There are many things to be alarmed about regarding this election, but I’m going to take the unusual position that THIS isn’t one of them.
In an overwhelming majority vote, the right to hunt and fish is now a Hoosier state [and Kansas] right.
With the final numbers still officially pending, it is estimated that 80% of Indiana voters favored amending the state constitution to include the right to hunt and fish.
Despite countless misinformation attempts from PETA and the Humane Society of America, this former privilege will be written into the state constitution, never to be taken away
Now that this is official, local governments will not be able to pass laws banning hunting or fishing. It will also take an act from the Indiana General Assembly to change any hunting or fishing laws in the future.
Indiana joins 19 other states that have already amended their state constitutions to include hunting and fishing.
Both Kansas and Indiana passed legislation to amend their state constitutions to include the right to hunt and trap. I initially rolled my eyes at this silly legislation but now I’m thinking in the right hands it might become an environmentalists good friend with a clever attorney. After all, guaranteeing the right to hunt means the state implicitly guarantees the opportunity to hunt, which means that Indiana and Kansas have just promised their citizens to keep wildlife in their states for the foreseeable future.
That means of course that citizen’s will never be allowed to hunt ALL the wildlife because then the opportunity would be compromised for future citizens, right? Some animals must always be left to breed and extend the benefit to the states children. Which means there will always be state control of hunting and limits on wildlife take to assure future generations.
I was surprised to see how many states currently afford this right, and curious why it hasn’t already been used to argue that a “RIGHT” to hunt implies a “RIGHT” to having wildlife in the state and even more specifically ENOUGH wildlife of the right kinds. I guess the state could say that you still have a right to hunt even if there are no more bobcats or bears and only squirrels are left. But if a state allows extinction of an important game species it’s certainly arguable that they aren’t protecting that right. Isn’t it?
The discussion stems from the old English laws that said only a King owned the right to hunt. California only guarantees the right to fish. And guess which state was first to grant the right to hunt and fish? VERMONT all the way back in 1777. The second state took almost 200 years to follow.
| Alabama | 1996 |
| Arkansas | 2010 |
| Georgia | 2006 |
| Idaho | 2012 |
| Kentucky | 2012 |
| Louisiana | 2004 |
| Mississippi | 2014 |
| Minnesota | 1998 |
| Montana | 2004 |
| Nebraska | 2012 |
| North Dakota | 2000 |
| Oklahoma | 2008 |
| South Carolina | 2010 |
| Tennessee | 2010 |
| Texas | 2015 |
| Vermont | 1777 |
| Virginia | 2000 |
| Wisconsin | 2003 |
| Wyoming | 2012 |
A brilliant attorney might even argue that any animal who creates and sustains biodiversity, thus increasing game species, is a valuable defender of that right, and that threats to such an animal are a threat to the constitutionally-granted rights of all Indiana and Kansas citizens.
Just sayin’.
Speaking of biodiversity, Robin of Napa send this excellent bird graphic yesterday.
