I fish and have never worried about my ability to fish being taken away. Amendment 2 sounds like just another effort by the Fl legislature to misdirect. They are hoping to get Floridians up in arms about a non-existant threat while selling out their state to developers and other big money interests. The only threat to my ability to fish is the overdevelopment of Florida that is destroying our ecosystem.
I love how we talked for 6 minutes and not one time said what the bill actually DOES HELP ME OUT, LEGISLATOR: if this bill passes today and I'm going out on my boat tomorrow morning, how does my day change? The only thing this bill will do is embolden people to break regulations (ie keep small fish) and then when FWC arrests them and give them thousands of dollars in fines, said person will pay thousands to lawyers to go to court to be told the amendment is too vague to support their actions. This seems like a symbolic good-will sentiment amendment to make people think highly of one party. Empty nothingness
Clever approach, by instituting this into the Florida constitution it opens up multiple possibilities for fishing and hunting interests to circumvent the laws currently in place. This is another example of the Florida Legislature working with large commercial parties to reap even larger profits. Everyone needs to remember it was just a short time ago that a whistleblower came forth and exposed the Governor and Florida Legislature trying to sell off our State parks to hotel and golf course developers in order to garnish favors with these cash rich sources.
If i don't know what a bill intends, i vote no. If it is purposely worded to be vague, then it will likely be used as a means to benefit special interests
The right to hunt and fish in the Florida Constitution. Amendment 2 is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Over time it will be a tool to overregulate and eventually take our rights away as outdoorsman. The biggest threat to our lifestyle is development.
@@FL_FowlMouthOutdoorsI tend to agree. Everyone is interpreting it as in shining our right to fish. But what it is _actually_ doing is guaranteeing FWC's authority. Smoke screen
If you stand for something then explain what it is. Say why you stand for it and be clear and firm. I just listen to your video and I don't even know what you stand for. You keep cya. What is amendment? 2? Why do you support it in detail? Why is it being resisted in detail? Just say it plain out. Simple facts. I watched your video and I don't know what you're going to do or why?
The problem right now is the over regulation of the resource completely shutting down a species for recreational harvest while the commercial fisherman Are loading the boat with the same species it's not the way to do it you should be allowed to at least retain one of the species not zero going out all the time and coming back with nothing doesn't fly with me and this does nothing to prevent that from happening I will be voting no
So what you’re saying is voting no will put restrictions on the amount of fish or say deer someone can hunt or fish? Serious question. I like to fish but I don’t hunt I also don’t want people killing 15 deer and/or over fishing a species of fish. Am I understanding correctly that voting NO means they will still have regulations? Am I sounding stupid? 🤦♀️😂
@@Ijustwanttobegood4someone That's correct, voting no means you are not in favor of Amendment 2. A no vote means current regulations will stay as they are and fishing and hunting will not be a constitutional right, and instead the current statute/regulations protecting fishing and hunting will remain.
Miami Herald Editorial Board advises voting NO on Amendment 2. No idea who this guy is but he has no idea about the history of wildlife conservations in Florida.
The Miami Herald advocating NO is of no surprise. The amendment enshrines the right to fish and hunt in the State Constitution. FWC will continue to manage all aspects of fishing and hunting, including restrictions that are in place, seasonal hunts, preservation, etc. Right now it’s a statute that CAN be changed via legislation. Mr. Rizzo is a good dude. He was a school counselor of mine growing up. I’ll vote YES 😉
Why is this needed? Are hunting and fishing under attack? I need to read the proposed amendment. I don’t like changes to the constitution unless absolutely necessary.
I really don't understand why we need this amendment and this guy did not help me to decide anything. A lot oF talk but NO explanation. The regulations are so strict now with seasons, size limits, and qty limits that when I go fishing it is only for catch and relaese, but the comercial fisher with nets pretty much takes everything. The every day angler like myself cannot catch anything to eat, fishing is just for sport, not for food. If you want to eat fish, go to the fish market and save $$ by not having a boat and fishing gear.
So, obviously there are preexisting laws in FL. How does a Constitutional Amendment affect those laws? I'm no rocket scientist but my hunch is any law current or new would be open to challenge to determine it's Constitutionality. Sounds like another subsidized income stream to the legal industry. But what do I know I've just been observing nonsense for 51 years.
Just protects our rights..making it in the constitution of the state. So..in future, can't be taken away. Still.. all laws currently pertaining to this will continue be in effect
Dumb bill. Serves no purpose and wastes our time and energy on something that is working just fine and not resolving any real problems like insurance prices.
with the amount of red tide fish kills . fish limits should be doubled what a waste of resourses no resident of florida should have to puchase a fishing liscense only speciacel permits for game fish . charters should be charged a lot more to make money off state residents resourses. and only non floridians should be required to purchase a fishing license
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 84 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องศึก vs เมืองไทย"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3kuzsAIDf1c/mqdefault.jpg)
Are you kidding me legislators ??fix the problems like escalating homeowners insurance , health care, immigration, child care, seniors....
I fish and have never worried about my ability to fish being taken away. Amendment 2 sounds like just another effort by the Fl legislature to misdirect. They are hoping to get Floridians up in arms about a non-existant threat while selling out their state to developers and other big money interests. The only threat to my ability to fish is the overdevelopment of Florida that is destroying our ecosystem.
That way when they destroy the ecosystem they can say they were over fished or over hunted
Right On !
Only way to put it destroying our ecosystem
PREACH
I love how we talked for 6 minutes and not one time said what the bill actually DOES
HELP ME OUT, LEGISLATOR: if this bill passes today and I'm going out on my boat tomorrow morning, how does my day change?
