prohibitions on gill nets since it is a "traditional method" or other "traditional methods" that are currently not allowed? Does public right include people who are not citizens of Florida? How does it affect hunting and fishing on private property, if both are a public right?
I like the idea, but need to know more.
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 4, 2024 9:39:22 GMT -5
Cad is correct, its not what it seems on face value.
I haven't studied the entire thing yet, but it does appear to be a bait and switch type of law. So Florida already does have something statutory about the right to hunt and fish ( not in our constitution), we are covered. What this law says, is that it would be the preferred way to manage game. So the take is, it was basically written so that bear hunts would be instituted instead of using non-hunting means to manage the population. So basically it is saying always use a hunt, despite what the science says.
FLORIDAS CURRENT right to hunt and fish statute
Title XXVIII NATURAL RESOURCES; CONSERVATION, RECLAMATION, AND USE Chapter 379 FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SECTION 104Right to hunt and fish.
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. History.—s. 8, ch. 2002-46; s. 8, ch. 2008-247. Note.—Former s. 372.002.
www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/qualifying-hunting-and-fishing-as-the-preferred-means-of-managing-wildlife-a-potentially-dangerous-ballot-initiative-that-provides-little-protection-to-hunters-and-fishermen/ 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.[1] While Florida voters may hold favorably the idea of enshrining hunting and fishing as a constitutional right, the proposed amendment would have a broader effect on wildlife than the average recreational hunter or fisherman. The amendment begins by promising to “preserve forever fishing and hunting…as a public right.”[2] This language may draw voters in, as hunting and fishing are widely practiced and cherished by many Floridians. However, the text that follows presents a more drastic effect of the amendment. It would make hunting and fishing the “preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.”[3] This proposed amendment would place hunting and fishing ahead of other, non-lethal means for managing Florida’s wildlife.[4] If passed, this constitutional amendment would make authorizing a hunt of these animals easier and quicker, potentially even before other science-backed measures are implemented for decreasing human-animal interactions. Using hunting and fishing as the first-rung approach for managing wildlife could have a catastrophic effect on wildlife populations throughout the state, and such a drastic change would only require 60% of votes to be enacted.[5] This amendment presents a controversial topic for many Floridians, sparking a debate about the balance between wildlife conservation, alternative means for management, and preempting any future threats to hunting and fishing. This article examines the issue from both angles and presents a case study of the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) to highlight the way the amendment may affect the species.
|
|
|
Post by anumber1 on Apr 4, 2024 9:48:21 GMT -5
I vote no on every constitutional amendment whether it benefits me or not.
All they are is an end run around science/rational thought, etc.
|
|
|
Post by nuthinfancy on Apr 4, 2024 9:56:24 GMT -5
Cad is correct, its not what it seems on face value.
I haven't studied the entire thing yet, but it does appear to be a bait and switch type of law. So Florida already does have something in the our constitution about the right to hunt and fish, we are covered. What this law says, is that it would be the preferred way to manage game. So the take is, it was basically written so that bear hunts would be instituted instead of using non-hunting means to manage the population. So basically it is saying always use a hunt, despite what the science says. www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/qualifying-hunting-and-fishing-as-the-preferred-means-of-managing-wildlife-a-potentially-dangerous-ballot-initiative-that-provides-little-protection-to-hunters-and-fishermen/ 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.[1] While Florida voters may hold favorably the idea of enshrining hunting and fishing as a constitutional right, the proposed amendment would have a broader effect on wildlife than the average recreational hunter or fisherman. The amendment begins by promising to “preserve forever fishing and hunting…as a public right.”[2] This language may draw voters in, as hunting and fishing are widely practiced and cherished by many Floridians. However, the text that follows presents a more drastic effect of the amendment. It would make hunting and fishing the “preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.”[3] This proposed amendment would place hunting and fishing ahead of other, non-lethal means for managing Florida’s wildlife.[4] If passed, this constitutional amendment would make authorizing a hunt of these animals easier and quicker, potentially even before other science-backed measures are implemented for decreasing human-animal interactions. Using hunting and fishing as the first-rung approach for managing wildlife could have a catastrophic effect on wildlife populations throughout the state, and such a drastic change would only require 60% of votes to be enacted.[5] This amendment presents a controversial topic for many Floridians, sparking a debate about the balance between wildlife conservation, alternative means for management, and preempting any future threats to hunting and fishing. This article examines the issue from both angles and presents a case study of the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) to highlight the way the amendment may affect the species.Sounds like something peta wrote. Name one time where regulated recreational hunting has had catastrophic effects on our states wildlife. The fact that bears need to be managed remains no matter who does the killing. I would rather a hunter who values the resource and desires the meat than us paying someone to do it.
