# Nebraska advances hunting protection



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

Nebraska advances hunting protection

By SCOTT BAUER
Associated Press writer

LINCOLN, Neb. -- A proposal to constitutionally protect the right to hunt, fish and trap in Nebraska moved a step closer to passage on Monday, but it may have to wait another year before it's debated again.

The amendment would add a paragraph to the state constitution spelling out that fishing, trapping, and hunting are a "valued part of the heritage of the people and will be a right forever preserved."

Should it pass the Legislature, it would have to be approved by voters next year.

Lawmakers on Monday shot down a filibuster of the measure (LR8CA) before voting 32-9 to advance it from the first of three rounds of debate.

Despite the positive vote, the proposal's sponsor said he was asked by Speaker of the Legislature Kermit Brashear whether further debate could wait until next year. Sen. Ed Schrock of Elm Creek said he would have no problem waiting until then to debate it again.

Because the measure can't be put before voters until the 2006 election anyway, Schrock said there was no reason to push for its passage before lawmakers adjourn in a little over a month.

Brashear said he needed to speak with Schrock again before commenting on whether the amendment will be debated again this session or not.

Debating it again this year is sure to take a lot of time, something lawmakers are starting to run out of. Senators spent more than eight hours on the measure in the first round, before voting 36-7 to stop debate. Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers vowed to prolong the debate should it come up again. There are just 23 working days left in the session.

Whether it's up this year or next, Schrock said support is strong.

"By in large, certainly in my area of the state, people say they like the message and what it does," he said.

Most of the opposition for the constitutional hunting protection came from Chambers, who had filed more than 30 amendments in an effort to extend debate. He proposed such things as protecting the right to hunt liberal Martians, the Holy Grail and Amelia Earhart's airplane. Eight of his amendments were voted down, while 26 were still pending at the time debate ended.

Chambers had argued that protecting hunting in the constitution was not needed because no Nebraska Legislature would ever attempt to infringe on those rights. He also said the idea was frivolous and would only clutter the constitution.

There may not be a threat now, but radical animal rights groups are gaining power and assertiveness and could target Nebraska soon, Schrock said. It is better to pass the protection before there is a crisis, he said.

An oft-cited example during the debate was the letter People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent to Gov. Dave Heineman in March that asked him to declare the channel catfish, Nebraska's state fish, off limits to fishing.

Heineman rejected the request.

Eleven other states have similar protections in law or the constitution. Two other states, Rhode Island and California, have amendments protecting the right to fish.

Under the Nebraska amendment, reasonable laws to regulate hunting would be allowed.

There are more than 173,000 licensed hunters and 296,000 licensed fishermen in Nebraska. Schrock has predicted the amendment would garner up to 80 percent voter approval should it make it on the ballot.


http://www.casperstartribune.net/ar.../wyoming/526c12d23624059187256fef0006a17d.txt


----------



## Jerry/NJ (Jan 17, 2003)

This is what all of us as sportspersons should be fighting for and spending less energy on who shoots what bow !! Thanx Tim for posting!


----------



## bhohler (Sep 8, 2004)

Hey Jerry/NJ - You are absolutely correct! I lived in NE for 26 years before moving to Iowa a couple years ago. If you only knew a little bit about Sen. Chambers from Omaha you'd understand why he's the culprit behind keeping the bill from going up for debate.He pulls these stunts all the time in the NE legislature. Thank God he is being forced to retire this year I believe because of term limits - I think he's been in office for 30+ years and if you ask me his leaving is a good thing for sportsman for sure. We'll try to keep you posted as to whether the bill does make it up for debate and eventually on the voter ballot. :smile:


----------

