Right to Hunt Constitutional Amendment

[KYGlockster]

Just thought I would remind everyone here that has thought about not voting on November 6th about some important items on the ballot.

We are voting for a constitutional amendment that protects our right to hunt and fish in Kentucky and we need to head to the polls to vote "yes" on this issue.

We are also having some important congressional races in Kentucky this election and we need to get out and support our candidates in these races.

Even if you have decided to ignore the presidential election -- which I hope you haven't -- you still should get to the polls and vote for these other important issues and candidates.

 

[DrakeZ07]

Just thought I would remind everyone here that has thought about not voting on November 6th about some important items on the ballot.

We are voting for a constitutional amendment that protects our right to hunt and fish in Kentucky and we need to head to the polls to vote "yes" on this issue.

We are also having some important congressional races in Kentucky this election and we need to get out and support our candidates in these races.

Even if you have decided to ignore the presidential election -- which I hope you haven't -- you still should get to the polls and vote for these other important issues and candidates.

Can you provide moar info on this Right to Hunt amendment and the implications/provisions it has on the licensing and use of public/private lands and/or the effect on hunting seasons, as in if all game will be open season year round, or if hunting seasons will stay the same?

 

[Midwest]

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/ConstAmend_PR_2012.pdf

Proposed Amendment To The Kentucky Constitution

November 6, 2012
Personal Right To Hunt And Fish
On November 6, 2012, Kentucky’s voters will be asked whether to amend the state
Constitution to specifically provide citizens of Kentucky with the personal right to hunt,
fish, and harvest wildlife.

The following question will appear on the ballot.

Constitutional Amendment

Are you in favor of amending the Kentucky Constitution to
state that the citizens of Kentucky have the personal right to
hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject to laws and regulations
that promote conservation and preserve the future of hunting
and fishing, and to state that public hunting and fishing shall
be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife?




Constitutional Changes Proposed By The Amendment
The proposed amendment would add a new section to the Constitution of Kentucky that would
specifically provide Kentucky citizens the personal right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, using
traditional methods, subject only to laws enacted by the legislature and to administrative regulations
that promote wildlife conservation and management and that preserve the future of hunting and
fishing. The proposed amendment also would designate public hunting and fishing as the preferred
means of managing and controlling wildlife. The proposed amendment would not change any law
relating to trespass, property rights, or the regulation of commercial activities.

Effective Date
If the proposed amendment is approved by the voters on November 6, it will take effect immediately.

 

[KYGlockster]

Can you provide moar info on this Right to Hunt amendment and the implications/provisions it has on the licensing and use of public/private lands and/or the effect on hunting seasons, as in if all game will be open season year round, or if hunting seasons will stay the same?

All current laws and regulations will stay as they currently are. The annual income from the sale of licenses, tags, etc., is the only form of monetary assistance the state receives to conserve wildlife in the state, other than the tax from the sale of firearms and such. Will this make everyone license exempt? No. This does protect our right to hunt and fish for generations, and is needed since so many "animal rights activists" would like to ban hunting altogether. What these people don't understand is that if we banned hunting, millions of animals would die miserable deaths, and disease and starvation would be uncontrollable.

This doesn't only protect our right to hunt, but it protects our right to hunt using traditional methods, which means we cannot be denied the right to hunt with firearms (with lead ammunition since it is traditional) or archery equipment as long as this amendment is a part of the Kentucky constitution, and protects the same with traditional fishing equipment.

The state of Kentucky does exempt numerous people from the licensing and permit requirements, such as landowners and their family on their own land, tenants and their family on land they rent or lease, employees who work on a farm that they will hunt, active duty military, children under the age of 12, and so on.

This amendment will guarantee that my children and grandchildren have the same enjoyment that I have had in the outdoors, and I believe it will pass, and in doing so will preserve their right to enjoy the outdoors as so many of us do now. Vote "yes!"

