Conservationists clash with Sierra Club over the right to hunt and fish in Florida

TALLAHASSEE, Florida — A proposal to enshrine hunting and fishing rights in the state constitution is pitting some Florida conservationists against one of the country’s largest environmental groups, as sportsmen and anglers who see a threat to their ways of life push for similar language in state constitutions across the country. Supporters in Florida — including most prominently Republican Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson, a potential 2026 gubernatorial candidate — say the measure is needed to thwart any future efforts to ban hunting and fishing, and is part of a broader goal to preserve Florida wildlife and residents’ enjoyment of it as a key part of the state’s culture and economy.

"There has been an undertone across the country of states wanting to pass hunting, fishing bans," Josh Kellam, chair of the Yes on 2 political committee, told POLITICO. "It has been brought to our attention Florida was a potential threat. So we took a very proactive approach."

But the measure has divided environmental supporters in Florida. Some have dismissed the need for the language in the constitution, arguing that there is no threat in Florida to hunting and fishing, which already are protected in state law.

Opponents also argue that the measure's vague wording — it protects "fishing, hunting, and the taking of fish and wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods" — could force the state wildlife commission to approve cruel hunting and fishing tactics. And declaring hunting and fishing the "preferred means of responsibility managing and controlling" wildlife could tie the hands of state officials to protect animals, they say.

"The 'why?' is a lie," James Scott, campaign coordinator for the NoTo2.org group opposing the amendment, said Sept. 10 on a call with other opponents. "The very premise of this is false."

Hunting or fishing rights have been established in 23 states, according to Ballotpedia . The Florida Senate and House overwhelmingly supported the proposed amendment; in 2023, both chambers approved a joint resolution, FL HJR 1157(23R), placing the measure on the ballot in November, with just one opposing vote.

Yes on 2 has received more than $800,000 to lead a campaign in support of Amendment 2, far out-raising opponents backed by the Sierra Club. Amendments must receive 60 percent of voter approval statewide to put the language in the Constitution.

Simpson donated $100,000 to Yes on 2 in May. The Wildlife Foundation of Florida, which receives funding from Florida's "Conserve Wildlife" license plate, donated $250,000 along with the same amount from T. Roosevelt Action Inc. It's the political arm of the International Order of T. Roosevelt, whose website declares “hunting is conservation.”

The Republican Party of Florida also has chipped in with a television commercial supporting the measure. The ad says the proposal is "not complicated" and was placed on the ballot with bipartisan backing from environmental, conservation and sportsmen groups.

Groups that support the measure include Ducks Unlimited, the Coastal Conservation Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, along with Rodney Barreto, the chair of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Groups opposing, in addition to the Sierra Club, include the Humane Society of the United States and the state Democratic Party, whose executive committee this weekend urged Floridians to vote against it. Audubon Florida also calls the amendment "unnecessary" and says it raises concerns but did not say whether it is outright opposing the measure. The Florida Wildlife Federation said earlier this month it is working on a position statement.

Environmental lawyers Clay Henderson and David Guest also have written papers, along with the Animal Law Section of the Florida Bar, saying the proposal is flawed and could have far-reaching consequences.

“The language presumes that there is an overabundance of fish and wildlife needed to be culled through fishing and hunting,” Henderson wrote in a memo. “This is a significant departure for a century of evolving conservation law and policy.”

Public polling has been sparse. But a survey by Sachs Media — a Florida public relations firm that said it is not working on either side of the amendment fight — in early September found that 80 percent of likely Florida voters who said they'd vote on the measure supported it, including 70 percent of Democrats and nearly 90 percent of Republicans.

The outgunned opponents in July received $50,000 from the Sierra Club in July to jumpstart their opposition campaign.

Kellam said the proposal is based on language from the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. The National Rifle Association also proposes language that is nearly identical to the Florida proposal as originally filed in the Legislature.

The Legislature in 2002 passed a state law establishing a right to hunt and fish and recognizing those activities "are a valued part of the cultural heritage of Florida and should be forever preserved for Floridians."

Amendment supporters say a constitutional amendment will reduce the possibility of those rights being taken away by legislators based on political winds.

Anti-hunting activists have proposed banning hunting in Oregon but have not been able to put a measure on the ballot. California also has numerous restrictions on hunting, supporters of the Florida amendment say.

Chuck O'Neal, chair of the NoTo2.org political committee, said he and other opponents see themselves as conservationists and do not generally oppose hunting. He said the proposed constitutional language "is a horribly written, ill-conceived and dangerous amendment."

Opponents say preserving "traditional methods" of hunting could include spears and leghold traps — which are prohibited now by the state — and would allow fishing with gill nets that voters banned in 1994.

"The cruelty aspect is really the most absurd and offensive piece of this amendment," NoTo2.org’s Scott said. "And hammering that message home is what we need to convey because it's the truth."

O'Neal said the measure could force the state conservation agency to allow another bear hunt, a controversial practice that hasn’t been allowed in the state since 2015.

Kellam, who served on the state wildlife commission from 2018 to 2024, dismisses that concern, noting the amendment explicitly states that it does not limit the FWC's authority as provided in the Constitution.

"And all it does — it protects the right to continue to fish and hunt. It is very simple," Kellam said.

Hunters in 2023 urged the commission to allow bear hunting again. And Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this year signed a bill, FL HB87 (24R), that allows people to shoot bears on their property in self defense, an initiative that critics say could be a move towards lifting the ban on bear hunting.

O'Neal said to believe supporters won't use the language, if approved by voters, to request bear hunting "is just lunacy." He sued the state almost a decade ago in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the last legal bear hunt.

"They say 'traditional' means what is legal now — there is no place that says that. There is no law that says that," O'Neal said. "That is something they made up to make people feel better about voting yes."