Wildlife for All joined the list of groups opposed to a proposed Florida constitutional amendment on the ballot in November (2024) that would enshrine hunting and fishing as the preferred method of wildlife management in that state, including “traditional” methods like leghold traps, neck snares, and hunting with hounds. Approximately half of U.S. states currently have Right to Hunt amendments. On the surface, these laws appear uncontroversial to many, as most people generally support the right to hunt and fish for food. However, the push to include these amendments in more states is largely reactionary and aimed around endorsing an outdated status quo of wildlife management prioritizing hunters and hunting. Right to Hunt measures are unnecessary and often deceptively framed.
Groups pushing these amendments include the NRA and organizations promoting the status quo in wildlife management like the Congressional Sportsmen Foundation and the International Order of T. Roosevelt. The Florida Right to Hunt adds language favoring hunting “as preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife” giving preferential treatment to hunters and hunting. Not all methods of hunting sanctioned by state wildlife agencies are favored by the public. Broad wording like “including by the use of traditional methods” endorses practices that garner strong public disapproval but are currently legal in many states, like using hounds and bait to hunt black bears.
The language and motives behind these amendments underscore the importance of understanding the current system in wildlife management and the need for a more democratic, just, and ecological system. WFA opposes these measures because they make it more difficult to pass needed reforms like banning wildlife killing contests, they privilege consumptive users over the public in wildlife matters, and they are unnecessary because there is no serious effort to ban hunting in any state.