 

[DrakeZ07]

I'll Certainly vote yes on it, as it sounds very good for us~

I wonder though, if it is passed and becomes an Amendment to our constitution, could it not then be, later on, used to get rid of the licensing all together? Like, the argument could be made that we have a right to bear arms without a license, a right to free speech without a license, and [if it does pass] a right to hunt and fish as humans have done since the very dawn of time through various means, without a license? Not sure if it makes sense what I'm trying to ask/converse about.

 

[ZXguy]

I'll Certainly vote yes on it, as it sounds very good for us~

I wonder though, if it is passed and becomes an Amendment to our constitution, could it not then be, later on, used to get rid of the licensing all together? Like, the argument could be made that we have a right to bear arms without a license, a right to free speech without a license, and [if it does pass] a right to hunt and fish as humans have done since the very dawn of time through various means, without a license? Not sure if it makes sense what I'm trying to ask/converse about.

I see no indication that this law is intended to be used in this manner. However, the first few people who told me to look into this vote had somehow understood that passing it would mean that anyone could go hunt anything all year long. I'm unsure where these people got this information, but they were quite certain this was the intention. All three were avid hunters and all three thought they opposed that law because they thought there should be some managements and restrictions over hunting for preservation reasons. It's funny, I almost have a feeling that they got their information from a single source that was purposefully misconstruing the law so as to build voter opposition. I dunno.

From what I can tell, based on reading the bill several times, is exactly as was mentioned above -- if passed, it only reasserts the rights of Kentuckians to hunt and fish and that hunting would be the primary method of wildlife population control barring any additional restrictions necessary for management and preservation reasons.

I would guess that most well-intentioned Kentucky hunters would be very much in favor of this passing.

 

[Sundiver]

Many states are rushing to get hunting and fishing Constitutionalized after this.

http://www.peta.org/issues/Wildlife/why-sport-hunting-is-cruel-and-unnecessary.aspx

They've been working overtime the past few years to get hunting and fishing banned.

 

[ZXguy]

Many states are rushing to get hunting and fishing Constitutionalized after this.

http://www.peta.org/issues/Wildlife/why-sport-hunting-is-cruel-and-unnecessary.aspx

They've been working overtime the past few years to get hunting and fishing banned.

We will not likely see a ban on hunting for a very long time (if ever). What we will see, this phenomenon exists in all areas of legislation, are more and more restrictions (via law, bureaucracy, redtape, permits, licenses, etc.) on hunting. Over time, as it has over the past few decades, popularity of hunting will subside more and more until it's just too difficult, time consuming, and expensive for most to hunt. That's generally the way the law works -- from guns to hunting to automobiles. Legislators don't usually help reduce restrictions (as it would appear they're doing nothing). To the masses, legislators look busy when they're in the business of producing more laws.

 

[KYGlockster]

I'll Certainly vote yes on it, as it sounds very good for us~

I wonder though, if it is passed and becomes an Amendment to our constitution, could it not then be, later on, used to get rid of the licensing all together? Like, the argument could be made that we have a right to bear arms without a license, a right to free speech without a license, and [if it does pass] a right to hunt and fish as humans have done since the very dawn of time through various means, without a license? Not sure if it makes sense what I'm trying to ask/converse about.

No. This only protects our right to hunt and fish from being banned, and also protects our right to hunt with traditional methods. The amendment itself states the right is subject to the laws establised by the legislature and the regulations established by the Dept. of F&W that pertain to the conservation of wildlife, and licenses and seasons are established for wildlife conservation.

 

[09jisaac]

The amendment wouldn't mean a thing if it is worded like that. That would be like all the other "rights" our government grants us.

We have the absolute right to do this and that, as long as the government allows us to.

This is just a mostly empty gesture.

 

[ZXguy]

No. This only protects our right to hunt and fish from being banned, and also protects our right to hunt with traditional methods. The amendment itself states the right is subject to the laws establised by the legislature and the regulations established by the Dept. of F&W that pertain to the conservation of wildlife, and licenses and seasons are established for wildlife conservation.

I haven't done the homework to confirm or deny, but a friend yesterday pointed out that this looks a bit like hunting control in disguise in that it re-asserts the state's control over wildlife management....

 

[KYGlockster]

The amendment wouldn't mean a thing if it is worded like that. That would be like all the other "rights" our government grants us.

