September 21, 2018

Maine’s LD11 – Fabricating Problems for a Predetermined Solution

It matters not to me in this rebuttal whether LD 11 passes or not. God knows I have worn out my keyboard over the years writing about the ups and downs and ins and outs of any and all constitutional amendments presented as a protective device to guarantee the right to hunt, trap and fish.

A recent Letter to the Editor writer expressed concern that passing such an amendment was, “a solution in search of a problem.” However, in an attempt to sell any readers of her theorizing, the writer creates a “problem” in search of a predefined solution.

The writer states: “In fact, LD 11 could actually create problems. Requiring that hunting and fishing be the “preferred means” of managing and controlling wildlife could limit local communities and our state wildlife agency from making sound, science-based decisions.

“What’s more, enshrining these activities in our Constitution would amount to an open invitation for poachers to exploit them to their advantage and could subject longstanding conservation laws to legal challenge from those arguing that this constitutional right exempts them from existing restrictions like bag limits or prohibitions on spotlight or road hunting.”

Depending upon the wording of a constitutional amendment, there exists the possibility that such an amendment could “limit” anti-hunting and animal rights groups from endless and frivolous lawsuits. That is often the nexus behind such proposals. But, understand there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING “sound and science-based” behind so-called wildlife management of today. One could honestly argue that the necessity for an amendment is necessary because to the admitted social nature of most decisions made about wildlife management, none of which are based on anything resembling science.

But, honestly, suggesting that a constitutional amendment would increase poaching while encouraging hunters to break the law and exceed bag limits, etc. is preposterous.

It is always entertaining to discover the fabrication of myths and fairy tales from those lacking in knowledge and/or cannot find any solid data to support their claims or to refute intelligently the reasons why Maine should not need a constitutional amendment.

Whether or not you are in support or opposition to proposed legislative and public initiative actions should be disseminated with facts not creations of one’s imagination.

Share

Maine’s Constitutional Amendment to Hunt and Fish Given a Thumbs Down

According to George Smith’s article in the Bangor Daily News, the Maine Legislature’s Joint Standing Committee for Inland Fisheries and Wildlife turned their noses up at a proposed constitutional amendment sold as something that would guarantee Maine residents a right to hunt and fish. The biggest reasons, as expressed in the article, is that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), who said they were neither for nor against the amendment while showing their disdain for it, might hinder their ability to carry out their management practices. One might ask if that was necessarily a bad thing. The other issue seemed to be that some lawmakers were afraid that if the initiative went to the voters and was rejected it would cast a negative image on MDIFW and sportsmen.

No really! That’s what is written. Check this out. “Rep. Bob Duchesne, the House chair of the IFW Committee, stated that the majority of the committee agrees that we do have the right to hunt and fish. But he also expressed… that voters might reject the amendment which would have a seriously negative impact.”

Here is an organization that seems to go out of its way to keep important information from sportsmen, pissing a lot of us off, and they are worried about whether allowing the people of Maine to make a decision on a constitutional amendment might have negative effects? Whatever! Buy the emperor some new clothes!

It doesn’t really matter. It’s probably a good thing this proposal is dead in the water. One has to ask whether it would have been worth the time, effort and expense to push this amendment when you consider the amendment didn’t go far enough to guarantee anything. Like just about all legislation, it would be worthless and crafted in such a way that lawyers would have a field day with it.

And besides, isn’t this proposed amendment coming about a decade or two too late? Somebody has been sleeping.

The entire effort reminds me of the Biblical parable of the ten virgins. Ten virgins were told to go and wait for the bridegroom to return. Five took lamps with oil in them and five took lamps with no oil. When the bridegroom returned, five virgins lit their lamps and followed him while the other five were lost and left behind. I’ll let you figure out who had the oil.

