The Real Story Behind Florida's Amendment 2
The Constitutional Right to hunt and fish? What's this all about?
Guest Author Deanna Brinkley submitted an article with insightful commentary on FL’s Amendment 2: The Right to Hunt and Fish. If you’ve already voted yes on this, don’t despair! This article is written to INFORM those who haven’t voted, and then ENCOURAGE all of us to start paying attention to the many ways the State and Federal Agencies will try to seize power “for our own good.”
Let’s keep our eyes and ears open to the many ways our lives are impacted by our votes.
AMENDMENT 2: What’s This All About?
The case for Florida's Amendment 2 - The Right to Hunt and Fish - centers on the concern that this cherished pastime could one day come to an end. Many individuals are fueled by the anxiety and fear that the government and environmentalists may threaten their ability to engage in traditional hunting and fishing practices, so much they rallied together to write new legislation in hopes that it can become a new constitutional law.
Conversely, some people express concern that the terminology "traditional methods" and "preferred means" within the amendment is vague, potentially leading to the overturning of the fishing gill net ban.
One of the amendment's proponents suggests that individuals should even lock their doors at home to "protect" themselves and their families from "potential" harm, urging them to "prepare" for possible threats that could arise.
While both sides present compelling arguments, one perspective highlights that the government wields too much power and can alter legislative laws as the current protections exist only as statutes, not as constitutional rights. On the other hand, some advocate for regulatory agencies to enforce rules — Isn't this still the same GOVERNMENT?
Whether you believe there is something to fear for the future or amending the constitution is acceptable, which is a separate topic altogether - one I personally don't agree with - I would like to offer an additional perspective on this issue.
Chevron Deference
In June of this year the Chevron Deference case was overturned. You may ask what that is?!
The deference, set in 1984 in a case involving the oil giant, gave federal agencies wide powers to interpret laws and decide the best ways to apply them.
In ending the deference, the conservative-majority court has slashed and severely weakened the powers of agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency.
The court decided in 1984 that judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous parts of statutes. The idea was that if Congress passes a law where something is unclear - or there is a “gap” - it is up to an agency to fill in the gap.
In practice, that gave arms of the federal government such as the Environmental Protection Agency the freedom to create and implement rules without fear of protracted legal battles.
Overreach of Commercial Fishing Vessels
In 2020 the Federal government's National Marine Fisheries Service rule required commercial fishing vessels to carry onboard observers to monitor fishing, and pay costs for the observers contracted by NMFS, at up to $700 a day. The fishing vessels did not have a choice - it was illegal to fish without federal monitors on board to check on the Atlantic fishery, an area that extends from Maine to North Carolina. They previously didn't pay for the monitors.
By giving executive agencies more freedom to implement laws, it vastly expanded the power of the federal bureaucracy.
It pitted the owners of a New England fishing company against a federal agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) but the company argued that NMFS had no authority to force it to do so.
A district court disagreed, reasoning that Congress left that question open for the agency to decide. Applying Chevron, the court deferred to NMFS’s choice that the boat owner should pay. A federal appeals court affirmed this decision.
Fishermen protested the agency saying it was appointing itself power without Congressional authority to impose a new fee. NMFS waived the rule in early 2023 as the agency ran short of money to administer the program. Imagine that the government ran out of money and POOF the iron chains were removed!
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said,“Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities, courts do."
Chevron Conclusion
Regulations do not trump - no pun intended - laws!
Government cannot Interpret the law. Courts or legislation are now the determining factors going forward not the alphabet agencies.
Who is the FWC?
The Florida Wildlife Conservation (FWC) has traditionally served as the regulatory agency overseeing fishing and hunting. The authors argue that FWC should be granted constitutional authority, positioning themselves as the experts based on scientific evidence. Their concern is that a government official or politician could easily alter a statute, so they want to amend the constitution. But by doing that the FWC would transition from being mere regulators to wielding significant authority - the King over the peasant fisherman and hunters.
You might wonder why would this be problematic? FWC collects the data, and they claim to have the comprehensive knowledge and skills in this area - Yeah so did Fauci!
First Hand Knowledge
I speak from personal experience. My husband has been in the fishing industry for over 35 years spanning from the eastern seaboard to Florida. He also transitioned into the aquaculture farming business. The regulations imposed by FWC have stifled the industry and cost many their livelihoods. This forced his transition from one fishery to another as they were continually shutting them down at their own whim.
The data collected by FWC to justify their regulatory decisions often raises questions. Those sitting in their Eiffel Tower offices don’t always have a clear understanding of the realities on the ground. A prime example of this is the net ban, a decision that has sparked considerable controversy and might be many layers deep.
Florida's Net Ban
The Florida recreational fishing industry and state politicians, in their infinite wisdom, decided commercial fishermen were catching too many of "their" fish. They brought in organizers from out of state to promote a ban on gill nets in Florida.
On July 1, 1995, the majority of commercial fishing in Florida came to a halt. This was done in the guise of conservation, but in reality the politicians figured the recreational fishery was more economically valuable to the state than commercial fishing.
Did the banning of gill nets have any positive effect on the number of fish swimming in Florida waters? Are there any more fish than there were 16 years ago? Ask anyone out there who's been fishing that long and I'm sure you will hear a resounding "no." The biggest effect is that most Floridians are buying their “fresh" seafood from China, or on the black market!
The ban resulted in alterations to both the size and style of the nets used by fishermen. As a consequence of these changes, there has been an increase in by-catch death due to the regulated smaller mesh sizes. Fishermen once again shake their heads, grappling with the realities of the science on the ground.
Additionally, another aspect of the ban was the residents living in their million-dollar waterfront mansions, who were annoyed to see these fishing vessels at work out in front of their homes. Isn’t that part of the charm of living in Florida?
The potential conflicts of interest and corporate connections may also play a part in contributing to the influence of these regulatory agencies to adjust policies in favor of those who are doling out the dollars. If you delve into the financial backing of this project, you’ll find names like Wilton Simpson and Big Sugar. While that may sound positive at first glance, a closer inspection of who they are reveals a more complicated truth about their possible incentives.
My Final Thought
While we may never know the true motivations or behind-the-scenes mechanics of this amendment, I want to draw your attention to an important point: we have a new sheriff in town. The overturning of the Chevron case is significant!
Government agencies can no longer impose regulations on us simply because they dislike a particular agenda or oppose the actions of a group. Only legislation has the authority to enforce such changes.
Whether this ruling is intended to benefit power-seeking individuals or to safeguard our rights, it’s crucial that we comprehend its implications and reevaluate our legislators and their thinking in light of this new development. This decision has stripped power from our weaponized alphabet agencies. However, they are likely to seek new loopholes, scapegoats, and marketing strategies to instill fear in order to regain control over us.
I will be voting "NO" on this amendment. In my view, there is no compelling argument to justify the fear of losing our fishing and hunting rights at this time. We are already over regulated, which undermines many of our freedoms. I am baffled as to why we are attempting to amend the Florida Constitution in the first place.
Meanwhile, children are being trafficked, and schools are either promoting or failing to challenge the agenda that suggests sexual relations with anyone—regardless of age or gender—are acceptable. I believe we have more pressing battles to fight, and this is not one of them. We have a country to save!