We have the absolute right to do this and that, as long as the government allows us to.

This is just a mostly empty gesture.

The amendment means alot actually. It will clearly state that our right to hunt and fish while using traditional methods CANNOT be denied. It does authorize the legislature and the Dept. of F&W to legislate and regulate the right to hunt and fish, but only if such legislation or regulation is for the conservation of wildlife. This amendment will PROHIBIT the legislature, F&W, and any other government agency -- such as the federal government -- from prohibiting the right of Kentucky residents to hunt and fish. This amendment will constitutionally protect a privilege, and turn it into a protected right that cannot be denied to Kentucky citizens.

This amendment is NOT an attempt to exert more control over hunting and fishing, but rather protects us from legislation that would attempt to prohibit or deny hunting and fishing.

Without such an amendment to the Kentucky constitution, the government could completely deny our ability to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife because we would have no grounds to challenge. With this amendment, they cannot ban these activities, and they would be deemed a protected right instead of a privilege as it is now.

I believe we all know how over-regulated non-constitutionally-protected activities are now, and this will make sure that hunting does not become one of those activities. Look at Illinois' "right to arms" amendment; it allows regulation subject to the police powers of the state, and they have no right to bear! If something is not constitutionally protected in the near future, I believe it will become so regulated that nearly every aspect of our daily lives will be controlled by the government. Hell, even constitutionally protected rights are always under fire! This will help protect future generations RIGHT to enjoy the great outdoors how they see fit.

 

[DrakeZ07]

The amendment means alot actually. It will clearly state that our right to hunt and fish while using traditional methods CANNOT be denied. It does authorize the legislature and the Dept. of F&W to legislate and regulate the right to hunt and fish, but only if such legislation or regulation is for the conservation of wildlife. This amendment will PROHIBIT the legislature, F&W, and any other government agency -- such as the federal government -- from prohibiting the right of Kentucky residents to hunt and fish. This amendment will constitutionally protect a privilege, and turn it into a protected right that cannot be denied to Kentucky citizens.

This amendment is NOT an attempt to exert more control over hunting and fishing, but rather protects us from legislation that would attempt to prohibit or deny hunting and fishing.

Without such an amendment to the Kentucky constitution, the government could completely deny our ability to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife because we would have no grounds to challenge. With this amendment, they cannot ban these activities, and they would be deemed a protected right instead of a privilege as it is now.

I believe we all know how over-regulated non-constitutionally-protected activities are now, and this will make sure that hunting does not become one of those activities. Look at Illinois' "right to arms" amendment; it allows regulation subject to the police powers of the state, and they have no right to bear! If something is not constitutionally protected in the near future, I believe it will become so regulated that nearly every aspect of our daily lives will be controlled by the government. Hell, even constitutionally protected rights are always under fire! This will help protect future generations RIGHT to enjoy the great outdoors how they see fit.

Isaac hit the nail on the head for my point of view, worded it better than my previous posts. Still, on two fronts I'm split on the understanding of it, and whether I should vote or not, for it.

In one sense, it sounds like our KY right to bear arms; Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

So in that sense, we have the Right to hunt and fish, subject to the power of the state house, to enact laws to prevent people from over fishing/hunting the wildlife population to near extinction.

But in another way, voting in a RIGHT to do something, then turning around and saying in the same paragraph that, said right is subject to not only the state house, but ALSO the State agency with a strong LEO wing attached to it. And in my personal experience, most, if not all, of the KDFWR LEO's I've come across, have been ignorant of our OC rights within the state.

Kinda having one of those moments where you feel as though you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

 

[KYGlockster]

Isaac hit the nail on the head for my point of view, worded it better than my previous posts. Still, on two fronts I'm split on the understanding of it, and whether I should vote or not, for it.

In one sense, it sounds like our KY right to bear arms; Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

So in that sense, we have the Right to hunt and fish, subject to the power of the state house, to enact laws to prevent people from over fishing/hunting the wildlife population to near extinction.