I suggested a constitutional amendment for Maine at least ten years ago. As a matter of fact, I also posed such a question to Maine’s gubernatorial candidates in 2006. Two of the three candidates supported an amendment or would support it if the people desired one. But, there was no mention of negative embarrassments if such a proposal failed before the voters. Where are we headed anyway? Perhaps back then, if lamps had been trimmed and ready for action, an amendment might have been more easily accepted.

As time wears on, the activity of hunting, trapping, and fishing is falling by the wayside being overtaken by the movements of Environmentalists. Environmentalism, a disease that has deliberately been spread throughout the nation to upend the time-proven heritage and science of wildlife management according to the North American Model of Wildlife Management, and replaced with non-consumptive, Romance Scientism, has infiltrated every aspect at every level of wildlife management. Because of this, there are few left who see what is happening and the reception of such things as constitutional amendments to guarantee the right to hunt, trap, and fish is, in and of itself, negative.

This infiltration is seen within the proposed amendment itself – a proposal that guarantees no more than the propaganda that MDIFW lists on their website as a mission statement.

From this point on, any effort to even suggest a constitutional amendment would be nothing more than a waste of time. Chaulk another up for the animal rights/environmentalists. They are winning the battle one small step at a time while the rest of us dither.

The day rapidly approaches when someone might ask, “Didn’t there used to be hunting in Maine?”

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

Why Constitutional Amendments to “Protect” Hunting Need The Correct Language

Many states have tried, some have succeeded, in getting a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and trap…or at least they think they have. Truth is, very few, and perhaps no state, has made a success out of actually protecting and guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish and trap. Essentially what they have done is end up with legalese, fit only for the law profession, that says the state recognizes that hunting, fishing and trapping are long held traditions and these activities have been used as part of a game management plan. The new laws then make people think this tradition is being protected, when it is not. And here’s why.

As an example of the wrong wording in a right to hunt, fish and trap constitutional amendment, the state of Maine, over the past few years, has bounced around half-efforts to get an amendment passed. However, I have opposed all wording of this effort because it’s fake wording that fails to provide the protection that I believe most sportsmen want.

Without the proper, tough and direct language, while there may be recognition of how hunting, fishing and trapping have been a part of game management and responsible use of natural resources, all attempts have failed to provide language that forces the state, along with their natural resources departments. or fish and game departments, to manage all game species specifically for surplus harvests. I might point out that this kind of tough language is generally opposed by legislators and in particular heads of fish and game departments. The biggest reason is because most fish and game departments have already morphed beyond sensible and scientific game management in favor of environmentalism’s “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science.”

Without this kind of tough and direct language, fish and game departments and/or state governments, can end hunting, fishing and trapping at anytime. With a growth and power of the progressive Left, a totalitarian social effort to end all hunting, fishing and trapping, mostly driven by an extremely perverse animal rights society, not only are fish and wildlife departments gradually, and sometimes not so gradual, are becoming more anti hunting, fishing and trapping, but the general electorate can end hunting, fishing or trapping with one effort at the ballot box with zero consideration for science.

An example of that is seen in British Columbia, Canada, where voters have decided to ban grizzly bear hunting because it doesn’t fit their ideological narrative. As was said by Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Minister Doug Donaldson, “[It is]not a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of society has come to the point in B.C. where they are no longer in favour of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.”

Certainly this reflects the desires of the people, a product of a totalitarian democracy of sorts (two wolves and a sheep discussing what’s for lunch), where a simple vote can destroy long held traditions as well as making a mockery out of wildlife science.

While there never exists any true guarantee of a right to hunt, fish and trap, one does have to wonder if this same kind of referendum would have even been attempted if a true constitutional amendment existed with real power that said it is the mandated function of government to manage all game species for the purpose of surplus harvest and use of natural resources.

It is often argued about whether wildlife is part of the public trust. In my 65 years of life, I do not recall anyone suggesting that viewing wildlife, even out one’s back door, should be stopped or that managers should grow game species to levels that would be harmful to a healthy establishment of animal species. Why is it then, as seems to be the way of the “new” progressive society, that society has little interest in the aspects of the public trust when it comes to the public trust involvement of hunters, fishermen and trappers? In their pea brains, hunters, trappers and fishermen are excluded from any participation in a public trust.

