Lets Purpose An Admendment.

[jdmidwest]

Interesting article from the River Hills Traveler. Seems like the current state of affairs may require citizens to "affirm" their right to Fish and Hunt in the state of MO. Why not, we had to back up the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution with our CCW and Castle laws. Look for future legislation regarding this matter, surely all on here will be for an amendment to our state constitution regarding this matter. And, BTW, politics and sporting rights are intertwined, no matter what anyone says. It really should not have anything to do with politics, but it does.

From the River Hills Traveler online.

Is it necessary to affirm the right to hunt and fish in state constitutions?

“I liked it better when I was hunting birds there,” said the mediator, when he figured out the location of the garages at a Branson condominium. Seven attorneys gathered to attempt to resolve a dispute over rights to use four garages at the condominium.

As the Ozarks and much of rural America becomes suburbanized, many people want to protect their cherished traditions of hunting and fishing. In ten states, citizens have amended their constitutions to affirm the right to hunt and fish. Oklahoma has done so and the proposal is being considered in Arkansas and Tennessee.

As I hear people in the Ozarks express themselves about land and water and fish and game, I hear the same arguments that have been made to affirm the rights of native peoples to continue their hunting and fishing traditions, some of which have been protected from state regulation by federal law.

The Ozarks have been populated by people of mostly European ancestry for nearly 300 years. After many generations, it’s no wonder that members of old Ozarks familes feel like they need to assert themselves to hang on to their culture. And those whose families haven’t been around as long would naturally want to feel secure in their adopted traditions.

[flytyer57]

Wisconsin passed a right to hunt and fish ammendment a long time ago. Every state should do so, if only to keep PETA from trying to deny our rights to our sport.

[Outside Bend]

To me the article sounded a little confused- I'm not sure how an Amendment protecting hunters/anglers rights would keep a developer from turning land into condos- to me that's more of a local zoning issue.

Doesn't MO already have a statute making it unlawful to interfere with hunters and anglers as they pursue their sports? If not, I'd be all for that.

[jdmidwest]

I think that real estate part was just to point out the urban sprawl taking place and the loss of public land for hunting and fishing.

I think the real reason we need the amendment is to protect us from groups like PETA gaining a foothold and stopping us from fishing, hunting, and trapping. Or to protect our Public Lands from being sold off for a profit to private individuals when the Government needs a little cash. A loss of National Forest lands or MDC Property would effect the way the people of MO hunt and fish.

The amendment would be to protect the methods that we use that are coming under fire from special interest groups. Trapping is a hot topic. And if gun activists get their way, no guns to hunt. Gigging is also a targeted method, it is always a hot topic on here. It would help preserve our methods we have currently used for hundreds of years.

[Outside Bend]

I think that real estate part was just to point out the urban sprawl taking place and the loss of public land for hunting and fishing.

I think the real reason we need the amendment is to protect us from groups like PETA gaining a foothold and stopping us from fishing, hunting, and trapping. Or to protect our Public Lands from being sold off for a profit to private individuals when the Government needs a little cash. A loss of National Forest lands or MDC Property would effect the way the people of MO hunt and fish.

The amendment would be to protect the methods that we use that are coming under fire from special interest groups. Trapping is a hot topic. And if gun activists get their way, no guns to hunt. Gigging is also a targeted method, it is always a hot topic on here. It would help preserve our methods we have currently used for hundreds of years.

I understand your point JD, I guess I'm just not sure whether an Amendment would have a tangible effect. The 2nd Amendment exists, and IMO is pretty clearly stated, but the fact that it exists doesn't keep people from attempting to erode it, doesn't mean it goes unchallenged. I guess I just think pro and anti-sportsmen have irreconcilable differences, that wouldn't be solved by adding an Amendment to the Constitution.

[flytyer57]

If I am not mistaken, the reason WI added the ammendment to the state constitution is because PETA was starting to harrass hunters and fisherman. They were actually following hunters into the woods and purposely making noise etc. to ruin the hunt.

Imagine a group of PETA freaks out splashing in the water where you wish to fish and them having every right to do so. With an ammendment to the constitution, they are barred from harrassing hunters and fishermen while in their pursuit of game.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I was taught to close the barn door before the horse gets out.

[Gary Lange]

I understand TN has one on the Ballet for this Nov. Makes it harder for radical movements to take away your rights.

[Zack Hoyt]

TN is not the only one.....

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arkansas_Hunting_Rights_Amendment,_Issue_1_%282010%29

[jdmidwest]

I understand your point JD, I guess I'm just not sure whether an Amendment would have a tangible effect. The 2nd Amendment exists, and IMO is pretty clearly stated, but the fact that it exists doesn't keep people from attempting to erode it, doesn't mean it goes unchallenged. I guess I just think pro and anti-sportsmen have irreconcilable differences, that wouldn't be solved by adding an Amendment to the Constitution.

This is true, all it takes is one Judge to read a law another way and away it goes. But it would not hurt. I think it would carry here in MO, not as many anti's as there are pro's. Our outdoor heritage is pretty clear, but we need something to protect it. Sierra Club and others are moving this way to target some of stuff as we speak.