But in another way, voting in a RIGHT to do something, then turning around and saying in the same paragraph that, said right is subject to not only the state house, but ALSO the State agency with a strong LEO wing attached to it. And in my personal experience, most, if not all, of the KDFWR LEO's I've come across, have been ignorant of our OC rights within the state.

Kinda having one of those moments where you feel as though you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

When something is a protected right it means that it cannot be banned -- among other things. This is what this amendment will do, and it is excellent for the sportsmen of Kentucky.

Our right to bear arms amendment only allows the legislature to regulate concealed weapons, and that is why it says, "subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying CONCEALED weapons."

Some here are reading beyond the intent of the amendment, and trying to make it something that it is not. Currently, the legislature could completely BAN hunting, fishing, and the taking of wildlife! We have no protection to prohibit such a ban. If this amendment passes, it will protect us from prohibition concerning these activities, and will prohibit the State and all localities from trying to prohibit our ability to hunt, fish, and take wildlife.

The terminology of this amendment is very straightforward and easily comprehendable. It protects the state's right to continue to prescribe seasons, licensing requirements, and bag limits; it also protects our current privelege and makes it a RIGHT, and allows us to continue to hunt, fish, and take wildlife while not having to worry about some government institution infringing on this right.

We currently have NO PROTECTIONS. If we pass this amendment we WILL HAVE PROTECTIONS!

 

[boomer92266]

Where i live here in monroe county its getting hard to find a place to hunt. several places i could hunt last year have been leased out this year. i don't have enough income to pay to hunt or to drive very far, i just hope the last few remaining properties down here don't lease out. i've been told that they have no intention to lease as they are a dairy and beef cattle farm, and they want to limit the amount of people for safety of the cattle and hunters. i just hope that stays true as i have a 16 month old son and would love to teach him as my dad taught me. i will vote yes to this bill as i believe we will need this in the near future. thanks

 

[self preservation]

we need to head to the polls to vote "yes" on this issue.

Done and done....

 

[KYGlockster]

Constitution amended! We now have a Constitutionally protected right to hunt and fish.

I came across a web-site where Kentucky Tea party members were saying to vote "NO" on this because it stated in the amendment that the right was subject to laws and regulations to promote conservation.

What do these people not understand? We are currently subjected to laws and regulations and we have no constitutional provisions that protect our right to hunt and fish and harvest wildlife. Now we have a protected right, and we cannot be denied the right to hunt, fish, or harvest wildlife. It really amazes me how some people can interpret something beyond its actual meaning and intent.

 

[rob31567]

Just read about the results on wsaz dot com. My vote counted......

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[KYGlockster]

Well we had progress in KY at the state and national level, but it looks like we will have to put up with 4 more years of Obama! The people voted for Romney, but the electoral will go to Obama for the Presidency. It is truly sad. Several states have given their electoral votes to Obama but the people voted for Romney! This system is broken! This election should be no different than any other! Let the people decide who they want to become President!

We will keep the House from what I can tell, but it is only for two years! I hope we can keep it again in 2014!

Here come the assault weapons ban, magazine ban, possible handgun ban, and more! Better buy it while you can folks!

 

[09jisaac]

What do these people not understand? We are currently subjected to laws and regulations and we have no constitutional provisions that protect our right to hunt and fish and harvest wildlife. Now we have a protected right, and we cannot be denied the right to hunt, fish, or harvest wildlife. It really amazes me how some people can interpret something beyond its actual meaning and intent.

Because up until now, the state government had no legitimate claim to the wildlife. Anyone could have (if they pushed hard enough) took the government to court and claim that the government had no authority to pass such a law. Now that claim is dead, because the people gave them the authority.

And we can be denied the "right" because we just gave the government power to do it. It would be a hard to say that shooting an innocent deer for sport meets the definition of "conservation". Conservation: the act of conserving; prevention of injury, decay, waste, or loss; preservation. So as long as it is protecting the species we want to hunt, the the law is valid, right?

As soon as an animal population drops somewhere in the state (it don't matter if it is thriving here) then they can ban hunting of that animal elsewhere and now we have no way to challenge that legitimacy. How many white tailed deer do you see in and around Louisville?