Voting on the right to hunt/fish in TN.

[ShaunM]

Voting on the Right to Hunt and Fish in Tennessee This November?

September 1, 2010

A constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to hunt and fish in Tennessee will go before voters in November’s general election.

Voters will see the Constitutional Amendment question on the ballot right after the Governor candidates.

You will be asked to vote either "yes" or "no" to the following question: "Shall Article XI, Section 13 of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee be amended by adding the following sentences at the end of the section:"

"The citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state’s power to regulate commercial activity. Traditional manners and means may be used to take non-threatened species."

Voters will also be electing a new governor, a new representative for the U.S. House of Representatives from the sixth district. State representative and senators will also be elected. In LaVergne, Smyrna and Eagleville, new Mayors and Councilmen or Aldermen will also be chosen. The election will be Tuesday, November 2nd. Early voting is set for October 13th-28th.

Voting on the Right to Hunt and Fish in Tennessee This November? : WGNS Radio

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Wasn't this in response to some federal legislation or regulation?

I think I would vote "Yes".

There was some garbage about the federal government trying to

take this away from states, a little while back. It appears to me to

be a states rights issue. Is that right?

[94user]

I will be voting for the amendment. Hunting and fishing should be a personal right, not a privilege.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law."

Even though any "subject to" clause waters down the "right", as DaveTN

points out in the 2nd Amendment, comparing it to the Tennessee constitution,

and very well I might add, it is probably a necessary evil to keep the fed from

trouncing on other "rights" or privileges.

Hunters and fishermen tend to be better conservationists than the "do-gooders"

that try to take things away. I'm guessing that this vote needs to happen

with the bunch we have in DC, right now.

[memphismason]

If I read the wording correctly then a yes vote is in order.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

What will this do for hunting/fishing licensing?

[Guest mds3d]

What will this do for hunting/fishing licensing?

I would say, nothing. Licensing would probably be a "reasonable regulation."

Since it was brought up I will say this as a side note: I do encourage everyone to think of licensing as a tax that helps run the TWRA. In general the TWRA has been good to sportsmen and deserve more gratitude than ill will from sportsmen.

[StPatrick]

I would say, nothing. Licensing would probably be a "reasonable regulation."

Since it was brought up I will say this as a side note: I do encourage everyone to think of licensing as a tax that helps run the TWRA. In general the TWRA has been good to sportsmen and deserve more gratitude than ill will from sportsmen.

The TWRA is one of the few government agencies I can think of that actually works in partnership with citizens towards common goals, e.g. conservation, population control, etc. Last I checked, it was also budget-neutral, running entirely on licensing fees and the $.10 / box ammo tax. You'd be hard pressed to find another group of people that can make that claim when working with government, at any level.

Edit: they need to do something about the "nuisance species" laws, though. If hogs, etc., are a problem, don't erect a financial barrier to their eradication via licensing. More fees = more nuisances. Less fees = less nuisances.

[tnhawk]

.... More fees = more nuisances. Less fees = less nuisances.

Less politicians=Less taxes?

[Guest Mad4rcn]

Less politicians=Less taxes?

I like the way you're thinking !

[Guest 270win]

TWRA and other game and fish agencies do a lot of good in most states. Without them, no telling what our game populations would look like. I don't mind paying for a hunting license to fund our wildlife management. The money has to come from somewhere and it shows that hunters and fishermen pay to support our sport and wildlife. We have a stake in it while most people can say they do but they don't pony up the money like we do.

[StPatrick]

TWRA and other game and fish agencies do a lot of good in most states. Without them, no telling what our game populations would look like. I don't mind paying for a hunting license to fund our wildlife management. The money has to come from somewhere and it shows that hunters and fishermen pay to support our sport and wildlife. We have a stake in it while most people can say they do but they don't pony up the money like we do.

I agree with you 100%. Unlike most interest groups, who run to the statehouse every year, hands held out palms-up like common panhandlers, TN shooters and sportsmen consistently put their money where their mouths are, without monetarily burdening their fellow citizens. We set a great example; sadly, nobody seems interested in following.