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 4, 2024 10:00:56 GMT -5
Cad is correct, its not what it seems on face value.
I haven't studied the entire thing yet, but it does appear to be a bait and switch type of law. So Florida already does have something in the our constitution about the right to hunt and fish, we are covered. What this law says, is that it would be the preferred way to manage game. So the take is, it was basically written so that bear hunts would be instituted instead of using non-hunting means to manage the population. So basically it is saying always use a hunt, despite what the science says. www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/qualifying-hunting-and-fishing-as-the-preferred-means-of-managing-wildlife-a-potentially-dangerous-ballot-initiative-that-provides-little-protection-to-hunters-and-fishermen/ 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.[1] While Florida voters may hold favorably the idea of enshrining hunting and fishing as a constitutional right, the proposed amendment would have a broader effect on wildlife than the average recreational hunter or fisherman. The amendment begins by promising to “preserve forever fishing and hunting…as a public right.”[2] This language may draw voters in, as hunting and fishing are widely practiced and cherished by many Floridians. However, the text that follows presents a more drastic effect of the amendment. It would make hunting and fishing the “preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.”[3] This proposed amendment would place hunting and fishing ahead of other, non-lethal means for managing Florida’s wildlife.[4] If passed, this constitutional amendment would make authorizing a hunt of these animals easier and quicker, potentially even before other science-backed measures are implemented for decreasing human-animal interactions. Using hunting and fishing as the first-rung approach for managing wildlife could have a catastrophic effect on wildlife populations throughout the state, and such a drastic change would only require 60% of votes to be enacted.[5] This amendment presents a controversial topic for many Floridians, sparking a debate about the balance between wildlife conservation, alternative means for management, and preempting any future threats to hunting and fishing. This article examines the issue from both angles and presents a case study of the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) to highlight the way the amendment may affect the species.Sounds like something peta wrote. Name one time where regulated recreational hunting has had catastrophic effects on our states wildlife. The fact that bears need to be managed remains no matter who does the killing. I would rather a hunter who values the resource and desires the meat than us paying someone to do it. The bear hunt was a fiasco. And bears are rarely killed, there are other things FWC is doing to control bears. Maybe at some point there will be a bear hunt.
|
|
|
Post by cracker4112 on Apr 4, 2024 10:03:27 GMT -5
I think we should have constitutional protection for hunting and fishing in Florida. As of now, its is only protected statutorily. The legislature could outlaw hunting tomorrow (not that there is any threat of that today). I also believe that hunting and fishing should be tool #1 for managing the resource, including and especially the bears. Not holding a bear hunt in Florida is a great example. The science says we should hunt some bears, but politics and feels get in the way.
I usually agree with Art, and vote no on all of them, but I'm voting for this one. I foresee a time when our state is under control of the transplants and bleeding hearts, who won't care about my kids ability to hunt and fish in this state.
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Apr 4, 2024 10:26:17 GMT -5
not to sound like a internet tough guy but i got maybe 25 good years left, nothing the government does will stop me from hunting or fishing. i will have to read the entire bill before i make a decision though. never trust politicians.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Apr 4, 2024 11:16:34 GMT -5
I vote no on every constitutional amendment whether it benefits me or not. All they are is an end run around science/rational thought, etc. I vote no as well. It went too far when we passed one to protect pregnant pigs.
|
|
|
Post by james14 on Apr 4, 2024 14:27:52 GMT -5
I nearly always vote no on these, but this one gets a yes. So, it makes hunting and fishing the primary tool for management? Great. It should be. Any sustainable population should be considered for a hunt. Let's be real - sure we enjoy a nice meal as a result of a successful hunt, but it is also a form a recreation and sport. Also, just because they CAN manage a population (bears, for instance) with non-lethal means doesn't mean hunting should be excluded as an option. We want to hunt bears because we want to hunt bears. The fact that their numbers have exploded to nuisance level in many areas is just another reason.
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Apr 4, 2024 14:54:02 GMT -5
I will have to read it thoroughly. It's always a legalese word game with these kooks
|
|
|
Post by 4ward on Apr 4, 2024 18:44:44 GMT -5
I’ll read some more too. First glance at that Florida Bar link was kinda disturbing.
|
|