A classic example of totalitarians at work.

Next time anyone begins talking about another proposed constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to hunt, trap and fish, please take a little extra time and honestly ask yourself if what is being proposed will do what it is being sold as doing and is worth any effort to get it passed. Contrary to what the politician will tell you. something is NOT better than nothing.

But, isn’t it now just too late? Does there even exist enough people who aren’t mentally destroyed and manipulated with animal rights and environmentalism, along with Romance Biology and Voodoo Science?

Share

Abortion Should Be the Recommended Instrument to Control Animal Populations

Insane debate rages in Maine over a proposed constitutional amendment wrongly presented as a guaranteed right to hunt, fish and trap.

Last week I was reading an article that contained some comments from those opposed to the amendment and those in favor of such. In one comment from a member of the opposition a woman stated, “This proposal’s vague terms open the door to inhumane, unethical trapping and hunting practices.” 

We are subjected to the nonsensical drivel of the animal rights perverts but consider the realities here and then take a step back and ask yourself just exactly who is inhumane, unethical and insane.

It is always the Left who promote animal rights, while presenting animals as sentient beings of and above the existence of man, endowed with all the same rights, and more, as man. Any form of killing of an animal to these perverse followers of Satanic animal worship is considered “inhumane.” Ever stopped for a minute to understand what the word “inhumane” is derived from? I didn’t think so.

And so, in this one tiny discussion, it is believed by an obvious Leftist that a constitutional amendment suggesting that hunting, fishing and trapping be utilized as a means of controlling the population of certain game animals, will lead to “inhumane, unethical” practices.

Forget that this statement makes no sense at all, and just consider the positions always taken by the Left that make absolutely no sense, contradict their own stated positions and expose themselves as the ignorant frauds that they are.

The Left opposes the killing on ANY animal because doing so is “inhumane” and “unethical.” (understand that many of the same eat dead animals) However, they will give their own lives to defend what they call the right to mutilate and murder an unborn baby. To these mixed up individuals, which number in the millions, it is somehow humane and ethical to pop the head of an unborn baby, tear it to pieces and toss it in a garbage can, and yet hunting, fishing and trapping is inhumane.

Geez! At least most hunters eat what they kill. Do Leftists eat mutilated babies?

Perhaps then, if this country insists on living as mixed up, immoral murderers of babies while protecting animals, wildlife managers should begin a system of capturing and aborting the unwanted fetuses of animals in order to, not only control the population of certain species of animals but to also protect the rights of the female game animals who, according to many on the Left, should enjoy the same “rights” as us immoral and murdering, unethical and inhumane, Americans.

Nothing abnormal here. Move along.

Share

SAM’s Testimony on Right To Hunt Amendment, Makes Claims Not Entirely True

Recently I wrote about a proposed constitutional amendment in Maine that is being presented as an amendment to protect the “right” to hunt, trap and fish – LD 11. I also wrote that this proposal was one that I could support and I was wrong to have made the statement using the words that I did because I failed to succinctly express the full truth in my statement. Please let me explain.

Yesterday, I was reading David Trahan’s (Executive Director of the Sportman’s Alliance of Maine) testimony before the Legislative Committee in support of the proposed amendment.

To many, his words ring true, much because most of us have been taught certain things about our federal and state constitutions and the rights we have been granted under those constitution. Men don’t grant rights to anyone. They simply claim ownership of them and hand them back to us in some kind of limited form or fully deny us of such rights.

Trahan states that when this nation was founded, wildlife was “placed in the public trust” and as such we had the right to take it for sustenance. Therefore, Americans have always possessed the right to hunt, fish and trap. I will have to save for another day any debate on this so-called public trust and our inherent right to hunt, fish and trap. I will proceed from the perspective of most that they do have either a right or a privilege.

