WI Constitutional Right to Hunt to be voted on
01-29-2003, 09:18 PM
#1
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sussex WI
Posts: 381
WI Constitutional Right to Hunt to be voted on
<font size=3>Constitutional right to hunt and fish will be up to voters</font id=size3>
By DENNIS CHAPTMAN and RICHARD P. JONES
Madison - Wisconsin voters will decide April 1 whether to change the state constitution to guarantee people the right to hunt, fish and trap after the Legislature on Tuesday paved the way for the spring referendum.
Referendum Wording
"Shall Section 26 of Article I of the constitution be created to provide that the people have the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law?"
For the second straight session, the Senate and Assembly approved the amendment, pushed by sporting interests who fear future restrictions on their traditional outdoor pastimes.
Legislators' approval came on lopsided votes, with the Assembly endorsing it on a 94-3 vote and the Senate following up with a 30-1 vote.
If approved by voters, the amendment giving people "the right to fish, hunt, trap and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law" would be inserted into the constitution's Declaration of Rights.
It would be the first addition to that declaration since 1997, when state voters approved an amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms.
If the measure is given the go-ahead by state voters, Wisconsin would become the seventh state to enact such a guarantee. Neighboring Minnesota already has similar protections on the books.
Concerns about the future
State Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Town of Norway), a co-author of the amendment and a sports shop owner, said the measure is intended to stop unreasonable future limits on hunting and fishing.
"It's something that's needed for the future. When we look across the country, there are groups that are eroding the rights of sportsmen and women," Gunderson said. "It's important for us to put a safeguard in our constitution."
The amendment was pushed by state sportsmen's groups that worried that a contentious debate over the mourning dove hunt a few years ago would eventually lead to the erosion of the rights of residents to hunt and fish.
"There's a lot of people who would like to see hunting stopped, fishing stopped, and I think that's counterproductive to conservation," said Mike Skewes, a founding member of Sporting Heritage Inc.
Pete Gerl, executive director of Whitetails Unlimited, based in Sturgeon Bay, called the vote a victory for those who hunt and fish.
"I think it would be important for hunters and fishermen to have something like that because of the different inroads that are being made by animal rights activists," he said.
Gunderson said the proposed amendment allows the state to regulate hunting and fishing but stops it from imposing unreasonable restrictions on sporting activities.
"If there's a certain species that they need to lower a bag limit or close a season for a while for some reason, they can do that," Gunderson said. "But it won't allow someone to come in and arbitrarily close the deer hunting season because they don't like deer hunting."
Opposition is limited
But Rep. Luther Olsen (R-Berlin), one of the three who voted against the amendment in the Assembly, said although he supports hunters and anglers, he could not back a "right" for which people have to pay license fees.
"I don't think a right is something where the state tells you your right is over when the season is done," Olsen said.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison) also voted against the measure, saying it was a political device.
"What originated as a political statement to get votes is now about amending the state constitution, when there is no pressing need and no attempts to take away hunting and fishing rights," he said.
In the Senate, Democrat Bob Jauch of Poplar cast the lone vote in opposition, saying the Legislature had more important things to do.
During debate, Jauch said the constitution was meant to protect citizens' most basic rights, and the amendment "demeans" and "minimizes" the document.
Jauch said he represented a district where hunting was the lifeblood of the economy, but no constituent had approached him, claiming their right to hunt or fish was threatened and arguing for amendment.
"I don't think hunters are going to be offended with my vote because it doesn't make any difference in their lives," Jauch said later. "My vote doesn't make a statement on hunting and fishing. My record's pretty clear on that. My point is that the constitution is an important document, and it ought not be trivialized.
"This is a solution without a problem," he added. "Hunters are worried more about the resource and chronic wasting disease than they are about their ability to hunt."
Sens. Dave Zein (R-Eau Claire) and Russ Decker (D-Schofield) argued for the amendment, saying it was needed to protect such rights for future generations.
