“Hoosier voters will decide on Election Day whether to make hunting and fishing a protected right in Indiana, just like free speech or religion,” indystar.com reports. “If the constitutional amendment is approved, Indiana would become the 20th state to pass such a measure — prohibiting local governments from passing laws restricting hunting or fishing in the future and establishing hunting as the state’s preferred method for wildlife conservation and management.” Yes, well, this ain’t no “the right to hunt and fish shall not be infringed” kinda deal. Here’s the official ballot summary for Question 1 . . .
Provides that the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is a valued part of Indiana’s heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good. Provides that the people have a right, which includes the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to the laws prescribed by the general assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the general assembly to: (1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and (2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Provides that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. Provides that this constitutional amendment does not limit the application of any laws relating to trespass or property rights. This proposed amendment has been agreed to by one general assembly.”
Is it me, or does Question 1 sound like it doesn’t do squat? And since when is hunting under threat in Indiana? “It’s unfortunate we’re at a place where we have to do this,” State Senator Jim Tomes said. “Young people seem to be more interested in playing video games than going outside.” So a constitutional amendment is the answer? I’m sorry. I must be missing something. Would you support a constitutional amendment like this on the state or even national level?