Allow me to present your new right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, added to Article 1, section 39 of our Constitution by a 2.3 million Hoosiers.
Sec. 39. Hunting and fishing
¯\_(?)_/¯
A friend of mine asked whether this amendment could be construed to eliminate licensing. My response, probably not, but maybe! The actual language says:
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.
Does that eliminate licensing? Let’s work through it.
On the one hand, it says people have the right to hunt and fish. It’s a right. Can’t stop me from exercising my right, you statist bastards!
On the other hand, it says that the right is subject to the laws of the General Assembly. Whoops. The statist bastards win again.
But, on the third hand, it says that the laws have to be passed “to promote conservation and management & preserve the future of hunting and fishing.” So, maybe someone could argue that the licensing law isn’t “to promote conservation, management, and/or the future or hunting and fishing.” Rights restored!
BUT, on the fourth hand, this section “shall not be construed to limit the application of any provision relating to property rights.” A license is a form of property right. Is the creation of a restriction that limits the ability to hunt & fish but, in doing so, creates a property right sufficiently “related to” property rights? Maybe!
Another friend asked whether maybe “traditional methods” could mean sharpened sticks and maybe bows. Maybe! Sticks are safe. Bows could be a little too modern.
And we haven’t even gotten to the question of what the hell it means to “harvest wildlife.”
I’ll just cut and paste my FB post regarding this:
Under the auspices of Indiana’s newest constitutional amendment I will be forming a new party, “The Atlatl Party: Make Hoosiers throw again”.
While I think a spear is the purest, most traditional method for hunting I concede a bit towards the progressive push of progress for the use of the atlatl. I do however don’t see the need for such newfangled technology like bows and arrows.
If it was good enough for humans for thousands of years it’s good enough for us now. In conjunction with this traditional method we allow year round hunting without license with it.
I
f our neolithic forebears could bring North American megafaun to extinction with such tools I feel we can best honor their traditions by using the same weapon of mass destruction.
Atlatl 2018, Make Hoosiers Throw Again.
I might be making this jest in earnest. I can’t possibly do much worse than INDems.
I’m ashamed to live in Indiana.
Dumbest fucking people on the planet.
I presume that noise ordinances and neighborhood covenants for that would be violated by my bathing dog will now be unconstitutional and unenforceable so long as my dog is engaged in the traditional form of canine squirrel or rabbit hunting.
Gack. Ugly typos. My dog barks and rarely bathes.
yeah…so beyond “why the hell did this need to be a constitutional amendment”, my question is: we have an entire department of the state government (the DNR) who isn’t mentioned in this, at all. Much like i don’t think the general assembly should be passing laws regarding technology they don’t understand, medicine they don’t understand, science they don’t understand, in this case they wrote a vague and horrible CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT about conservation practices they don’t have the foggiest clue about, as is evidenced by the vague and ridiculous language. The language about how it intersects with other laws (property, trespass, and as has been noted, licensing): I am not a lawyer, but holy shit, we expect judges to interpret cases using this as a defense (or offense)?
Funny story about this one. I lease my land for hunting, so to not be a total hypocrite I voted yes to this dumb idea. i also voted for Clinton and Bayh against the advice of the NRA. So I get home and my hunters were there working on their deer stands and they find two on the property that were placed there by poachers. My thanks for voting yes.
This was an unneeded amendment. Its biggest supporter was the NRA as some type of reaction to a non existent threat to gun ownership. We bought into it hook line and sinker. As an example of measures not needed is the new hunting laws allowing use of rifles for deer hunting. Consider that depending on the gun the bullet may travel for well over a mile. No one can assure that there will not be dangerous things come of this as not all hunters are responsible people. I own property in the country where a grandson lives and the family is often there for rest and relaxation and not feeling safe at all since year round hear what sounds like a war zone with automatic firing guns of high power. One would hope responsible gun owners would realize something sensible needs to be followed.
Jack, I was also dumbfounded when rifles were permitted. Indiana farmland /mixed use areas are too dense for rifles. In many places, too dense for shotguns. The legislature, and the legislator that proposed this law, are clueless.