Is it necessary to affirm the right to hunt and fish in state constitutions?
“I liked it better when I was hunting birds there,” said the mediator, when he figured out the location of the garages at a Branson condominium. Seven attorneys gathered to attempt to resolve a dispute over rights to use four garages at the condominium.
As the Ozarks and much of rural America becomes suburbanized, many people want to protect their cherished traditions of hunting and fishing. In ten states, citizens have amended their constitutions to affirm the right to hunt and fish. Oklahoma has done so and the proposal is being considered in Arkansas and Tennessee.
As I hear people in the Ozarks express themselves about land and water and fish and game, I hear the same arguments that have been made to affirm the rights of native peoples to continue their hunting and fishing traditions, some of which have been protected from state regulation by federal law.
The Ozarks have been populated by people of mostly European ancestry for nearly 300 years. After many generations, it’s no wonder that members of old Ozarks familes feel like they need to assert themselves to hang on to their culture. And those whose families haven’t been around as long would naturally want to feel secure in their adopted traditions.
Loading ...
Harry, if hunting fishing are rights, what does it take to lose the rights? One advantage of keeping them as privileges is that the state can revoke the privilege from those who abuse it.
The right to free speech is not always pretty, but we can generally choose to ignore those who choose to speak in abusive language. Animals cannot choose to avoid abusive outdoorsmen, whose responsibility it is to manage our natural resources wisely.
If we make hunting and fishing a right, would the “right” to control game on one’s property follow, even though game know no boundaries?