[HJBeck]

Can anyone explain what we are voting for or against on the ammendment? Makes no sense to me as written: "Right to Fish and Hunt"

[Bill14564]

League of Women Voters about half way down the page

[barbara828]

Most of them should be laws and not in the constitution

[Kelevision]

Originally Posted by HJBeck

Can anyone explain what we are voting for or against on the ammendment? Makes no sense to me as written: "Right to Fish and Hunt"

Voting yes for example……..World Animal Protection, are concerned that science-based methods of managing and controlling wildlife and fish will become secondary to hunting and fishing. The phrase “traditional methods” could be interpreted as a return to currently prohibited methods of hunting and fishing, such as steel traps, spearfishing and gill nets. They also say, if we have a statute protecting the right to hunt and fish already, why does this need to be placed in the Constitution now? Opponents warn of potential interference with private property rights by trespassing hunters.
I love wildlife so a no vote for me….. a no vote changes nothing. Everything stays the same. Hunters can keep on hunting…

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by barbara828

Most of them should be laws and not in the constitution

I have to agree with this. I don’t understand who is behind the amendment but if we amend the constitution and there is some crazy ruling by the courts, it will be very difficult to go back to where we are now.

If the courts make a crazy ruling interpreting a law, it is much easier to correct it.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

I have to agree with this. I don’t understand who is behind the amendment but if we amend the constitution and there is some crazy ruling by the courts, it will be very difficult to go back to where we are now.

If the courts make a crazy ruling interpreting a law, it is much easier to correct it.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

I also agree. Why should this be incorporated into our constitution---in fact is hunting or fishing a constitutional right???? Probably not since local governments can determine where you may hunt or fish and also charge a licensing fee to do so. Let's not conflate constitutional rights with laws---they are two different levels of governance.

If I have a constitutional right to fish, can I do it your property???? Any public property??? Can I use a firearm in downtown Orlando to shoot pigeons???? As above, you can see where bizarre interpretations could be dangerous.

[kingofbeer]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I also agree. Why should this be incorporated into our constitution---in fact is hunting or fishing a constitutional right???? Probably not since local governments can determine where you may hunt or fish and also charge a licensing fee to do so. Let's not conflate constitutional rights with laws---they are two different levels of governance.

If I have a constitutional right to fish, can I do it your property???? Any public property??? Can I use a firearm in downtown Orlando to shoot pigeons???? As above, you can see where bizarre interpretations could be dangerous.

I voted no. If the legislators proposed it, there must be a reason for it.
I side with those organizations are against it.
Opponents, including Sierra Club Florida, the Humane Society, Humane Wildlife Consulting of South Florida, American Ecosystems, Inc., Animal Wellness Action, Bear Defenders, Center for a Humane Economy, Florida Bar Animal Law Section, Humane Society of the US, League of Humane Voters of Florida, One Protest, Paws and Recreation, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Save-a-Turtle.org, Speak Up for Wildlife, World Animal Protection, are concerned that science-based methods of managing and controlling wildlife and fish will become secondary to hunting and fishing. The phrase “traditional methods” could be interpreted as a return to currently prohibited methods of hunting and fishing, such as steel traps, spearfishing and gill nets. They also say, if we have a statute protecting the right to hunt and fish already, why does this need to be placed in the Constitution now? Opponents warn of potential interference with private property rights by trespassing hunters.