# Constitutional Right to Hunt & Fish



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

If I recall it was voted on by the people and passed by a 4 to 1 margin in Wisconsin a couple of years ago.


----------



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

*The following states have proposed legislation ...*

*Arkansas*

SJR1

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/ftproot/bills/2005/public/sjr1.pdf

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/

-----

*Georgia*

SR67

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/sum/sr67.htm

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/

-----

*Indiana*

HJR4

http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/...sion=1&request=getBill&docno=0004&doctype=HJR

http://www.in.gov/legislative/


-----

*Missouri*

HJR3 and SJR8

http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills051/bills/hjr3.htm

http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills051/bills/sj008.htm

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/

-----

*Montana*

HB225

http://leg.state.mt.us/css/default.asp

-----

*Oklahoma*

http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/2005-06HB/HJR1012_int.rtf

http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/2005-06SB/SJR13_int.rtf

http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/

-----


*Tennessee*

HB284, HJR35, HJR104

http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/HB0284.pdf

http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/HJR0035.pdf

http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/HJR0104.pdf

http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/

-----

*Nebraska*

LR8 NA

http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/

-----

*Ohio*

HJR18 NA ( May be carryover bill from previous session )

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/

-----

*Mississippi* ( failed unfortnately, but could be reintroduced in the future )

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2005/html/history/HC/HC0008.htm

http://www.ls.state.ms.us/


*****

The hsus claims that these legislations are unnecessary claiming that hunting is already legal in those states that have such legislation pending.


----------



## whoa (Apr 5, 2004)

Just one of the Great things about Vermont


----------



## bowriter (Jul 25, 2004)

A note about so called hunting rights ammendments and bills.

Here in TN, we have one or two or three being considered now. But they do nothing. They are of no value. They are pretty language that do not one single thing to protect hunter's rights. There is not one part of them that prohibit anyone, individual or group from filing suit to ban or alter current or future hunting regulations.

I can't speak for the bills in other states, but here, aside from perhaps bringing some attention to the wants of hunters, these bills do nothing to protect hunters and hunter's rights.

What is your take on thebills in other states?



By MATT GOURAS
Associated Press


David Crockett never would have seen it coming.

Some lawmakers are saying Tennessee's hunting and fishing heritage will go the way of the coonskin cap if it isn't protected from animal-rights activists, so they are proposing a constitutional amendment making the tradition a basic right.

Tennessee would join 21 states that have either looked at it or are considering the idea. So far, it has passed in six states, according to the Humane Society of the United States.


Critics say the amendments unfairly give a special interest group protection in the constitution, but supporters say they are needed as the number of hunters around the nation declines.

State Sen. Doug Jackson said hunters are increasingly becoming a minority interest and need basic protections from the ''will of the majority'' — especially as activists pitch anti-hunting laws.

''There are very organized, very well-funded efforts to take away the right of citizens to hunt, fish and trap,'' the Dickson Democrat said. ''I think it's time we place in our constitution a guarantee for the citizen that they will be able to continue in that heritage.''

The amendment is the first effort of the newly formed Sportsmen's Caucus, which Jackson says is growing.

*The proposed amendment would read, in part, ''The people have a right to hunt, fish and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as proscribed by this constitutional and general law.''*
In some states, the measures have failed on criticism that they are superfluous and just bog down constitutions with unneeded language. Others say such amendments could make it hard for state authorities to regulate hunting, and some landowners have worried it might give hunters the right to use private property.

The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency says it is fully behind Jackson's idea but wants to go through the language to make sure it doesn't backfire.

Allen Gebhardt, TWRA assistant director, said state lawyers will make sure the amendment can't be misconstrued, and then they plan on endorsing it. ''It sounds, from our standpoint, like a wonderful idea,'' he said.

Jackson said he expects the measure to get a lot of support. ''I hope that we can get a unanimous vote in the House and Senate.''

Jackson said Tennessee isn't safe from anti-hunting pressures. He pointed to recent efforts to restrict hunting even in places such as Alaska, where a recent campaign urged banning the use of bait in bear hunts.

He said groups such as the Humane Society won't stop there but will try to stop all hunting.

''They have pooled together a massive amount of money, and they have pledged to end hunting within this generation, to put an end to hunting in the United States of America, as well as fishing, as well as trapping,'' Jackson said. ''Well, that's wrong.''

The Humane Society said it isn't trying to stop all hunting, instead focusing on such things as hunting penned animals or using hunting hounds.

The TWRA estimates the number of hunters in Tennessee has been holding steady in recent years at about a million. But as the state population grows, hunters are losing ground as a percentage of the state's voters, Gebhardt said.

In many other states, the number of hunters also is going down.

Even though the Humane Society thinks right-to-hunt measures are ''silly and frivolous,'' it won't try to stop them, said Humane Society spokeswoman Heidi Prescott, in Washington. The group is content to just let hunting ''diminish over time naturally.'' Prescott said fear among hunters that they are losing their clout is driving the initiatives across the country.

Other critics don't like the idea of giving hunters special rights to wildlife. Defenders of Wildlife attorney Susan George, based in Albuquerque, N.M., said wildlife should be managed and preserved for everyone's enjoyment.

''Hunting is, No. 1, a privilege'' and ''a management tool for preservation,'' she said.

''It's not so much about those special interests as managing the wildlife.''


All I can say is its about time ! 

*The proposed amendment would read, in part, ''The people have a right to hunt, fish and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as proscribed by this constitutional and general law.''* 

That is pretty much it. We have the right...which we have now. This is no additional protection from anything. I support the effort but caution not be lulled into thinking it provides any protection from detrimental legislation.


----------



## ELKARCHER (Apr 21, 2003)

One benefit, after the vote, you will know what side your representatives are on.


----------



## xtrembowhntr (Jan 27, 2004)

i looked for PA but could only find that it passed the house (189-11) and had to pass the senate, so i'm not sure. BTW this is a year old.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/02/02-26-04tdc/02-26-04dnews-06.asp


----------



## BigBirdVA (Nov 5, 2002)

Virginia passed it a couple of years ago. And just think, we have the headquarters of peta in our state. Ouch ! !


----------



## 460461whatever (Jan 22, 2005)

*Minnesota has one*

We got ours added more than a president ago. It's not meant to be a firewall against the antis, but a tool to help keep hunting and fishing regulated by science, not the increasing non-hunting public. The citiots all doomed the measure to fail in the vote, but, apperantly, most non-hunters still have personal bonds with some hunters. I think this is a point that HSUS and PETA continue to underestimate.


----------



## freakshow (Jun 20, 2003)

Yup, WI has it as does MI. I know WI's was up to the populous, not the politicians; don't know about MI.


----------

