The South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board smeared Florida hunters and anglers as “low-information, far right voters” for supporting a 2024 ballot initiative to enshrine a right to hunt and fish amendment into the state Constitution. This measure will go before Floridians for a vote during the 2024 election.
The op-ed writes, “So what’s the point of putting it on the ballot? The best argument we can see for this stinker is that it’s bait — intended to draw out low-information, far-right voters who can be easily swindled into believing that their rights are somehow under attack and who will, presumably, be voting conservative across the rest of the ballot. And Florida’s deep-red Legislature doesn’t care about anything else, if it means winning a few more votes.”
Why should Floridians oppose this pending ballot measure? The paper cites a token “expert” who positions himself as a conservationist (but isn’t) who essentially wrote it’s icky to pre-emptively protect hunting and fishing from future attacks.
The editorial board, unsurprisingly, misrepresented the topic by claiming it will “wreck environmental laws” and claims there’s little support for the measure because “lawmakers should hear from their constituents who are suspicious of this amendment, and other reckless efforts to hoodwink voters, with one clear message: This dog don’t hunt.”
Except the joint resolution passed 116-0 in the House of Representatives and 38-1 in the state Senate, respectively. Who is doing the hoodwinking here? It’s obviously not Florida lawmakers.
Much to the chagrin of the newspaper, there’s nothing “low IQ” or “far right” behind these amendments.
Right to hunt and fish amendments are considered a “sportsperson's bill of rights” enshrined into state constitutions. The bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen Foundation says these measures “guarantee their citizens a right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife and to continue a consumptive, yet responsible, use of natural resources.”
Similar amendments have successfully passed in 23 states nationwide–in both red states and blue states. Vermont became the first to enshrine this measure in 1777 while Utah is the most recent state to pass one in 2020. If Florida voters approve this next year, 24 states will protect hunting and fishing as a constitutional right.
Does this sound “low information” and “far right” at all? Hardly.
There's a legitimate reason for America's hunters and anglers to support these amendments. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), hardly a far-right outfit, explains: "Increasing urbanization, decreased habitat, declining numbers of sportsmen, and more restrictions on hunting are common factors in the quest to assert the right to hunt and fish in a state's most basic and difficult-to-amend document."
In March 2023, Representative Lauren Melo, the lead sponsor of the Florida House of Representatives resolution, exclusively shared with Townhall the urgency of passing this measure, saying, "Currently, states are trying to pass ballot initiatives to ban and criminalize fishing and hunting. The passage of this bill will ensure that it doesn't happen in Florida. As the daughter of an avid sportsman, I had the blessing to grow up with the value of these traditions. I believe our future generations deserve and will benefit greatly from the same opportunities."
Rep. Melo isn’t wrong. As I’ve extensively documented here at Townhall, there are well-organized movements and campaigns to divorce hunters and anglers from wildlife management decisions.
I warned in November 2022: “Make no mistake: Threats to these American pastimes are more pervasive now than ever. Radical preservationists have engaged in hunter harassment and beefed up efforts to reimagine wildlife agencies to exclude sporting activities that predominantly fund conservation projects.”
One of the groups pushing this divorce is Wildlife for All - an organization that bills itself as a “national campaign to reform state wildlife management to be more ecological, democratic, and compassionate.” Wildlife for All, unsurprisingly, boasts former employees of radical preservationist and anti-hunting outfits like the Humane Society, the Sierra Club, Wildearth Guardians, and Project Coyote, for instance.
The mission statement is equally troubling and reads like this: “The fundamental problem is that state wildlife management is stuck in the past, focused more on satisfying hunters and anglers and selling licenses than addressing the extinction crisis. It is rooted in a worldview in which wild animals are seen as soulless resources without intrinsic or ecological values, whose highest purpose is to serve human needs and whims. It is out of touch with changing public attitudes and modern ecological science.”
Are Florida’s sportsmen and women “low-information” and “far right” for wanting to challenge groups like Wildlife for All? Not in the slightest.
Is the Sun Sentinel aware that 4 million licensed resident and non-resident anglers contribute $13.8 billion annually to the state economy? Or how about appreciating the 273,000 licensed and non-resident hunters who spend $1.3 billion on hunting purchases in the state? Instead of misinforming their readers, maybe they should study up on Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson monies–$27 billion to be exact–that are funded by hunters, anglers, boaters, and shooting sports enthusiasts. They should be applauding protection of these pastimes, not deriding efforts of sportsmen and women who want to keep Florida pristine and wild.
Many media outlets have improved their quality of reporting here in recent years. Even NPR recognizes hunters are necessary conservationists.
The Sun Sentinel’s drivel, undoubtedly, sets conservation coverage back years. South Florida anglers and hunters should demand better from their paper of record.