SJR 2 has been introduced by Senator Steele and it brings back a proposed constitutional amendment that has already been adopted once by a General Assembly.
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.
I’m generally against amending the constitution, and this is no exception. I know the meaning of every word in that proposed amendment, but I still don’t understand what this amendment does. My best guess is that it’s a sop to those people who have a strong cultural affinity for hunting and fishing. (I’m not entirely sure what “harvesting wildlife” means, but it reminds me of Mr. Burns’ method of stitching together millions of six-pack holders together into a net which he uses to catch tons of sea life, in order to make “Li’l Lisa’s Patented Animal Slurry”: a multi-purpose edible compound.)
As for “traditional fishing,” one venerable tradition is that it be safe to eat the fish you catch, and I’m not sure the fish in the waters of Indiana really meet that condition. Could this provision be used to challenge acts that contaminate Indiana waters? Or would that be construing the provision to limit property rights? And if this provision is a dead letter any time it comes into contact with some sort of property right, what’s left?
It’s an NRA-backed bill. They passed a similar amendment in Kentucky a couple years back, and it’s been passed in other states, too. From what I understand, it’s to fend off imaginary challenges to hunting and fishing from animal-rights groups — or, at least, that’s what the NRA and similar groups say.
Dog, I agree, if the amendment is subject to laws and rules, it is little more than “high sounding words.”
So you can do whatever you please as long as I say you can do it? Sounds like a law written to please the 6-pack base that doesn’t mean much to anyone but the base, serving to re-elect the author. And where is the common good in this?
Note, too, that the people celebrating the “right” of outdoor activities are the same ones voting to put more shit in the air and water to make said activities unpalatable.
Exhoosier, Ironic, isn’t it. BTW, I would sell my daughter’s soul to get out of Indiana.
Wouldn’t your daughter have to sign on to that agreement, or would she be too busy packing?
Stuart, you must be a close lawyer…
“BTW, I would sell my daughter’s soul to get out of Indiana.”.
Do say. There must be very powerful chains holding you here if you feel that strongly.
A little hyperbole. But I really regret coming back to Indiana.
For what it’s worth, state legislatures have gone batshit most everywhere. The Koch Brothers’ most brilliant political manuever was recognizing state legislators come cheap and dumb, and few voters show up to do anything about it. Think of that strategy when a Koch-backed politician demands individual state governments have the final say.
State houses do come cheaply. It was a good strategy. Good for them, not the nation..