As Mr. Trahan also pointed out, man decided that in order to sustain game and other wildlife, they must construct laws to limit that activity. What happened to our inherent “right” to hunt, trap and fish when the limitations by law became enforced? Is anything really a “right” when it is controlled by man? We evidently believe so. When men, because they couldn’t maintain viable game populations through their own disciplines, called upon man-governments to do it for them, it began the process of destroying any semblance of a right to hunt. I ask once again, what happened to a so-called “right” to hunt wildlife “placed in the public trust” when at least some of that right was ceded over to government and restricted?

This is not that much different than the argument of sovereignty, in which most people do not understand sovereignty of an individual or a government agency. How are you a sovereign individual? Oh, you might say, “Nobody tells me what to do! I’m my own man!” But you are not. You might be a legend in your own mind, but you are not a sovereign individual. Once a man agrees to become part of a community, whether it is a small as a neighborhood or as large as a nation, they have agreed to relinquish that sovereignty and place it under the control of the government. Your act of relinquishment places decisions about your life into the hands of the controlling government agencies.

In Maine, at some point in time, the full right to hunt, trap and fish, was ceded to the State Government to control and make the decisions for us as to what, when and how we might harvest game. Trahan points this out in his testimony. In reality, the sportsmen have very little control over their perceived right to hunt. What has evolved since the creation of game and wildlife laws, is that the government agency formulated to oversee hunting, trapping and fishing, call the shots. Yup, proposals for new laws can be presented. Sometimes they get through a committee and most times not. You are heard before a committee but if you can’t get by the committee then what has become of your “right” to hunt, trap and fish. If you do get through committee you are at the mercy of the Legislature. Where then is your protected right?

Many believe that an amendment to the Constitution will guarantee, protect or create a “right” to hunt, trap and fish. They are wrong. I have written many times on this subject and stated that unless an amendment mandated or forced the government to do something, it is nothing more than words on a piece of paper.

The proposed LD 11 states, in reference to the right of the people of Maine to hunt, fish and trap, that this right: “may not be infringed.” (emboldening added) This is not a mandate. It does not force the Legislature, the Governor, Law Enforcement, or anybody else to stop any infringement of a person’s right to hunt, trap and fish. Go ask a lawyer – or at least an intelligent and honest one (yeah I know). Or go research it yourself. “May” is not a mandate – only a suggestion.

Further, the amendment says that this non infringement of the right to hunt, trap and fish is subject to “reasonable” laws enacted by the Legislature and “reasonable” rules adopted by the department in charge of management of game, fish and other wildlife. Is a “reasonable” law or rule an infringement? We’ve already established that the protection against infringement is non binding because the lawyers chose “may” instead of “must.”

So, who decides what “reasonable” means? I hope you are beginning to understand.

The amendment establishes that the department in reference is supposed to “promote wildlife conservation and management” and “maintain natural resources in trust for public use” (emboldening added) and this evidently will “preserve the future of hunting and fishing.” Nothing here is a mandate that forces anybody to do anything. What is wildlife conservation? As it is in operation today, wildlife conservation becomes a matter of which social entity has the most dollars and the loudest mouth to force their idealistic perceptions and conceptions of wildlife conservation.

The Department, according to this amendment will “maintain” natural resources. Maintain them how and to what levels of population that will guarantee, protect or create the “right” to hunt, trap and fish? This, of course, is left up to the Department, which is what takes places now. There is no mandate. There is no protection of any right.

The amendment further states that “public hunting and fishing are the preferred means…” (emboldening added) Where is the mandate here that will guarantee, protect or create a “right” to hunt, trap and fish? The Department might “prefer” to use hunting and fishing but what if they decide to import wolves to control populations of deer and moose? Where is the mandate? Where is the protection of any “right” to hunt, trap and fish? And would such a decision be “reasonable?”

The truth is, that while this is better language than previously proposed in other amendments, voters in Maine should not be misled to believe that this amendment, as written, will guarantee, protect or create for Maine citizens, the “right” to hunt, trap and fish.

