TWF Right to Hunt and Fish Constitutional Amendment

[Guest]

I saw an artical on this on the Chattanoogan website and was wandering what the jist of it was. I would be glad to support it if Someone could sum it up for me. The TWF site was kind of confusing and vague.

 

[Guest]

I don't know about TN but a few years back we in GA passed a similar ammendment that gives everyone in Georgia the constitutional right to hunt and fish. In other words without the right in the constitution it is only a priveledge and subject to some PETA or HSUS nuts to get legislation passed against it. Not only do we have the right in Georgia now, the animal rights crowd can be arrested for harrassing us while we are hunting or fishing.

 

[tso]

This has been a very complicated matter that has been pushed for several years with the TWF and NRA ending up on opposite ends of the law which as you can imagine screwed it up.

Just last week, the TWF and NRA reached a comprimise that will allow the bill to pass. Basically all parties are on the same page and it is starting through the legislature.The jest of the bill will make it a right to hunt and fish. It will be a constitutional amendment.

If it does not pass, it will 2014 before it can come up again. I will be having a show on this in the very near future. You should contact your state senator to urge him to pass the law. See Richard's article on the Chattanoogan and click on the take action now button.

 

[rsimms]

I have not had a chance to learn about the "compromise" that tso mentions. However, here is an article I wrote last year which attempts to explain the ongoing dispute between the NRA and TWF. Whatever it is, I'm glad to hear they've reached a compromise. However, if you want my personal opinion, I don't think we need a constitutional amendment. It's much ado about nothing. It is very simply for me... when they "criminalize" hunting, that's the day I'll become a criminal. emoBigsmile

Constitutional Questions on Hunting
Written February 2007
By Richard Simms

Should hunting and fishing be a right guaranteed by Tennessee's constitution?

It is a question that is likely to make its way to the floor of the Tennessee Legislature in the upcoming session. Sportsmen want to amend Tennessee's constitution to guarantee the "right" to hunt and fish. Some sportsmen say it is necessary to protect their institution from animal-rights activists. Mike Butler with the Tennessee Wildlife Federation (TWF) says that key legislators are expected to introduce companion bills in the House and Senate.

At least ten other states have already passed similar measures. Butler has worked for more than two years toward such a measure and says it is time to add Tennessee to that list.

Darren LaSorte, the Manager of Hunting Policy for the National Rifle Association (NRA) agrees, "There's no looming danger in Tennessee because it's good pro-sportsmen state, right this minute. But who knows how that's going to change?"

However that is where LaSorte and Butler part ways.

"Today the question is no longer should we pass a constitutional amendment establishing a right to hunt and fish," said Butler. "But rather, constructing the amendment wisely and in a manner that doesn't weaken our sporting heritage."

That's why the debate over a constitutional amendment to protect hunting & fishing could get messy. Butler and LaSorte disagree on how such an amendment should be worded. That disagreement actually halted the bill's probable passage in the last legislative session.

LaSorte said, " The language that (TWF) is advocating, in my opinion, accomplishes very little."

Opponents of the NRA-backed proposal however said their language unfairly places the burden of proof on the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency to justify hunting and fishing regulations, potentially transferring the management of Tennessee's wildlife from the legislative arena to the judicial arena.

Right now if someone, hunter or anti-hunter, sues TWRA over a hunting regulation, the person or group suing has the burden to prove why the regulation is inappropriate. Butler says that under the previous NRA version of the constitutional amendment, the roles would be reversed and TWRA would have the burden of proving why the regulation is acceptable. He says such a posture would invite lawsuits, especially from the anti-hunting community, that could cost millions of sportsmen dollars.

Nat Johnson, newly-appointed Assistant Director for TWRA said, "we would have to defend our ability to do everything we do. Why should TWRA be held to a different standard of proof than any other agency in state government?"

LaSorte however insists that the NRA's motives are sound.

"What we want is language that says you have a right pursuant to state law, but specifically, traditional means, methods and species are protected. That way they can't, as an Agency, simply ban hunting with dogs for instance, because it is politically unpopular," said LaSorte. "They would have to have a biological reason to do that. I don't want them to have that ability for political reasons."

TWRA is officially "neutral" on the issue but Agency personnel make it very clear they are not happy with the NRA's version. They got support during the last debate from Tennessee Attorney General Paul Summers who wrote, "It is the Opinion of this office that the proposed language offered by the NRA presents a number of potential concerns, among them the conflict with federal law governing the taking of endangered species. The proposed language could also impact the continued ability of (TWRA) to regulate hunting and fishing effectively."

The NRA isn't concerned. LaSorte said that South Carolina and Arkansas are also expected to take up the issue this year and the NRA has adopted similar positions in those states. He says the NRA is prepared to take it to the mat.

"Absolutely, I think we have to for the best interest of hunters," he said.

Many hunters however are apathetic on the issue. Charles Davis, an avid Chattanooga hunter said, "it probably wouldn't hurt anything but I'm not sure it's necessary."

No bills have been introduced on the issue yet. Butler says that he will meet with representatives from the NRA in a couple of weeks in an effort to reach a compromise.

He says, "I'm optimistic we can do that until proven otherwise."

LaSorte said, "hopefully we can get to language we can all agree on. But right now there's a difference in opinion on the best way to protect hunting rights in this country."

The power of the NRA in the political arena is no secret. In lobbying circles the group is often referred to as "the 500-pound gorilla."

"I think it's a positive reference," said LaSorte. "It means that we are a very, very significant player in the political world and I think what we do is right."

Any constitutional amendment must pass in two consecutive legislative sessions and then go to a public vote, a very lengthy process.

That's why people on both sides of the debate say, "we've only got one shot at this so it needs to be done right."

It just seems that so far, neither side can agree on the definition of "right."

 

[tso]

Richard,

I agree with you based on the information concerning whether it is needed or not.

I am trying to put a show on this subject to try and inform people of the topic. I hope the compromise holds as you, but I do want to know more about it.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the info guys. I would like to hear a show on the subject Tony.

 

[rsimms]

Crucial Vote for Tennessee Hunters Today - Editorial Opinion

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_121407.asp

 

[SpurHunter]

"But for what it's worth, I don't need a Constitutional Amendment to protect my hunting rights. For me it is quite simple... the day they "criminalize" hunting is the day I'll become a criminal."</p>



I am with you on this statement Richard!

</p>

</p>

 

[Guest]

I hear the wind blow.

 

[Guest]

I would like to see the language regarding the right to fish made more robust. It would also be nice to have the state clarify the right to wade fish on waters of TN. Right now it could be agrued that by wading in state waters, you are trespassing on the adjacent landowners property, even when standing chest deep. That doesn't sit well with me.

 

[tso]

I am hoping to have a show on this on February 23rd. I will keep you posted when everything is confirmed. I think it will be an interesting show.

 

[Carl Guffey]

Constitutional amendments are a step in the right direction, but what good is it if no one is participating? Nationally, numbers of hunters and fishermen are declining at an alarming rate. In 20 years there may not be anyone under the age of 60 doing either. If you really care about hunting and fishing take a child to the outdoors, it is the only way to truly protect hunting and fishing

No kids, find one........

 

[Guest]

That is true Carl</p>

How many small game hunters do you know ? A few decades ago it seemed every family had at the least 1 hunter. Now they are fairly rare.</p>

It is also not very easy to find landowners willing to allow hunting or even fishing for that matter.</p>

I admire anyone that gets a kid involved. At the very least it will show them the "other side" of the issue. emoUSA </p>