What to know about Florida’s Amendment 2, the hunting and fishing ballot question

[@michaelshaffer1624]

I fish and have never worried about my ability to fish being taken away. Amendment 2 sounds like just another effort by the Fl legislature to misdirect. They are hoping to get Floridians up in arms about a non-existant threat while selling out their state to developers and other big money interests. The only threat to my ability to fish is the overdevelopment of Florida that is destroying our ecosystem.

[@cab32h42]

That way when they destroy the ecosystem they can say they were over fished or over hunted

[@oldflorida2003]

Right On !

[@mauricejones4393]

Only way to put it destroying our ecosystem

[@LilBoulevard]

PREACH

[@xindaxoxou7431]

No on 2!

[@FattyMateo]

If i don't know what a bill intends, i vote no. If it is purposely worded to be vague, then it will likely be used as a means to benefit special interests

[@HunterBidenscrack]

If only we had these things that had access to unlimited information that you could just type words into and could read and get more information on all different types of subjects.

[@Omaba_Baba]

Bingo

[@James-uo8os]

The people promoting the bill all own CHARTERS AND HUNTING OUTFITTERS!! It's got nothing to do with our rights to hunt and fish..

[@juandilan2321]

Are you kidding me legislators ??fix the problems like escalating homeowners insurance , health care, immigration, child care, seniors....

[@TJ-ml4oy]

A lot of talking but it felt like he said nothing.

[@tommyd1059]

Same

[@FattyMateo]

Yup Whole lot of nothing

[@victorjohnson3388]

Clever approach, by instituting this into the Florida constitution it opens up multiple possibilities for fishing and hunting interests to circumvent the laws currently in place. This is another example of the Florida Legislature working with large commercial parties to reap even larger profits. Everyone needs to remember it was just a short time ago that a whistleblower came forth and exposed the Governor and Florida Legislature trying to sell off our State parks to hotel and golf course developers in order to garnish favors with these cash rich sources.

[@JAMO31147]

The right to hunt and fish in the Florida Constitution. Amendment 2 is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Over time it will be a tool to overregulate and eventually take our rights away as outdoorsman. The biggest threat to our lifestyle is development.

[@FL_FowlMouthOutdoors]

The first i’ve heard this take. Why do you think this is a possibility?

[@FattyMateo]

​@@FL_FowlMouthOutdoorsI tend to agree. Everyone is interpreting it as enshrining our right to fish. But what it is _actually_ doing is guaranteeing FWC's authority. Smoke screen

[@topomusicale5580]

It literally enshrines fishing and hunting as a right instead of a legislated privilege. Suggesting it is some backdoor way to have more regulation seems odd. Today the legislature could pass a bill saying no more fishing and hunting period. If this passes they cannot do that.

[@FattyMateo]

@@topomusicale5580 how does it "enshrine our RIGHT to fish" if it a) doesn't eliminate fishing licenses and b) doesn't take take away FWC's authority? That's right. It doesn't *_ENSHRINE_* anything👍 What it *_does_* do is use a backhanded strategy to further codify FWC's authority. The amendment is only a couple sentences long, so it shouldn't be confusing. It can be translated as, "it is your right to fish, and it is FWC's right to govern you when fishing" Why would that need to be in our constitution?

[@FattyMateo]

@@topomusicale5580 local governments and private hotels have already made some beaches private. Would voting for this change that? No? So what ACTUALLY changes? No one is banning fishing. Smoke screen.

[@SkyNetGeneral-]

Vote no 👎 no 2

[@xindaxoxou7431]

1000000000%

[@FattyMateo]

I love how we talked for 6 minutes and not one time said what the bill actually DOES HELP ME OUT, LEGISLATOR: if this bill passes today and I'm going out on my boat tomorrow morning, how does my day change? The only thing this bill will do is embolden people to break regulations (ie keep small fish) and then when FWC arrests them and give them thousands of dollars in fines, said person will pay thousands to lawyers to go to court to be told the amendment is too vague to support their actions. This seems like a symbolic good-will sentiment amendment to make people think highly of one party. Empty nothingness

[@JML1925]

If you stand for something then explain what it is. Say why you stand for it and be clear and firm. I just listen to your video and I don't even know what you stand for. You keep cya. What is amendment? 2? Why do you support it in detail? Why is it being resisted in detail? Just say it plain out. Simple facts. I watched your video and I don't know what you're going to do or why?

[@gerardparker4220]

What does this amendment change? I still don’t understand the objective if ppl already have the right to hunt and fish. I’m skeptical

[@nadianorton4234]

All it does is add a term to the rights we all ready have. "Traditional means".... voting no does not take away the rights we already have... they are trying to mislead us

[@chuckoneal485]

Miami Herald Editorial Board advises voting NO on Amendment 2. No idea who this guy is but he has no idea about the history of wildlife conservations in Florida.