And on the reverse of this, as I have already read in a few spreads of clap trap nonsense, such an amendment, as written will not destroy the process to petition the state. This should be obvious once you understand this proposal has nothing in it that is a mandate, forcing anybody to do anything.

When I said this amendment was something I could support, that statement was not accurate and I apologize for misleading people, if I did. First, I could not “support” such and amendment in the literal sense because I am not a legal resident of Maine and therefore could not vote for it if I wanted.

My thinking at the time was that while there still were no mandates in the proposal, perhaps the language was such that it might deter the onslaught of lawsuits and referendums that have been piled onto the Pine Tree State. It may, in fact, increase them. It is difficult to assess.

I will work harder to choose my words and the statements I make more carefully.

Share

A Case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Void of sensible argument, let’s just say for the purposes of this discussion, that the corporate “citizens” of this corporation, the United States of America, live in a democracy. Might as well say it because most think we do and vehemently support it. A democracy sucks…especially when you are the sheep in a three-way discussion with two wolves deciding what’s for lunch. When you combine the ills of the so-called democratic process, with the ignorance of taking the high ground on all things democratic, scientific and wildlife management, spelled out for us in bold letters is HYPOCRISY.

To make my point, gander at the article written in the Kennebec Journal extolling the virtues of Maine’s Constitution and the democratic process in deciding who’s going to make the menu for lunch….er, well, kind of – until the promoter of the democratic process discovers she might be headlining the menu.

The article itself is garbage and so I will not waste my time with a step by step process refuting the endless claims of nonsense strewn through the blather of nonsensical words and hypocritical proclamations shouted from the position of the only one holding the high ground on all matters of what this person calls “rights,” science and the management of wildlife.

It would appear the letter writer assumes the position that rights are granted by governments and that those granted rights are how things should be, as in the rule of law, so long as they are the totalitarian rules of law she chooses to subscribe to that promote her ideology and choice of lifestyle.

The day we are born, our Creator gives us all our rights. It is only man in his sin that takes those rights away and/or doles them out as a means of controlling the population and presenting themselves as an “exceptional” government creating an “exceptional” nation. Sound familiar? Perhaps you don’t recognize it.

For each and every law that it enacted, one more aspect of our God-given rights is being chiseled away. We have reached a point in our uncivilized, greedy, nasty, hate-filled nation, where democracy, manipulated by money and power, is used to force the wills of only the most powerful and affluent among our society. There is a different name for this other than democracy…but, don’t go look.

In our own blind ignorance, created by the same powerful and affluent through essentially brainwashing (controlling all forms of education and media) once anyone assumes the high ground on any issue, of course the other side is wrong and need to be stopped, even to the point of wanting the oppositions rights removed. This IS but one of the nasty elements of democracy that you must like.

Aside from the blather of the letter writer, can anyone see the idiocy in the defense of what this person considers her choice in how democracy and the rule of law are applied? I see this most often but I wonder how many others do, especially those bent on forcing their idealism and totalitarian ways onto all others.

With but limited “rights” left, as most all “rights” are either taken away or have been limited to some degree, one can only employ the “democratic” process available in hopes of changing those laws.

In Maine there is but one more attempt at amending the constitution in order to establish what the promoters are calling a constitutional protection to hunt, fish and trap. Incidentally and most relevant to an honest discussion, since Maine became a state, there have been 172 approved amendments to its Constitution. Should it come as a shock to people that the process taken to adopt these amendments was the “democratic” process established within the original Constitution as defined in Article X, Section 4.? If you love this democracy so much, I hope you at least understand how it works.

How, then, is seeking approval from the Maine Legislature, to present to the voters of that state, a chance to consider, debate and vote on this or any other amendment, wrong as it applies to things a person doesn’t approve of?

The letter writer claims that a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and trap will destroy the rights of others and prohibit them from having any legal recourse in affairs concerning wildlife management. What nonsense. No constitutional amendment, unless so written, will supersede any and all other articles and amendments within a constitution.

