The first time I picked up a fishing rod, I was just a toddler. At age 8 I experienced a dove hunt near the Everglades; two years later came my first duck hunt in a marsh in Lake Okeechobee.

At age 65 I’m a lifelong resident of Florida, and I’ve had the good fortune to hunt and fish the state from Pensacola to Key West. My love of the outdoors has helped fuel my passion for conservation.

In theory, I’m just the type of person who might support Amendment 2, the proposal to enshrine the right to hunt and fish in the Florida Constitution.

But, in fact, I’m highly skeptical of the proposed amendment and worried about unintended consequences. I’ll be voting no on Amendment 2 this November.

Why? The risks far outweigh the benefits. Florida already has statutory protections in place for hunting and fishing, so Amendment 2 is at best unnecessary.

Does anyone really think an attempt to ban or even limit hunting and fishing would ever be approved in Florida, where the state Legislature just passed a new law expanding the right to kill bears?

Amendment 2 is also potentially dangerous. Would hunters with a constitutional right to pursue a bear or other game be permitted to do so on private property?

And in areas where increased development has led to a rise in human-wildlife interactions, does it make sense to enshrine hunting as the “preferred” means of wildlife management, as Amendment 2 prescribes? Making it “preferred means” in the state constitution doesn’t ensure it’s the most responsible means.

Then there’s the line in the proposed amendment that would allow hunting and fishing via “traditional methods.”

What exactly does that mean? Gill nets, for example, might be seen as a “traditional” method of fishing, but they were also banned in Florida in 1994. Would such limitations remain in place? Proponents insist it would, but the vague wording of the proposed amendment makes no such promises.

And what other “traditional methods” might be used? That vague wording, in fact, seems ripe for misinterpretation and abuse. And the Florida Legislature has a proven track record of misinterpreting constitutional amendments to suit their tastes.

Remember Amendment 1, the Water and Land Legacy Amendment from 2014? Seventy-five percent of Florida voters approved the constitutional amendment, which was expected to raise $22 billion for buying environmentally sensitive land over two decades.

Yet Florida lawmakers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars of the proceeds on administrative expenses such as salaries, insurance, vehicles and maintenance.

It pains me to think how Florida lawmakers might interpret the ambiguous wording of Amendment 2 to their advantage.

Amendment 2 is backed by the National Rifle Association; Florida Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson’s “Friends of Wilton Simpson” PAC gave $100,000 to the petition drive.

Robert Coker of U.S. Sugar has contributed $10,000. The politicization of the Amendment 2 drive is yet another red flag, another suggestion that this proposal may involve more risk than reward.

As a lifelong outdoors man, I’m confident my right to hunt and fish in Florida is already well-protected.

I don’t see a need for Amendment 2 — and I see a lot of possible downsides.

Every good sportsman knows the risks in being reckless. That’s true not just out in the field, but in this case, at the ballot box.

Richard Trotta is an avid hunter and fisherman who grew up in Miami. He serves as a volunteer member of the Board of Directors for Friends of the Everglades, which was founded by Marjory Stoneman Douglas in 1969, and for Stuart-based VoteWater..

This story was originally published October 9, 2024, 3:40 AM.

Try 1 month for $1

Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.

Part of the McClatchy Media Networkgolden palasyo

• golden palasyo
• and
• in
• Fish
• Hunt