Why is there a Constitutional Ammendment on the ballot in Kentucky which states it is a citizen's right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife?

Why is such an ammendment to Kentucky's state constitution needed?

The exact wording of the proposed constitutional ammendment on the ballot in Kentucky is as follows:

Are you in favor of ammending 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?

[link to ballotpedia.org]

Why does the Kentucky House of Representative feel it is necessary to explicitly specify in the state's constitution that it is a personal right of Kentuckians to be able to hunt, fish, and "harvest wildlife"?

Also, this measure was introduced into the Kentucky House of Representatives by democrats Leslie Combs and Greg Stumbo. Since when have democrats been in favor of protecting public rights relating to hunting and fishing?

In my opinion, the language in the proposed constitutional ammendment is potentially problematic because it explicitly states that this personal right of Kentucky citizens to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is subject to laws and regulations that promote conservation.

For me, the language in the proposed ammendment is also potentially problematic because it appears that by adopting the ammendment, hunting, fishing, and "harvesting of wildlife" on privately owned lands could also, and for the first time ever, become subject to laws and regulations that promote conservation.

Such a statement appears benign when the laws and regulations in place are not restrictive. However, laws and regulations, especially ones that are designed toward promoting conservation, have been notoriously restrictive toward the use of public lands for hunting and/or fishing purposes in many, many other places in the past.

As a matter of information, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is in favor of passage of this proposed ammendment to Kentucky's state constitution. Here is a paragraph of the NRA's position on Kentucky's proposed ammendment that is taken from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action's website:

"The National Rifle Association has been working throughout the country to adopt meaningful state Right to Hunt and Fish constitutional amendments for good reason. We see what the well-funded “animal rights” extremist groups are doing to erode our sporting heritage in countless states. To assume the attacks will never come to Kentucky is naïve."

[link to www.nraila.org]

Please tell me whether you feel there could be a hidden agenda behind proposing this constitutional ammendment and what that hidden agenda could be.

In deciding whether you think the proposed constitutional ammendment is a good thing or a bad thing for Kentuckians, please keep in mind that Kentucky is known for its outstanding white-tailed deer and turkey hunting as well as its fishing.

Last Edited by Biochemky on 11/04/2012 11:47 AM