Right To Hunt And Fish

[Spirithawk]

In a fight against such animal rights groups as PETA, on Nov. 2, 2,010 four states, Arizona, Arkansas, South Carolina and Tennessee, voters witll be asked whether or not hunting and fishing should be constitutional rights. Kentucky plans a vote in 2,012. Of course PETA is against it. Besides being a God given right to hunt and fish, over the past 70 years, hunters alone nationwide have contributed more than $6.4 billion dollars to wildlife conservation efforts. I wonder how much groups like PETA have contributed? It was easy to find how much hunters and fishermen contribute, along with groups like the Nat. Wild Turkey Federation and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to just name two. A simple search turned up numerouse hits but kinda odd, doing a search I could find NO stats on what groups like PETA contribute.   Wonder why? Here's the states that allready guarantee the right to hunt and fish;



Alabama - Voters in 1996 approved a "Sportsperson's Bill of Rights" that stated "all persons shall have the right to hunt and fish in this state in accordance with law and regulations."

California (Right to Fish 1910, The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the Legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken.)Georgia (2006, “The tradition of fishing and hunting and the taking of fish and wildlife shall be reserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good.”)

Louisiana (2004, “The freedom to hunt, fish, and trap wildlife, including all aquatic life, traditionally taken by hunters, trappers and anglers, is a valued natural heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people.”)

Minnesota (1998, “Hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good.”)

Montana (2004 amended the state constitution in part to read “the opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state.”)

North Dakota (2000, “Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good.”)

Rhode Island (Right to Fish 1844, The people shall continue to enjoy and freely exercise all the rights of fishery, and the privileges of the shore, to which they have been heretofore entitled under the charter and usages of this state. But no new right is intended to be granted, nor any existing right impaired, by this declaration.)

Vermont (1777, The inhabitants of this State shall have the liberty in seasonable times, to hunt and fowl on the lands they hold, and on other lands not inclosed, and in like manner to fish in all boatable and other waters (not private property) under proper regulations, to be made and provided by the General Assembly.)

Virginia (2000, “the people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law.”)

Wisconsin (2003, “The people have the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law.”

Oklahoma (2008, “All citizens of this state shall have a right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest game and fish, subject only to reasonable regulation as prescribed by the Legislature and the Wildlife Conservation Commission.”)

[IOWA DON]

The right to hunt and fish does not mean much unless one has a place to hunt or fish. In Nebraska when I was a kid one could hunt anywhere unless the ground was posted, and if one posted his land he was more or less considered a #%^&!. That changed in the late '60's and early '70's when farmers decided that although they hunted anywhere they wanted to as youths they would not accomidate the next generation of youths. The older generations are not always nice!

[Spirithawk]

The right to hunt and fish does not mean much unless one has a place to hunt or fish. In Nebraska when I was a kid one could hunt anywhere unless the ground was posted, and if one posted his land he was more or less considered a #%^&!. That changed in the late '60's and early '70's when farmers decided that although they hunted anywhere they wanted to as youths they would not accomidate the next generation of youths. The older generations are not always nice!

I think there are several reasons for that. It use to be farms and ranches, and land in general, had been handed down through families and everyone in the area knew each other. Now folks, moving to the country  from the city, have bought up many farms and ranches and much of the land in general. They have a whole another mind set than the old timers. Most figure that if they bought the land with their hard earned money then it's going to be them that enjoys it, not someone they don't even know. Also, all too often, when permission is given, it's abused. Many times I've seen one or two people, who got permmission to hunt, bring a bunch of friends who don't have permission. Or show up with a case of beer, get wasted and shoot at every thing that moves including livestock. Teens that think it's permission to bring their buddies and girlfriends to a place to party that their parents don't know about. People that leave closed gates open, leave trash behind, or just disrespect the landowners in every way imaginable. That kind of behavior is more common than not and not the way to make friends of land owners. One bad experience ruins it for everyone and the land gets posted. The owner tells his neighbors and their land gets posted too! Also, if one or two gets permission, then everyone that comes after don't. Land will only support so many hunters. My son and I have found that if you aproach a land owner respectively, dressed presentable, offer to help with his chores, offer to share your harvest if you have a good hunt, give refferances if possible, and offer to drop everything and stop your hunt to report anything that the owner should be made aware of, such as ill livestock, tresspassers, fences down, ect., all goes a long way in gaining the trust and respect of a landowner and makes it much more likely to get permission to hunt. Hunting on private land is a privlage not a right.

[powderman]

As long as we have dems, libs, and other pantywetters laws like this will be necessary. POWDERMAN. 

[Mohawk]

It is , more or less, in the Texas Constitution. I think it should be in all of them with caveats toward felony criminals only. i.e.- Don't claim a right to get a hunting license if you can't pay taxes, on parole for murder, and haven't paid a dime in child support. I think that is the problem There are just some folks that you really don't want them using that defense. I can legally use a semi-auto MP5 for deer in Texas. If I was caught in transport I could just say that is my right as going deer hunting. They may even have bought a hunting license.  I could be arrested, barely, but you I would  have a solid defense. Are MP5's used for deer hunting by statute. They are. Commonly Used as stated in law? Who is to say. Glock 17's  weren't designed for that but I have seen them used. It is kind of a double edged sword.

[guzzijohn]

As a land owner with good hunting ground I do charge for hunting leases. Before anyone gets to upset about this consider:
What Spirthawk said above.
Did the firearms companies give you a free gun to hunt with?
Did the ammo companies give you free ammo to hunt with?
Did on of the motor companies give you a free vehicle to hunt with?
Did you get free clothing to hunt with?
Why should the landowner give you free land to hunt on?
Another thing that is critical now a days, previous generations were not near as quick to sue you as they are now. Why should I have to pay for liability insurance so you can hunt free?

[Mohawk]

Very good points. In addition, owning "huntable" land should not subject me to accomodate any "right" to hunt from any unknown person just because it is a "right". Granted it is far fetched but property owners are just that....OWNERS.

[Pat/Rick]

Spirithawk nailed it. God given right. God gave us control over the birds the fish and animals. Kill when you must, kill only for food (shelter,tools  ), would be the easiest explanation. Of course, there are those who would disagree, they can go hungry, unclothed, and without shelter. End of problem. Oh for a simpller life.