Idaho To Consider “Right To Hunt” Amendment
March 5, 2008
Something the state of Idaho has tried before and failed, the state will once again consider an amendment to its constitution to protect the citizen’s right to hunt, fish and trap. HJR003 is a joint resolution that if passed – requiring a 2/3 majority of both Houses – would then become listed on the ballot this coming November. If it makes it that far, a simple majority of voters is all it would take to pass it.
Here’s what the amendment would look like.
SECTION 23. RIGHT TO HUNT, FISH, TRAP AND HARVEST. The people have the right to hunt, fish, trap and harvest wild game, subject to reasonable rules adopted in accordance with state law. Consistent with the state of Idaho’s duty to protect this valued heritage and to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage wild mammals, birds and fish, traditional methods used to take species not protected by federal law are reserved to the people. Public hunting, fishing and
trapping shall be the preferred means of managing and controlling species not protected by federal law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any other provisions of the constitution, common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain or any other property rights, or to establish expressly or by implication any minimum amount of water in any stream, river, lake, reservoir or other watercourse or water body.
This amendment was drafted with the assistance of the National Rifle Association Hunter Rights Organization and its expert legal staff and is being sponsored by those listed below.
Rep. Lawerence Denney
Rep. Mike Moyle
Rep. Mary Hagedorn
Rep. Rich Wills
Rep. Scott Bedke
Rep. Steve Kren
Sen. Robert Geddes
Sen. Dean Cameron
Sen. Monty Pearce
Sen. Steve Bair
Sen. Mel Richardson
Sen. Curt McKenzie
Rep. Marv Hagedorn writes about the proposed amendment at his blog.
You can contact members of the House Resources and Conservation Committee by following this link. Or you can contact your representative using this link.
If you don’t know your senator or congressman, use this link to find the name then use the above link to contact them.
Tom Remington
Most Commented Posts
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
This amendment was drafted with the assistance of the National Rifle Association Hunter Rights Organization and its expert legal staff
Sounds pretty good to me!
I say everyone take action in each state and get something like this passed. Got to fight for what we believe…
Tom, I went on ASK.com looking for how many states now have right to fish and hunt protections enacted. I have not been able to get a complete list yet. But I did come across this from 1998 put out by the Anti-Hunting crowd. In the interest of fair? debate it might be worth a look.
The hunting community is on a great crusade to establish the right to hunt.
http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/cc98fa-hunt.html
Political pressure brought to bear! That’s OUR NRA/ILA in action. We can make the difference.
zRepresentative Arthur ONeill (Arthur.ONeill@housegop.ct.gov)
Sent: Wed 3/05/08 2:08 PM
To: George
Dear George,
Thank you for taking the time to contact my office to express your opposition to any new anti-gun legislation. Although I have not yet reviewed the particular bills that you mentioned, I believe that James Madison and the other members of the First Congress made the right decision when they adopted the 2nd Amendment and I generally do not support any restrictions placed on it as most criminals are not deterred by anti-gun laws. Instead I continue to support funding for the Anti-Gun Trafficking Taskforce which has successfully removed illegal weapons and the criminals who buy, sell and use them from Connecticut’s streets. Thanks again for your email,
Arthur O’Neill
State Representative
All you have to do is contact your legislators. I did on this issue this morning. They will get back to you!
Steve, I’m not from Conn. But read that proposed legislation to pass micro stamping and serial numbered ammo technologies was being considered. I just had to voice my opposition. Was glad to get the responce I got. It’s not only Idaho’s right to hunt it’s an attack from all sides. In all states! So don’t hesitate to cross borders we are the United States.
George – I have never been able to put together a comprehensive list of all states that have constitutional amendments. But here’s a brief history as I understand it.
Back in the 1990s there was a rush with some states, many of which were mentioned in the article you cited, to implement constitutional protections for hunting, fishing and trapping. I think the effort died about as fast as it got started for many of the same lame reasons the person in that article mentioned.
It is clear and is pointed out in this article, that one thing the animal rights groups face is constitutional protection of the right to hunt, fish and trap. And because of such, they mounted the campaign to convince people, mostly the lawmakers, that if they do this, a domino effect will happen from losing the Endangered Species Act, to allowing criminals to have guns, to forcing states to allow hunting even when there are no more animals and is some cases, like Idaho, a debate ensued about whether such an amendment would require to stoppage of water flow to the citizenry if it was deemed necessary to keep fish numbers high enough to provide that right.
Sensible people know all of these claims are ridiculous and are and were effective scare tactics.
The only thing that I am aware of that has perhaps changed with states that implemented a right to hunt, fish and trap is that it certainly eased some of the lawsuits filed by animal rights groups. I believe that this is the driving force behind most who advocate for such amendments.
We outdoor sportsmen are sitting by watching as wildlife management is being taken over by animal rights, non-consumptive proponents and those who believe in “natural wildlife management”. The hope is such laws will help curb that.
Here’s one for the Doe’s, good website link. They sure have a way with twisting the truth, to make their agenda seem, very palatable. “There is no biological reason for hunting” is what one of the comments said. “Attitudes towards the killing of animals have changed.” The main reason people’s attitudes have changed, is because of a very biased media, who constantly bombards the public with anti-hunting rhetoric. We’ve let this go on long enough, and now our side starting to rise up take political action, before “they” put so many “pitfalls” in front of us, that we’ll lose our hunting heritage.
I don’t think the “Founding Fathers” even thought about this issue of “hunting” as a right, in the Constitution, because it is a “natural given.” The thought that a person, doesn’t have the right to harvest a wild animal (with-in reason) to feed his family, seems anti-human. I do know people who grow a garden and have fruit trees and hunt for their main sustenance. The antis would like these people on “welfare”, so the government can take care of them, how they see fit. By the way George, you did not need to apologize for your comments to Bea, thanks for saying what you said.
Thanks Paul D