SJR 2 has passed the Senate on a vote of 42-7. The popularity of this constitutional amendment baffles me a little. I can’t really figure out what it’s doing, and I doubt legislators can either. Why they want to muck up our founding document with this is beyond me. I guess no one wants to be the legislator who votes against hunting and fishing.
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.
A few questions:
1. What does it mean to say “The right to harvest wildlife shall be forever preserved for the public good”?
2. What are “traditional methods?” Whose traditions. At what point in time? Can we develop new traditions? Can old traditions become non-traditional in some fashion?
3. If hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing wildlife, can non-preferred methods be used where they are more effective or more desirable in some fashion? If so, what’s the point of this provision?
4. If the section is not construed to limit trespass or property rights, what laws or rights are limited?
When I was drafting legislation, I liked to try to make it clear – when I was given the latitude to do so – as to who got to do what to whom under what circumstances. Here, I have no idea.
At best, it does nothing. The middle option is that it opens up a can of unintended consequences. The worst is that there is something nefarious I don’t see.
What it is saying is “red meat dinner time boys!” and another way to pump up a base of people that love to be in the faux-persecution game.
Let’s say I’m an enthusiast of “The Most Dangerous Game” — is this Amendment for me?
Is this possibly in response to the currently unsettled high fence hunting issue? It seems like it might be the high fence hunting industry’s legislative corollary to the confined animal feeding operation industry’s “right to farm” legislation.
“The worst is that there is something nefarious I don’t see.” << Hunger Games<< You are dinner… :-)
Of your three choices, I usually defer to the latter unless you can prove otherwise.
Hi, Doug:
Similar amendments have been proposed in several other states. The National Rifle Association and other, similar groups are behind them. Don’t know if you ever listen to the Indiana Outdoors radio show, but the host often talks about the efforts of PETA the Humane Society, and other animal rights groups to outlaw hunting and fishing.
The link below is about Alabama’s similar amendment: http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Alabama-midterms-amendments-hunting/2014/11/03/id/604854/
The comments are a bit kooky, but I think they are indicative of the mindset behind such amendments.
Thanks for the explanation!
You’re welcome! :)
Whenever I hear about legislation or proposed state constitutional amendments that seem to have come from nowhere, I figure ALEC or some similar group is behind them.