January 20, 2018

Right to Hunt, Fish Proposed Constitutional Amendment Perhaps Best Language…So Far

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The proposed Constitutional Amendment in Maine, LD 11, the right to hunt, fish and harvest game and fish, may provide the best language so far of any proposed amendments. Passage of this amendment would be good for everyone and for the management of fish and wildlife, although opponents cannot and will never see it that way.

The amendment, often only seen from one side as providing protection to kill animals, not only would help in protecting the long-held heritage of hunting, trapping and fishing in Maine, but will help to insure that hunting, trapping and fishing are used as tools to manage and perpetuate healthy game and other wildlife populations.

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is a proven method of conserving and perpetuating healthy numbers of wild animal species. That model calls for the employment of hunting, trapping and fishing as a means of controlling and perpetuating the species but also provides millions of dollars in revenue needed to continue the responsible management of wild animals.

While this amendment may not be the absolute best, it is one that I can at least support. I hope readers will as well.

Below is Section 26 of the proposed amendment. That is followed by the complete proposal as is currently written.

Section 26. Right to hunt, fish and harvest game and fish. The right of the 6 people of this State to hunt, fish and harvest game and fish, including by the use of 7 traditional methods, may not be infringed, subject to reasonable laws enacted by the 8 Legislature and reasonable rules adopted by the state agency designated for fish and 9 wildlife management to promote wildlife conservation and management, to maintain 10 natural resources in trust for public use and to preserve the future of hunting and fishing. 11 Public hunting and fishing are a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. 12 This section may not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to eminent 13 domain, trespass or property rights.

Maine 128 - HP 12 item 1
  • RattlerRider

    Ok.. I’ve been politely ignoring this. No more.. As in Idaho this is nothing but total BS..

    An expression of possibility, a permissive choice to act or not, as distinguished from “shall,” which is an imperative or often mandatory course of action. Ah yet then we discover the cleverness of shall;

    “Must” is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory. … Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word “shall.” Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word “shall” appears in statutes, it means “may.”

    Shall means may.. Obviously where they have had shall not be infringed and may not be infringed in their false promises we’ve observed plentiful infringement… Now as an equal member of their society once again I’d like to requisition for myself the latest full auto hardware and the best available tank please… I can manage to accumulate my own fresh meat thank you very much…

    Ah, so may not infringe upon someones privilege to hunt or fish unless we determine the deer moose or fish are in need of being “temporarily” closed until further notice in one year or 100 years for the purpose of;

    “wildlife management to promote wildlife conservation and management, to maintain 10 natural resources in trust for public use and to preserve the future of hunting and fishing.”

    • TRemington

      You are absolutely correct.

      • RattlerRider

        So we back this up with their law books and their actions.. And then what happens.. People unfriend us instead of them.. Amazing..

        • TRemington

          You know as well as I do that you cannot fix the rigged system by using the rigged system.
          This amendment, like all amendments, are deliberately crafted to be vague and left open to any interpretation, i.e. for the benefit of lawyers, et. al.
          I would suppose that I didn’t choose the words appropriate or that my words were incomplete in stating, what sometimes is the case, the assumed obvious. I forget at times that readers don’t see things as I do and I assume, wrongly, that they understand the amendment is no good to accomplish what they think it will accomplish.
          In offering my support of this bill, as written, is that it “may” provide some degree of deterrent to the endless lawsuits that are a regular and expensive event in Maine – the purpose of which is to end hunting, trapping, fishing.
          It may, in fact, create more lawsuits than it deters, but only time will tell.
          Do you know if the similar amendment that Idaho passed has done anything to curb or grow lawsuits?

          • RattlerRider

            The Idaho version, almost identical to Maine’s has improved nothing as nothing has changed.. It’s kind of like, you can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.. The awesome management of the past is in the past, is gone for good.. I’m always saddened when I see hunters waving that false flag amendment out here as if it means anything other than the destruction of their hunting heritage for consumptive use.. These documents are clearly intended to end hunting at a later date..