Over the weekend, a friend emailed my a link to an article about constitutional amendments to protect hunting that I found to be interesting but dreadfully shallow in content and lacking in anything grounded in reality.
The foundation of the piece seemed to be about why there was a need for states to enact constitutional amendments in order to guarantee citizens of their states the right to hunt, fish and trap. Not only does the author not grasp the reality of what outdoor sportsmen are facing, some of the outdoor sportsmen themselves seem to be living in a vacuum.
The article begins, “The idea of enshrining hunting and fishing rights in state constitutions is sweeping the country even though supporters and hunters themselves acknowledge that no one is trying to in pry rifles from their hands.” I wish the author had decided to get out a bit more and talk with those of us fully aware of the billions of dollars being spent every day by environmentalists and animal rights groups to put an end to hunting, fishing and trapping.
One “hunter” from Nebraska, interviewed for the article states: “I haven’t seen anyone on a local level holding up signs in front of the public area saying we’re a bunch of evil-doers.”
I have never seen anyone openly walking about the United States of America holding up signs that say, “End all our Rights Now” but that doesn’t mean it isn’t being done. We have had more government intrusion in our lives in the past 3 years and with it comes a stripping away of our God-given rights but it doesn’t take picket signs to make it happen. It requires ignorance, denial and sitting quietly by letting it happen.
PETA attempts to deflect away from any search for truth by delving into seeming absurdity stating that if states allow amendments to protect hunting, then, “why not a right to shop and golf?” Sounds silly but right now I am not aware of anyone trying to stop shopping and golf directly but don’t bet your future that it won’t happen sooner than you think.
Constitutional amendments for individual states can become a very beneficial thing if written properly and carried out in a serious fashion. There really are no disadvantages to having such an amendment, unless you are one of those who want to end hunting.
Constitutional amendments to protect hunting must at a minimum contain the words that citizens of that state are guaranteed the right to hunt, fish and trap. It must be recognized as a heritage worth protecting. In addition, wording must be such that the amendment forces the fish and game department to manage its fish and game resources for surplus harvest opportunities for its citizens. I would also strongly urge wording in which the state supports the North American Game Management model and that it would even go as far as to state that “natural regulation” is a fallacy and will not be considered a part of any wildlife management tool until overwhelming science proves otherwise. This, of course, would never happen, so let’s just leave it out.
Once an amendment is passed, it will accomplish some, much or all of the following:
1. It will limit the actions of environmentalists and animal rights groups to file countless lawsuits all aimed at ending and/or limiting hunting, fishing and trapping opportunity. History is quite clear in this. States with constitutional amendments see far fewer senseless lawsuits than those without.
2. A constitutional amendment forces fish and game departments to manage game species for surplus management. This is a problem all across America. Money paid by license holders is being used for non game programs while allowing management of game species such as deer, moose and elk to suffer terribly. Fish and game departments must be accountable for their actions if they are unable to uphold the mandate of a constitutional amendment to manage for surplus harvest.
3. A forcing of the way in which fish and game departments manage will accomplish many things. For one, it will automatically change the dynamic make up of the leadership staff all the way down the line to the lowliest of state employees. A head of any fish and game department, knowing he or she must abide by the amendment, will surround himself with staff who can accomplish that goal or run the risk of being fired.
In addition, if the wording of any amendment discredited the term and use of “natural regulation”, then those biologists who have wrongfully espoused to such nonsense will have difficulty finding a job. This could have a cascading affect all the way back to the colleges potential biologists attend. If graduates can’t get hired because they are being taught garbage, perhaps it will force the colleges to change what they teach. Idealistic? Perhaps but it will certainly have its effects.
4. A constitutional amendment, in my opinion, would help to restore the reason why we have managed fish and game. If you investigate nearly every fish and game department’s programs across this nation, you will, no doubt, see that each state manages its “wildlife” according to the pressures of societal demands. No, I’m not kidding. What used to be a hidden agenda is now very much in the open. Fish and game departments readily admit that much of their management decisions are based on what the demands are by our society, for example: wildlife viewing, car accidents, human/wildlife encounters, property destruction, etc. With each passing year, the societal demands increase and change. Where’s the science behind all this?
While it’s easy to understand the concern for reducing say, deer populations because too many people are dying from collisions, it seems difficult for people to understand why we should have unhealthy levels of wolves so more people can view them. Makes little sense.
So, with a fish and game department with a different mandated direction in which it must manage its wildlife, the domino effect could be far reaching.
5. A constitutional amendment would give stronger reasons why anti hunting activists should not have a seat on any fish and game commission. Their agendas become more exposed and their efforts at incrementally stripping away hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities is that much more difficult.
6. With a constitutional amendment, the message is sent loud and clear by the citizens that they support and recognize hunting, trapping and fishing as part of their heritage. As such it makes it that much harder for anti gun activists and all efforts toward limiting which animals can be harvested or the methods in which those animals can be harvested, to accomplish.
Instead of people, including journalists and hunters, sitting around saying we don’t need a constitutional amendment to protect our hunting heritage, I suggest a bit more eye opening exercises and a better understanding how things have changed over the years that has brought us to this point.
As an example, the same friend who sent me the link to the above mentioned article, also reminded me of the countless number of states that have found it necessary to enact anti hunter harassment legislation. Here is only one such example from Maine. If nobody wants to shut down hunting, then why is there a need for legislation to protect hunters who go into the field? To me, these are very big picket signs. I suppose one just needs to open their eyes.
Tom Remington