Not that long ago, some in Maine were promoting a law that would remove a person’s right to petition the state in wildlife management issues of which I opposed. The proposed amendment, as written, would not do that.

It appears that in the letter writer’s enthusiasm and hatred toward all things hunting, trapping and fishing, she is skewing the lines between offering substantiated reasons to oppose an amendment for its content, and the actual democratic process established within the constitution.

I assure everyone that of the 172 amendments to Maine’s Constitution, not everyone liked and voted for them. However, as I have stated, democracy sucks, especially when you are on the short end of the stick.

The process is established and as much as some would like even to change that process, which can be done by implementation of the democratic and legal processes established within the Constitution, it is a process that shouldn’t be used to somehow demonize anyone’s or group of anyone’s right to petition the state and/or use the legal process to, in fact, let the voters decide. That is after all, what most American’s think is the best way to do things. It’s a classic Jeffersonian process.

The person who wrote this letter obviously does not understand the state’s legal processes, as well as the not so legal processes, that are presented as a right to assure a citizen the process to legally change the laws. It is not only ironic, buy of a double standard, that anyone would, while attempting to bless the Maine Constitution, out of the corner of their mouths, wish to limit those rights to anyone she does not agree with or that doesn’t agree with her.

The process is there, whether we like it or not. If you support this process and believe in it, then put your money where your mouth is and let the process work. In the meantime, if you oppose or support the proposed constitutional amendment then provide valid reasons for or against. Don’t pretend to understand the process while doing everything in your power to destroy the process.

Then again, all of this could be just a charade.

 

Share

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

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
Share

Kansas Right to Hunt & Fish Constitutional Amendment Passes Committee

The people have the right to hunt, fish and trap, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to reasonable laws and regulations that promote wildlife conservation and management and that preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. This section shall not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights or water resources.

Source: Kansas Right to Hunt & Fish Constitutional Amendment Passe

Share

Constitutional Amendment to Preserve Right to Hunt Fish? A Cold Day in Hell

Even IF, and it’s a bit IF, the Maine Legislature passed any kind of constitutional amendment that some think would protect the right of Maine residents to hunt and fish, it won’t do any such thing without the needed nitty, gritty wording.

What little effort has gone into creating a proposal to protect that outdoor heritage, not only has any proposed language been mostly useless, there has been little support, even from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). MDIFW wouldn’t support such an amendment, or at least one that is worded in a way that mandates the department of manage game for surplus harvest. God forbid they should do such a thing…a thing that might anger the environmentalists, of which most employees of MDIFW appear to be environmentalists, more interested in piping plovers than managing deer and moose for surplus harvest to continue providing a resource for hungry hunters.

In George Smith’s recent article he states: “Dave Trahan, Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, asked the committee to consider a new Constitutional amendment to protect hunting. He said he’s researching amendments in other states, including the language used in those amendments.”

Why is it that any proposals for a constitutional amendment have to be based on what other states, who have those amendments, used for words? Will this “research” include communicating with those who proposed the amendments, i.e. what they wanted and what they settled for? And will this “research” include talking with sportsmen to find out if the amendment has worked and what would be better if changed? Just because somebody else used it doesn’t mean it is what is best for Maine.

I know of a few states that “settled” for some watered down version that amounted to nothing. Its only purpose then became a bit of leverage where outdoor sportsmen could state that voters approved an amendment to protect hunting and fishing by XXXX percentage of voters. In the meantime, state fish and game departments are struggling to provide “opportunity” and failing at managing game herds.

I’ve explained before that a constitutional amendment is useless if it does not have wording that requires the managing department to grow game populations for surplus harvest. To simply state that the department will provide hunting and fishing opportunity is meaningless. An “opportunity” might be as little as 500,000 hunters vying for 5 tags to hunt deer. What an “opportunity!”