The only thing this bill will do is embolden people to break regulations (ie keep small fish) and then when FWC arrests them and give them thousands of dollars in fines, said person will pay thousands to lawyers to go to court to be told the amendment is too vague to support their actions.
This seems like a symbolic good-will sentiment amendment to make people think highly of one party. Empty nothingness
Clever approach, by instituting this into the Florida constitution it opens up multiple possibilities for fishing and hunting interests to circumvent the laws currently in place. This is another example of the Florida Legislature working with large commercial parties to reap even larger profits. Everyone needs to remember it was just a short time ago that a whistleblower came forth and exposed the Governor and Florida Legislature trying to sell off our State parks to hotel and golf course developers in order to garnish favors with these cash rich sources.
Vote no 👎 no 2
A lot of talking but it felt like he said nothing.
Same
Yup
Whole lot of nothing
If i don't know what a bill intends, i vote no. If it is purposely worded to be vague, then it will likely be used as a means to benefit special interests
My town banned fishing from the beach.would this lift that ban?
The right to hunt and fish in the Florida Constitution. Amendment 2 is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Over time it will be a tool to overregulate and eventually take our rights away as outdoorsman. The biggest threat to our lifestyle is development.
The first i’ve heard this take. Why do you think this is a possibility?
@@FL_FowlMouthOutdoorsI tend to agree.
Everyone is interpreting it as in shining our right to fish.
But what it is _actually_ doing is guaranteeing FWC's authority.
Smoke screen
If you stand for something then explain what it is. Say why you stand for it and be clear and firm. I just listen to your video and I don't even know what you stand for. You keep cya. What is amendment? 2? Why do you support it in detail? Why is it being resisted in detail? Just say it plain out. Simple facts. I watched your video and I don't know what you're going to do or why?
What does this amendment change? I still don’t understand the objective if ppl already have the right to hunt and fish. I’m skeptical
The problem right now is the over regulation of the resource completely shutting down a species for recreational harvest while the commercial fisherman Are loading the boat with the same species it's not the way to do it you should be allowed to at least retain one of the species not zero going out all the time and coming back with nothing doesn't fly with me and this does nothing to prevent that from happening I will be voting no
So what you’re saying is voting no will put restrictions on the amount of fish or say deer someone can hunt or fish? Serious question. I like to fish but I don’t hunt I also don’t want people killing 15 deer and/or over fishing a species of fish. Am I understanding correctly that voting NO means they will still have regulations? Am I sounding stupid? 🤦♀️😂
@@Ijustwanttobegood4someone yes or no it dont matter big gov got control
@@Ijustwanttobegood4someone That's correct, voting no means you are not in favor of Amendment 2. A no vote means current regulations will stay as they are and fishing and hunting will not be a constitutional right, and instead the current statute/regulations protecting fishing and hunting will remain.
@@fishydubsfishing6516 agree
Miami Herald Editorial Board advises voting NO on Amendment 2. No idea who this guy is but he has no idea about the history of wildlife conservations in Florida.
The Miami Herald advocating NO is of no surprise. The amendment enshrines the right to fish and hunt in the State Constitution. FWC will continue to manage all aspects of fishing and hunting, including restrictions that are in place, seasonal hunts, preservation, etc. Right now it’s a statute that CAN be changed via legislation. Mr. Rizzo is a good dude. He was a school counselor of mine growing up.
I’ll vote YES 😉
Platitudes mean nothing - READ the amendments for yourself.
The amendment is so vague that I had to find someone to explain it
There are not alot of panthers. They are in danger. Are you talking about unlimited, anytime, any animal? That is not acceptable.
If this passes, would we still need to purchase a fishing license?
Yes
Why is this needed? Are hunting and fishing under attack? I need to read the proposed amendment. I don’t like changes to the constitution unless absolutely necessary.
Invent a problem then become the solution. Same play as always.
My town banned fishing from the beach.
I really don't understand why we need this amendment and this guy did not help me to decide anything. A lot oF talk but NO explanation. The regulations are so strict now with seasons, size limits, and qty limits that when I go fishing it is only for catch and relaese, but the comercial fisher with nets pretty much takes everything. The every day angler like myself cannot catch anything to eat, fishing is just for sport, not for food. If you want to eat fish, go to the fish market and save $$ by not having a boat and fishing gear.
So, obviously there are preexisting laws in FL. How does a Constitutional Amendment affect those laws? I'm no rocket scientist but my hunch is any law current or new would be open to challenge to determine it's Constitutionality. Sounds like another subsidized income stream to the legal industry. But what do I know I've just been observing nonsense for 51 years.
But its on the ballot. Awful lot of trouble to go thru without checking these things.
Just protects our rights..making it in the constitution of the state. So..in future, can't be taken away. Still.. all laws currently pertaining to this will continue be in effect
Vote No
What's with the flash of a woman at 3:20
So weird
i think he's talking on a zoom call
Dumb bill. Serves no purpose and wastes our time and energy on something that is working just fine and not resolving any real problems like insurance prices.
with the amount of red tide fish kills . fish limits should be doubled what a waste of resourses no resident of florida should have to puchase a fishing liscense only speciacel permits for game fish . charters should be charged a lot more to make money off state residents resourses. and only non floridians should be required to purchase a fishing license
A lot of talking and no explanation for how short and easy it is to read.. sounds fishy
Bro we can already do all those things, they just want to make a profit off killing our wildlife