"I don't think there is a threat, but things could change 10, 15 years down the road," Decker said.
Rep. DuWayne Johnsrud (R-Eastman) said the amendment would provide protection for a long outdoor sporting tradition in Wisconsin.
"It's worked well in other states that have it," Johnsrud said. "As a statewide heritage, in almost every family there is someone who hunts or fishes and there is a major economic impact."
Johnsrud said he is also concerned about "mischief" from anti-hunting and fishing factions.
"There will be lots of challenges, both ways," Johnsrud said. "We'll probably have some goofball go out there and try to hunt without a license, not realizing there can be certain restrictions."
Edited by - TJD on 01/29/2003 22:19:20
By DENNIS CHAPTMAN and RICHARD P. JONES
Madison - Wisconsin voters will decide April 1 whether to change the state constitution to guarantee people the right to hunt, fish and trap after the Legislature on Tuesday paved the way for the spring referendum.
Referendum Wording
"Shall Section 26 of Article I of the constitution be created to provide that the people have the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law?"
For the second straight session, the Senate and Assembly approved the amendment, pushed by sporting interests who fear future restrictions on their traditional outdoor pastimes.
Legislators' approval came on lopsided votes, with the Assembly endorsing it on a 94-3 vote and the Senate following up with a 30-1 vote.
If approved by voters, the amendment giving people "the right to fish, hunt, trap and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law" would be inserted into the constitution's Declaration of Rights.
It would be the first addition to that declaration since 1997, when state voters approved an amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms.
If the measure is given the go-ahead by state voters, Wisconsin would become the seventh state to enact such a guarantee. Neighboring Minnesota already has similar protections on the books.
Concerns about the future
State Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Town of Norway), a co-author of the amendment and a sports shop owner, said the measure is intended to stop unreasonable future limits on hunting and fishing.
"It's something that's needed for the future. When we look across the country, there are groups that are eroding the rights of sportsmen and women," Gunderson said. "It's important for us to put a safeguard in our constitution."
The amendment was pushed by state sportsmen's groups that worried that a contentious debate over the mourning dove hunt a few years ago would eventually lead to the erosion of the rights of residents to hunt and fish.
"There's a lot of people who would like to see hunting stopped, fishing stopped, and I think that's counterproductive to conservation," said Mike Skewes, a founding member of Sporting Heritage Inc.
Pete Gerl, executive director of Whitetails Unlimited, based in Sturgeon Bay, called the vote a victory for those who hunt and fish.
"I think it would be important for hunters and fishermen to have something like that because of the different inroads that are being made by animal rights activists," he said.
Gunderson said the proposed amendment allows the state to regulate hunting and fishing but stops it from imposing unreasonable restrictions on sporting activities.
"If there's a certain species that they need to lower a bag limit or close a season for a while for some reason, they can do that," Gunderson said. "But it won't allow someone to come in and arbitrarily close the deer hunting season because they don't like deer hunting."
Opposition is limited
But Rep. Luther Olsen (R-Berlin), one of the three who voted against the amendment in the Assembly, said although he supports hunters and anglers, he could not back a "right" for which people have to pay license fees.
"I don't think a right is something where the state tells you your right is over when the season is done," Olsen said.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison) also voted against the measure, saying it was a political device.
"What originated as a political statement to get votes is now about amending the state constitution, when there is no pressing need and no attempts to take away hunting and fishing rights," he said.
In the Senate, Democrat Bob Jauch of Poplar cast the lone vote in opposition, saying the Legislature had more important things to do.
During debate, Jauch said the constitution was meant to protect citizens' most basic rights, and the amendment "demeans" and "minimizes" the document.
Jauch said he represented a district where hunting was the lifeblood of the economy, but no constituent had approached him, claiming their right to hunt or fish was threatened and arguing for amendment.
"I don't think hunters are going to be offended with my vote because it doesn't make any difference in their lives," Jauch said later. "My vote doesn't make a statement on hunting and fishing. My record's pretty clear on that. My point is that the constitution is an important document, and it ought not be trivialized.