[Guest jth_3s]

The citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state’s power to regulate commercial activity. Traditional manners and means may be used to take non-threatened species.

Imagine if the founders had worded the 2A "The people shall have the personal right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. This doesn't limit the power to regualte commercial activity. This only applies to traditional arms." This sounds more like an amendment to enumerate the states right to regulate your privilege. I will be voting No

[kb4ns]

The citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state’s power to regulate commercial activity. Traditional manners and means may be used to take non-threatened species.

Imagine if the founders had worded the 2A "The people shall have the personal right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. This doesn't limit the power to regualte commercial activity. This only applies to traditional arms." This sounds more like an amendment to enumerate the states right to regulate your privilege. I will be voting No

That's pretty much what the courts have said about the 2A. It's just not actually written in the 2A. :-\

I think it's more of an issue where the state is trying to put the right wording in there to preempt a challenge from some jackhole trying to declare his right to go shoot every animal he sees if it suits his fancy. Like the wording or not, you can look at history and common sense will tell you that "reasonable regulation" is not evil when it comes to hunting.

[Guest jth_3s]

That's pretty much what the courts have said about the 2A. It's just not actually written in the 2A. :-\

I think it's more of an issue where the state is trying to put the right wording in there to preempt a challenge from some jackhole trying to declare his right to go shoot every animal he sees if it suits his fancy. Like the wording or not, you can look at history and common sense will tell you that "reasonable regulation" is not evil when it comes to hunting.

Yea it sucks but this amendment is going to make it clear. Reasonable regulation can easily be abused because you're allowing a small group of individuals to decide whats reasonable. What if a court decides its reasonable for a hunter only to take one deer in his lifetime? What if a Court labels every species of game threatened?. Reasonable restrictions is a great phrase for any judge wanting to legislate from the bench. As for someone shooting every animal he sees, if the animals are on his property they are his property. If someone is worried about a species being wiped out he can start his own game preserve . As for history, I cant think of a species that has gone extinct because of hunters in America but i havent really looked into it.

[Guest clownsdd]

It's a cover your a** thing. Call it a preemptive strike against PETA

[Guest jth_3s]

It's a cover your a** thing. Call it a preemptive strike against PETA

Yea PETA is definitly trouble but an amendment worded like this wont even slow them down. If the Amendment read "The right of the people to Hunt and Fish shall not be infringed" it would have my vote. Hunting is already protected by the 9th Amendment along with all our other non-enumerated rights from Common Law but try telling the supreme court that.

[kb4ns]

As for history, I cant think of a species that has gone extinct because of hunters in America but i havent really looked into it.

I believe you're right, I don't think any species has gone extinct due to hunting. In the 1800's abusive hunting practices (admittedly, it was mostly commercial) caused whitetail numbers to drop to less than half a million. Now-a-days, with all the wildlife agencies regulating hunting, the whitetail population is well over 20 million. I see what you're saying, and non-commercial hunting may do just fine without any restrictions. But I think that even if they phrased it just like the second amendment, courts would just sooner or later say that reasonable restrictions are ok. The outcome will be the same no matter what wording they use.

[Guest jth_3s]

I believe you're right, I don't think any species has gone extinct due to hunting. In the 1800's abusive hunting practices (admittedly, it was mostly commercial) caused whitetail numbers to drop to less than half a million. Now-a-days, with all the wildlife agencies regulating hunting, the whitetail population is well over 20 million. I see what you're saying, and non-commercial hunting may do just fine without any restrictions. But I think that even if they phrased it just like the second amendment, courts would just sooner or later say that reasonable restrictions are ok. The outcome will be the same no matter what wording they use.

Yea I agree completely. Something written on a piece of paper wont secure your rights.

[partypilot1]

The citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state’s power to regulate commercial activity. Traditional manners and means may be used to take non-threatened species.

Imagine if the founders had worded the 2A "The people shall have the personal right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. This doesn't limit the power to regualte commercial activity. This only applies to traditional arms." This sounds more like an amendment to enumerate the states right to regulate your privilege. I will be voting No

I met the guy who help write this amendment at a duct hunting quota raffle. He is a hunter, not a politician with an evil agenda. If I remember correctly, it stems from a law that passed in Michigan making it illegal to dove hunt! He wants the right to hunt to be added into the Tennessee constitution, to block politicians from passing laws like that here.

