In Florida, the passage of Amendment 2 has sparked significant concern among wildlife advocates, who fear it could pave the way for the return of trophy hunting, including the hunting of black bears.
Approved by voters, the amendment enshrines hunting and fishing as constitutional rights, but critics argue that its vague language could lead to environmental setbacks rather than conservation advancements.
Although the amendment does not explicitly reinstate bear hunting, which has been banned since 1994 except for a single season in 2015, many environmental groups see it as a step in that direction.
The law, proponents claim, presents hunting as a necessary conservation tool, but its opponents worry it will serve as a vehicle for policies that could legalize cruel practices like steel-jaw traps and hunting with dogs—methods banned in many other states due to their inhumane nature.
Environmentalists vow to challenge the constitutional right to hunt after Amendment 2’s approval.In addition, a 2023 law that allows the shooting of black bears in self-defense has already raised concerns about its potential misuse, especially by landowners who might use it to eliminate bears they view as nuisances.
This sets the stage for what critics call a broader erosion of protections for wildlife.
Environmentalists also caution that the amendment’s language, which promotes “traditional methods” of hunting, lacks clarity.
This ambiguity could allow for harmful practices like explosive fishing or the use of hounds to hunt animals—both of which are considered unethical by many conservationists.
Despite the 67% approval rate, which exceeded the 60% threshold, groups like the Humane Society of the U.S. vow to continue fighting against the expansion of cruel hunting practices in Florida.
Their concern is that the amendment will undermine wildlife management policies that rely on science-based approaches and threaten the welfare of Florida’s ecosystems.