Monday, November 07, 2016

Right to Hunt Amendment on Ballot for Indiana, Kansas

The right to hunt is something early colonists took seriously.  In England, the right to hunt was limited to the the King and landowners.  Commoners did not have a right to hunt.  In the American colonies, hunting was important for survival.  Vermont included the right to hunt in its constitution in 1777.  The right to hunt was considered for the United States Constitution, but ultimately was not explicitly included.  It falls under the 10th Amendment.

Nineteen states have the right to hunt in their state constitutions.  In the last 20 years, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming have passed amendments to protect the right.  The language in Alaska's Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to hunt, but reserves fish and wildlife for "common use". There is case law that shows this as a protection of the right to hunt and fish.

This year, right to hunt amendments are up for a vote in Indiana and Kansas.

It is Question 1 on Indiana ballot. From
Section 39.
(a) The right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife:

(1) is a valued part of Indiana's heritage; and
(2) shall be forever preserved for the public good.
(b) The people have a right, which includes the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to the laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly to:

(1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and
(2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing.
(c) Hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.
(d) This section shall not be construed to limit the application of any provision of law relating to trespass or property rights.[3]
It is Amendment 1 on the Kansas ballot. From
§21. Right of public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife. The people have the right to hunt, fish and trap, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to reasonable laws and regulations that promote wildlife conservation and management and that preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. This section shall not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights or water resources.[3]
It is hard to say how effective these amendments are.  They allow for management of fish and game resources by the state.  The power to manage is power to eliminate, given the will.  They provide protection against popular and emotional movements to enact laws. As with any constitutional amendment, the can be repealed, misinterpreted or ignored.  The bolster and and enhance the political strength of those who support the rights protected.

They are useful. As long as a strong minority support hunting, they are an aid in protecting the right to hunt.  I support them.  But any Constitutional amendment ultimately depends on the will of the people and strong institutions to support and defend the rights so protected.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch


Anonymous said...

I think it is a very important part of the tenth amendment, we have certain rights that go beyond the bill of rights. In fact any thing not specifically written in the constitution is something the government has no authority over. for instance driving is not specifically an issue written now they call it a privilege feeding your self should not require a license. It has never been a privilege to eat. survival is a basic right. You never needed a license to drive a wagon or a buggy. then we have mandatory insurance. that goes back to the constitutional limitation of the ability of the government to force you to pay more than 20 dollars for anything. like the ACA. In fact a tax is not legal if every body does not pay exactly the same amount of tax as anyone else. Point of sale tax is the only legal tax. You pay the exact same amount of tax on a box of shells that I do. every tax is required to be equally apportioned. Arizona ACA is going up 116% in 2017. other states are going up 54-56%. since 500AD income has not been taxable it is not profit. You only have so many productive years wages are an equal exchange of your time for work done, no profit, investment of those wages is profit. You cot be taxed on what you save. Holding property is not taxable. if you buy the property and sell it for a profit the profit is taxable. If you buy something one year and pay the tax it can not be taxed again. but they do. it is illegal to tax property year after year. the only time real property can grow in value is when you sell it for more than you paid for it. If you never sell it you never make any profit. I do not think I need permission to build a home on my property. I pay point of sale tax on the materials I use to build it. until I sell it there is no profit. this goes on and one and it is how government gets out of control.

Anonymous said...

Since you have a right to hunt how can any state require a license. the state budget should be for paying the game and fish agents. You do not have to be a hunter to enjoy seeing wild life in the wild. when fishing how do you know what is going to take your bait? If it is not what you want throw it back. if you hunt or fish for commercial purposes what you sell can be taxed at point of sale.

Anonymous said...

That a right is on a ballot is a problem in and of itself.

Anonymous said...

This ballot issue is to over turn bad laws. I would vote yes. this is what happens when legislatures do not do their job. It is the way the people tell government what it has done wrong and to correct its mistake. If you take the wrong fish the agents take your fishing gear. I would probably do time for taking it back.