[partypilot1]

I will add....If you are a gun enthusiast, voting yes would be the bright option. Having the right to hunt in Tennessee added to the constitution will not only be a proactive way to protect our right to harvest our own food but also help strengthen our pro 2nd community. Just because you personally don't hunt doesn't mean that your child or grandchild should loose their right to learn how to hunt or fish.

[Guest jth_3s]

I will add....If you are a gun enthusiast, voting yes would be the bright option. Having the right to hunt in Tennessee added to the constitution will not only be a proactive way to protect our right to harvest our own food but also help strengthen our pro 2nd community. Just because you personally don't hunt doesn't mean that your child or grandchild should loose their right to learn how to hunt or fish.

I am a hunter and hunt just about every game you can think of. I know the man who wrote it may have had good intentions but Im simply pointing out that it is not enumerating a Right to hunt. All this amendment does is say that Tennesseans shall have the priviliege to hunt but that privilege is subject to any reasonable regulations or restrictions that are deemed reasonable by the state supreme court. If this passes and the Gov wants to ban dove hunting the amendment will not stop them, they can simply add dove to their list of threatened species. With reasonable restrictions, virtually all actions taken by the state government good or bad will be easily argued as Constitutional. This Amendment only enumerates the state's power.

[StPatrick]

I am a hunter and hunt just about every game you can think of. I know the man who wrote it may have had good intentions but Im simply pointing out that it is not enumerating a Right to hunt. All this amendment does is say that Tennesseans shall have the priviliege to hunt but that privilege is subject to any reasonable regulations or restrictions that are deemed reasonable by the state supreme court. If this passes and the Gov wants to ban dove hunting the amendment will not stop them, they can simply add dove to their list of threatened species. With reasonable restrictions, virtually all actions taken by the state government good or bad will be easily argued as Constitutional. This Amendment only enumerates the state's power.

Baby steps. This is a symbolic amendment - obviously, it carries no force of law, but it does create some fun bones to pick with the feds. Despite that, you are correct - it doesn't actually do anything concrete. I will say that it scares our elected representatives, though - any amendment to a state constitution requires a pretty overwhelming amount of support from voters and elected representatives...should this thing pass, our state reps will factor it into their voting calculus. They'll have to go about their work with the realization that any new legislation passed that goes against that amendment is a direct "do not pass go" route to unemployment.

[Guest jth_3s]

Baby steps. This is a symbolic amendment - obviously, it carries no force of law, but it does create some fun bones to pick with the feds. Despite that, you are correct - it doesn't actually do anything concrete. I will say that it scares our elected representatives, though - any amendment to a state constitution requires a pretty overwhelming amount of support from voters and elected representatives...should this thing pass, our state reps will factor it into their voting calculus. They'll have to go about their work with the realization that any new legislation passed that goes against that amendment is a direct "do not pass go" route to unemployment.

Is legislation needed to Change rules and regulations? A state agency can change the Rules much like Federal Agencies can. No single Legislator could be held responsible for that. As for picking bones the the feds, if the 10thA won't stop the Feds a state amendment definitely won't. This amendment is a great vote winner becuase it gets a hoorah from hunters who think their rights are being protected while at the same time the Anti-hunters know they haven't really lost any ground. If the guy who wrote this amendment is serious about protecting hunting rights he should make it shorter and more precise. "The right of the people to Hunt, Fish, (and Trap) Shall not be infringed." We dont need to take baby steps, we're a dying breed and we're as strong now as we'll ever be so why not try for stronger wording? We're going to be stuck with whatever gets passed so why settle for less?

[partypilot1]

It's my understanding that the verbiage used could not be changed on a whim. It's has taken him far too much steam and coal to get to this point already and if he can't get the required votes he probably won't get another shot. I only chatted with him for a few minutes but I managed to ask important questions including where he would be on September 1st, I too question peoples motives a.k.a. slightly paranoid.