[@jessidiaz1891]

The Miami Herald advocating NO is of no surprise. The amendment enshrines the right to fish and hunt in the State Constitution. FWC will continue to manage all aspects of fishing and hunting, including restrictions that are in place, seasonal hunts, preservation, etc. Right now it’s a statute that CAN be changed via legislation. Mr. Rizzo is a good dude. He was a school counselor of mine growing up. I’ll vote YES 😉

[@Steve-jb4oc]

Why is this needed? Are hunting and fishing under attack? I need to read the proposed amendment. I don’t like changes to the constitution unless absolutely necessary.

[@miamiwax5504]

Invent a problem then become the solution. Same play as always.

[@adamd5530]

My town banned fishing from the beach.

[@mindygoddard8355]

There are not alot of panthers. They are in danger. Are you talking about unlimited, anytime, any animal? That is not acceptable.

[@RedKnight.]

Vote No

[@xindaxoxou7431]

I agreeeee

[@fishydubsfishing6516]

The problem right now is the over regulation of the resource completely shutting down a species for recreational harvest while the commercial fisherman Are loading the boat with the same species it's not the way to do it you should be allowed to at least retain one of the species not zero going out all the time and coming back with nothing doesn't fly with me and this does nothing to prevent that from happening I will be voting no

[@PollutedDeltaoftheMind]

So what you’re saying is voting no will put restrictions on the amount of fish or say deer someone can hunt or fish? Serious question. I like to fish but I don’t hunt I also don’t want people killing 15 deer and/or over fishing a species of fish. Am I understanding correctly that voting NO means they will still have regulations? Am I sounding stupid? 🤦‍♀️😂

[@fishydubsfishing6516]

@@PollutedDeltaoftheMind yes or no it dont matter big gov got control

[@LeyahStorm]

@@PollutedDeltaoftheMind That's correct, voting no means you are not in favor of Amendment 2. A no vote means current regulations will stay as they are and fishing and hunting will not be a constitutional right, and instead the current statute/regulations protecting fishing and hunting will remain.

[@benedictcumberbatch4275]

@@fishydubsfishing6516 agree

[@dpporlando]

So, obviously there are preexisting laws in FL. How does a Constitutional Amendment affect those laws? I'm no rocket scientist but my hunch is any law current or new would be open to challenge to determine it's Constitutionality. Sounds like another subsidized income stream to the legal industry. But what do I know I've just been observing nonsense for 51 years.

[@donnalynn2]

But its on the ballot. Awful lot of trouble to go thru without checking these things.

[@beticusmagnus8673]

Platitudes mean nothing - READ the amendments for yourself.

[@Reason1024]

The amendment is so vague that I had to find someone to explain it

[@djmjr77]

A lot of talking and no explanation for how short and easy it is to read.. sounds fishy

[@jorgepina3568]

Bro we can already do all those things, they just want to make a profit off killing our wildlife

[@adamd5530]

My town banned fishing from the beach.would this lift that ban?

[@xindaxoxou7431]

I think it would. I hope i am wrong

[@thomasstott3929]

I really don't understand why we need this amendment and this guy did not help me to decide anything. A lot oF talk but NO explanation. The regulations are so strict now with seasons, size limits, and qty limits that when I go fishing it is only for catch and relaese, but the comercial fisher with nets pretty much takes everything. The every day angler like myself cannot catch anything to eat, fishing is just for sport, not for food. If you want to eat fish, go to the fish market and save $$ by not having a boat and fishing gear.

[@benedictcumberbatch4275]

If this passes, would we still need to purchase a fishing license?

[@cab32h42]

Yes

[@william2william]

What's with the flash of a woman at 3:20

[@shxpsixcreative4318]

So weird

[@Randive]

i think he's talking on a zoom call

[@CaptRico]

I heard him speaking, but i didnt hear anything . WTF. No explanation. Im voting NO. I fish and hunt now with no problems . Vote NO

[@stoneddaley3482]

Vote no! They want to use nets to take all of the fish.

[@doriancweber6055]

"very limited state intrusion of what you could and couldnt catch" - "ive seen more imposition on people what you can catch and keep"...YEah...becasue of the first when you as a kid emptied the seas we have to have the second. People are dumb and will empty the seas and as a fisherman you should know better. People have no control, go to any pier and you will see how much people take and a lot will get spoiled.

[@desertjedi]

This amendments makes no sense and sounds like a ploy to be abused. I voted against it.

[@BULLISHGUY-fg3so]

This is a catch if you don’t understand what it is just vote NO .

[@MathewTinkerHead]

100% DV who can’t Vote anyway. lol Really lol big joke! America where’d you go my sweet country?

[@havanese37]

You spoke 6 minutes and said nothing other than you like fishing

[@slick4922]

with the amount of red tide fish kills . fish limits should be doubled what a waste of resourses no resident of florida should have to puchase a fishing liscense only speciacel permits for game fish . charters should be charged a lot more to make money off state residents resourses. and only non floridians should be required to purchase a fishing license

[@glorial8448]

Just protects our rights..making it in the constitution of the state. So..in future, can't be taken away. Still.. all laws currently pertaining to this will continue be in effect

[@xindaxoxou7431]

NO on 2

[@truss2005]

@@glorial8448 this is just a bill to erode our protections of these resources down the road. Step one to selling off our protected lands to private interest