In January the Wisconsin state Senate and Assembly overwhelmingly approved a Right to Hunt and Fish Constitutional Amendment. The amendment had also been approved during the previous legislative session, and will now head to voters on April 1.
The proposed amendment to the state’s constitution reads,
Individuals have the right to fish, hunt, trap and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law.
Wisconsin State Rep. Scott Gunderson (R) told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the amendment was intended to forestall groups that might try to ban hunting altogether,
It’s something that’s needed for the future. When we look across the country, there are groups that are eroding the rights of sportsmen and women. It’s important for us to put a safeguard in our constitution.
. . .
If there’s a certain species that they need to lower a bag limit or close a season for awhile for some reason, then they can do that. But it won’t allow someone to come in and arbitrarily close the deer hunting season because they don’t like deer hunting.
At a public hearing on the measure held in January there was no opposition to the amendment voices, but Oshkosh Northwestern columnist Pat Durkin offered an interesting view that focusing on such amendments — which have been enacted in Alabama, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and California — is a mistake for defenders of hunting, fishing and trapping.
Durkin interviewed Steve Boynton of the Ballot Issues Coalition which include a number of hunting oriented groups among its members. Boynton thinks such initiatives are a mistake saying,
An amendment would look good, but practically speaking, it does little for sportsmen. The biggest danger is that sportsmen think a constitutional amendment is a panacea for the animal-rights challenge, but it’s not. Anti-hunters can still challenge hunting programs in court, and hunters till have to answer the challenges.
Boynton also notes that such amendments often become a focal point for animal rights activists who believe that they can deal hunters a damaging blow if they can manage to defeat such a proposal. According to Boynton,
These amendments haven’t lost yet, but animal-rights groups always oppose them. They know it would make terrible headlines for hunting if the amendment fails. That’s why we consider these amendments a poor investment of effort and the sportsmen’s hard-earned dollars.
Sources:
Amendment will have little impact. Pat Durkin, Oshkosh Northwestern, January 26, 2003.
Constitutional right to hunt and fish will be up to voters. Denis Chaptman and Richard P. Jones, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 29, 2003.
Wisoncons considers constitutional protections on hunting, fishing. Joanne M. Haas, CNSNews.Com, January 27, 2003.