In more rural areas, hunting and fishing are part of life. Even if you don’t do it, you know someone who is in the woods or on the water almost every weekend. They’re posting pictures to social media of the deer they bagged or the monster bass they caught.
They’re the kind of people you look at and might figure will have a really good chance of surviving in the apocalypse because they can probably feed themselves.
Yet is seems that my colleague Gabriella Hoffman, writing at our sister site Townhall, found a newspaper who doesn’t think much of such folks.
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.”
Hoffman is kind of fired up on this one, as she should be.
After all, anyone who hunts or fishes probably would like to know that their right to do so is preserved by their state constitution. It might not stop the feds from stepping in, but states are far more likely infringe on sportsmen’s ability to put food in the freezer than Congress is, for the most part. Having the right preserved will prevent that.
But hey, what do I know? I’m just a guy who grew up hunting and fishing. That makes me a low-information voter, according to the paper.
Yet do you know what information the editorial omitted?
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.
That means the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats supported this measure. That seems rather pertinent information if the editorial board is trying to claim that this is nothing but a way to draw out those rural, outdoorsy Republicans.
I mean, why would so many Democrats in the state legislature actually support that?
The answer, of course, is that they don’t.
This is about hunting and fishing, nothing else. The problem is that it looks like we have an editorial board made up of the kind of people who think anyone who lives outside the city limits of a major metropolitan area is a country bumpkin.
That includes a large number of their readers, it should be noted.