It is puzzling, that we now live in a society where it seems more profitable to that society to protect immoral and unproductive lifestyles rather than promote wholesome ways of living carried down through generations. We are often asked if we think this country is headed in the right direction. Of course it isn’t. When there lacks the support to protect a valuable heritage, what then does our future look like?

Maine people must understand that if a serious attempt at passing an amendment, with any teeth at all, fails as miserably as in the past, the resounding message then becomes, Maine has no more interest in outdoor heritage. Hunting, fishing and trapping will end and Maine will continue to pour its resources into gay marriage, animal rights, welfare, illegal immigration, etc. etc. etc.

Maine needs to get it right.

MaineLegislator

Share

When Lawyers Write Hunting/Fishing Constitutional Amendments

Here we go again. Texas is attempting to be the 19th state to pass a constitutional amendment they think will protect their right to hunt and fish and harvest game. But, will it?

Proposition 6 reads:

“The people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing are preferred methods of managing and controlling wildlife. This section does not affect any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain. This section does not affect the power of the legislature to authorize a municipality to regulate the discharge of a weapon in a populated area in the interest of public safety.”

To be up front, for whatever it is worth and for whatever one might think it would accomplish, I am in support of constitutional amendments aimed at protecting a man’s right to harvest game. However, of all the amendments I have seen and read, I fail to see how the words crafted in these amendments actually fully protect the right to hunt, fish, trap and fill one’s freezer, or supplement their income.

Why can’t legal documents be worded straight forward, clear, and precise, so that everyone can understand it and lawyers can’t make gobs of money “interpreting” it and challenging it in court? I know the answer. Do you?

Let’s look at Proposition 6. “including by the use of traditional methods”. Please explain. I recall an argument in Maine over this issue. Some were asking for the protection of the “traditional method” of being able to hunt from an ATV, while others understood walking through the woods with a deer rifle to be “traditional.” Who gets to decide what a “traditional method” is? Don’t tell me. Lawyers do. Ka-ching, Ka-ching.

Next: “subject to laws…to conserve and manage wildlife….AND” Here we have a bunch of gobbledy-gook that means nothing but does provide a whole bunch of gray area in which lawyers can thrive and profit. Subject to laws: Well, we are always subject to laws. As we approach a totalitarian socialist state, don’t look for being subject to laws to change anytime soon. Let’s look at “to conserve and manage wildlife.” That has meaning toward every end of the spectrum. To make my point, can I ask if it is “conserving” and “managing” wildlife to manipulate game populations to such levels as “laws we are subject to” need to be written that bans hunting to protect, preserve, “conserve and manage” game?

I inserted the “AND” above for a reason. We need to take the entire sentence as it is written in order to better understand it: “subject to the laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife AND preserve the future of hunting and fishing.” Does this mean that the “conserve and manage” wildlife is required by the amendment in such a way as to “preserve” hunting and fishing, i.e. is there a guarantee here or a mandate that wildlife managers will “conserve and manage” wildlife for the purpose of surplus harvest? I don’t see it. What I believe it says is that laws can be written at anytime that the legislature deems it in the best interest to “conserve and manage” wildlife, rendering this not a very effective constitutional amendment. In addition, it leaves wide open the need for lawyers and courts to “interpret” what this means. Ka-ching, Ka-ching.

The only way that any amendment can guarantee the right to hunt and fish is if that same amendment mandates the management of wildlife in surplus for the express purpose of taking fish and game.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has taken over 200 years for a Supreme Court to rule that this right is for an individual. I have always thought that amendment pretty straight forward. Imagine if the Second Amendment had read, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, subject to the laws and rules to conserve and manage arms, and preserve the future of gun ownership.”

While amendments like Proposition 6 may slow down or discourage some environmentalists from efforts to end hunting and fishing, why is it that with all the effort that goes into a constitutional amendment, it can’t be written exactly for the purpose intended?

Lawyers! Phhhft!

Here’s my version of an amendment:

The people living in this state have a right to hunt, fish and trap. The state will provide managers for the purpose of perpetuating game in surplus amounts for the people to harvest.

Share