"This is a solution without a problem," he added. "Hunters are worried more about the resource and chronic wasting disease than they are about their ability to hunt."
Sens. Dave Zein (R-Eau Claire) and Russ Decker (D-Schofield) argued for the amendment, saying it was needed to protect such rights for future generations.
"I don't think there is a threat, but things could change 10, 15 years down the road," Decker said.
Rep. DuWayne Johnsrud (R-Eastman) said the amendment would provide protection for a long outdoor sporting tradition in Wisconsin.
"It's worked well in other states that have it," Johnsrud said. "As a statewide heritage, in almost every family there is someone who hunts or fishes and there is a major economic impact."
Johnsrud said he is also concerned about "mischief" from anti-hunting and fishing factions.
"There will be lots of challenges, both ways," Johnsrud said. "We'll probably have some goofball go out there and try to hunt without a license, not realizing there can be certain restrictions."
Edited by - TJD on 01/29/2003 22:19:20
01-30-2003, 06:21 AM
#2
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Greendale, Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 6,356
RE: WI Constitutional Right to Hunt to be voted on
TJD, thanks for putting that here. I urge all hunters, fisherman, and people who love the outdoors to vote for this when the time comes !!!!
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear !"
.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear !"
.
01-30-2003, 09:03 PM
#3
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Central Illinois USA
Posts: 45
RE: WI Constitutional Right to Hunt to be voted on
Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it....
"subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law"
And, who decides what is "reasonable restrictions"?
"subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law"
And, who decides what is "reasonable restrictions"?
01-31-2003, 07:37 AM
#4
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sussex WI
Posts: 381
RE: WI Constitutional Right to Hunt to be voted on
I doubt there is a real concern there, Tal.
Any constitutional amendment I can think of faces the same test. For example, free speech doesn't mean you can yell "Fire" in a crowded building when there isn't one. The Second Amendment, though guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean you can get fully automatic weapons or hand grenades, etc.
We already have "reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law" with regard to hunting and fishing. This step at least codifies the right to engage in such activities.
Any constitutional amendment I can think of faces the same test. For example, free speech doesn't mean you can yell "Fire" in a crowded building when there isn't one. The Second Amendment, though guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean you can get fully automatic weapons or hand grenades, etc.
We already have "reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law" with regard to hunting and fishing. This step at least codifies the right to engage in such activities.
01-31-2003, 10:47 AM
#5
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Arena WI USA
Posts: 104
RE: WI Constitutional Right to Hunt to be voted on
I AM mixed on my feelings for this issue. Of course as an avid outdoorsmen I support it, but I think there is merit in the arguement "so what?" I mean don't they have better issues to work on? I haven't been able to see the bill itself, but I would be suspicious as to what the underlying motive is. What exactly does this bill protect? They could still pass bills to ban every weapon in the state and then say but because of this bill you still have the right to hunt, WITH YOUR BARE HANDS! Good Luck! An extreme possibility, I know, but a possibility none the less. Therefore my enthusiasm is somewhat curbed.
I support it but don't hail it as a great step forward.
I would be interested in how anyone else feels.
I support it but don't hail it as a great step forward.
I would be interested in how anyone else feels.
01-31-2003, 11:47 AM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alexandria, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 1,079
RE: WI Constitutional Right to Hunt to be voted on
We vote these people into office and they say casting a vote is a waste of there time? What is it these elected officials do? I don't agree with that statement.....
Info on my username- Was in an investment club called buckig. Building Up Cash & Knowledge Invest Group. Club disbanded and I went on my own and came up with Buckmine. Didn't want anyone out to think I was selfish or crude........
Info on my username- Was in an investment club called buckig. Building Up Cash & Knowledge Invest Group. Club disbanded and I went on my own and came up with Buckmine. Didn't want anyone out to think I was selfish or crude........
