The Christian Science Monitor’s Patrick Jonsson wrote an interesting article recently surveying efforts to add amendments to state constitutions that protect the rights of hunters. Since 1996, Alabama, California, Minnesota, North Dakota, Vermont and Virginia have enacted such amendments to protect hunting. Efforts are underway in at least 13 other states to enact such amendments.
Of course animal rights activists are highly critical of such efforts. Jonsson quotes The Fund for Animals’ Jeff Leitner saying,
I think that, because the number of hunters across the country is dwindling, the hunting community sees this constitutional amendment approach as a way to give themselves a public relations boost for an otherwise flagging pastime. More and more Americans don’t want anybody hunting in their back yard.
But despite the decline in the number of hunters, hunting is still viewed positively. People might not have the time or ability to hunt themselves, but in a 2001 Roper Starch poll conducted for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 87 percent of respondents said hunting was as acceptable as golf and tennis.
And such broad support means these constitutional amendments are very likely to become the norm in states where animal rights activists are trying to limit hunting.
Source:
‘Right to hunt’ vs. animal rights: What’s fair game? Patrik Jonsson, The Christian Science Monitor, April 3, 2002.