In today's East Valley Tribune:

LEGISLATORS PUSH TO MAKE HUNTING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

State Commission Opposes Measure

By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services

Some state lawmakers want to make the ability to hunt and fish a constitutional right in hopes of keeping their colleagues - and voters - from deciding that people shouldn't be killing certain animals.

The measure approved on a 6-3 margin Wednesday by the House Committee on Natural Resources and Public Safety would raise hunting from a privilege to a right.

That measure, which now goes to the full House, would require voter approval in November.

Wednesday's vote came over the objection of the Game and Fish Commission, the state board that now regulates the sport. Commissioner Jennifer Martin said her agency wants hunting and fishing protected.

But, she said making both sports a constitutionally protected right would preclude her agency from adopting rules and regulations, including specifying when certain game can be taken to placing limits on how many animals any hunter can kill.

But Todd Rathner, a board member of the National Rifle Association, said his organization does not believe a constitutional amendment will undermine the commission.

What it would do, he said, is throw roadblocks in the path of those who would limit what hunters now can do.

Making hunting a constitutional right, Rathner said, would keep future Arizona legislators from passing any laws imposing new limits.

It would not ban voter initiatives. But a statutory change currently requires 153,365 valid signatures; it takes 230,047 names on petitions to alter a constitutional provision.

The constitutional protection in HCR 2037 would be subject "only to reasonable regulations and restrictions specifically prescribed by the Legislature".

Sandy Bahr, lobbyist for the Sierra Club, said that removes the ability of Game and Fish members to enact rules based on what they believe is the proper amount of hunting and fishing justified each season and instead, give it to lawmakers.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Personally, I have mixed reaction to this bill. Hate to see government get involved with the hunting and fishing. Presently, the G&F is an independent entity which is neither funded by the State, nor answers to any governmental agency, including the governor. The Commissioners are elected and/or appointed by the governor (1 member only) and is funded strictly by license sales and a $10,000,000 yearly allotment from the state lottery commission, as voted upon and approved by the voters.

My main concern is if it becomes a constitutional right, how will it affect the poaching and loss of privileges by game violators?

Maybe this one is well intentioned, but needs careful thought before becoming law.

Hadn't heard of this one before. I'd have to think long and hard about this kind of thing if it came up in my state. I like a certain aspect of the concept, but my first impression is that G&F's position that they wouldn't be able to regulate seasons, bag limits, etc. might be right. Like you, I'd also be a little concerned about poaching (would there even be such a thing?) and such. Can you imagine the legislature itself having to enact law each year for season changes, GMU boundary changes, and such things? Or does this simply bring G&F under the Legislature's control? Then they'd simply have to ratify G&F's regs each year (just like ALL state agencies' reg changes must be approved each year in Idaho). Very interesting proposal.

Boy, what a can of worms that sounds like.

Well, shows what I know. This very thing IS a proposed state constitutional amendment here in Idaho. Must just be a nat'l NRA-sponsored thing, huh? I'm still not sure how I feel about it.

I don't see how it would have any affect whatsoever on bag limits and that kind of thing, although it might make the business of hunting licenses a sticky business. I don't see how it would keep the powers from be from keeping bag limits and that sort of thing - those things are there for the protection and conservation of the ecosystem. To me, they are separate issues. Yes, you have every right to hunt, but no, that doesn't mean that you can randomly kill as many things as you want - there have to be some restrictive measures somewhere.

But, could a person then say, "I don't have to buy a hunting license - I already have the right to hunt guaranteed by the constitution"? It's an interesting scenario to say the least.

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure that Wisconsin passed a law making hunting a Right.

Take Care

Roy

Governments do not create rights. Rights come from the creator, and in the US, the government is supposed to recognize and protect rights that preexisted the formation of the state. The Supreme Court said as much in the 19th century when it stated that the right to keep and bear arms preexisted the 2nd amendment.

Hunting may be an unenumerated right that deserves to be recognized and protected by the state. Or it may be a privilege like driving. Interesting idea.

Hunting should be a right...not a privelage. It is our survival instinct, you can't take it away from us.