Jefferson County Nov6 General Election- Constitutional Amendment

[Catfish Bob]

Don't know if this is just on J-county ballots or not.

Are you in favor of amending the Kentucky constitution to state that the citizens of Kentucky have the personal right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, subject to laws and regulations that promote conservation and preserve the future of hunting and fishing, and to state that public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife?


Got here to see the J-county ballot.
http://ags2.lojic.org/WhereDoIVote/i.../89-1-NP-F.pdf


Think I will vote no because I also see hunting as a way of human survival and not only the control of wildlife.

Don't know too much about this issue, anyone care to enlighten me, please, I'm all ears.

[GeoFisher]

Don't know if this is just on J-county ballots or not.

Are you in favor of amending the Kentucky constitution to state that the citizens of Kentucky have the personal right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, subject to laws and regulations that promote conservation and preserve the future of hunting and fishing, and to state that public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife?


Got here to see the J-county ballot.
http://ags2.lojic.org/WhereDoIVote/i.../89-1-NP-F.pdf


Think I will vote no because I also see hunting as a way of human survival and not only the control of wildlife.

Don't know too much about this issue, anyone care to enlighten me, please, I'm all ears.

YOU BETTER vote YES.........otherwise your ability to hunt and fish will be taken away.

It is a HORRIBLY worded amendment..........

Later,

Geo

[creeker]

What this does is enshrine into our state's constitution the right to hunt and fish. As it stands right now, there is no grounds to stop some HSUS or PETA group from getting some law passed to ban say, large mouth bass fishing. All it takes is, just like any other law, give enough money to the cause and viola! As hunters and fishermen, our only recourse would be to elect new leaders in the state legislature. With this in the constitution, we have legal grounds to overturn the law.

This would also stop some local city or county from enacting some ban. I take it you're from Jefferson Co, so surely you remember how the dog ordinance happened here. There's nothing from stopping some group working the same way to get fishing banned in Jefferson Co. But if this passes, there will be.

[eddie_m]

I already absentee-ballot voted (because I'll be at KY Lake!) and voted yes on this. That said, I don't really like it, because I think it opens up questions about whether the constitutional amendment trumps a landowner's right to post their land and limit access to trespassing hunters. I don't own land but I do hunt and fish, so I voted for it. I'm probably over-thinking it.

Of course, having just voted for it didn't prevent my muzzleloader from mis-firing Sunday morning!

[creeker]

The actual amendment mentions that it will not override any laws regarding trespassing, property rights, or commercial activities. I'll post the actual amendment when I find it. In the mean time, take a look at this for some information.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/ConstAmend_PR_2012.pdf

I don't know why they didn't post the actual amendment on the ballot. It seems like it would have been easier to have asked something along the lines of "do you support amending the constitution with the following amendment?"

[creeker]

Here's the amendment's actual wording:


"The citizens of Kentucky have the personal right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, using traditional methods, subject only to statutes enacted by the Legislature, and to administrative regulations adopted by the designated state agency to promote wildlife conservation and management and to 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 the regulation of commercial activities."


Also, here's what I think is another good source for info:

http://fw.ky.gov/righttohuntandfish.asp

[GeoFisher]

I already absentee-ballot voted (because I'll be at KY Lake!) and voted yes on this. That said, I don't really like it, because I think it opens up questions about whether the constitutional amendment trumps a landowner's right to post their land and limit access to trespassing hunters. I don't own land but I do hunt and fish, so I voted for it. I'm probably over-thinking it.

Of course, having just voted for it didn't prevent my muzzleloader from mis-firing Sunday morning!

Yea baby........I've not voted yet.......I hope to be home early enough to......I just might vote early just in case

Later,

Geo

[Catfish Bob]

Geo and Creeker thank you much for the education.

Yeah the wording is terrible.

Wonder why ol Tim Farmer hasn't discussed this on his show.

[creeker]

Yea baby........I've not voted yet.......I hope to be home early enough to......I just might vote early just in case

Later,

Geo

Make sure you vote early and often!

[Carter1]

The land owner will not have to worry. This is about having the "right" to hunt and fish. Not about giving anyone the right to trespass. The way it is right now it is only a privilege. I listened to Greg Stumbo talk about it on Jim Strader Show the other day. Vote, "YES" on this ammendment.

[MagikSmallie]

This is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Constitutional Amendment: Boom or Trap?

On November 6 Kentuckians will have the opportunity to vote on what has been termed an amendment to protect hunting. Many believe that there are coming threats to hunting and fishing rights. Possibly they are right but that begs the question as to whether this amendment will provide the wall of protection they seek. Maybe not.

If one considers why we have a constitution it becomes clear that its main purpose is to control government and see that it does not become tyrannical. The language commonly used to protect rights usually reads like “the government shall not make any laws contrary to the right of ‘blank.” It does not say that the government provides the right, the right is assumed; therefore the language is to protect the public from its government. Now let’s consider the language of this amendment.

Here is how it will appear on the November ballot: “Are you in favor of amending the Kentucky Constitution to state that the citizens of Kentucky have the personal right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, subject to laws and regulations that promote conservation and preserve the future of hunting and fishing, and to state that public hunting and fishing shall be preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife?”

That sentence sounds very benign but one has to look further. This amendment guarantees nothing except that there will be more laws and regulations. These laws and regulations could just as easily be used against Kentuckians as for Kentuckians. The use of the word conservation is entirely ambiguous and opens the door to radical control of our forests. As to the rights its purports to save, those rights are already in place, the licensing regulations are already in place, nothing more needs to be done. This amendment is a trap.

[twise7]

I agree - we need to vote yes on this one. Just to clarify, this Amendment is statewide, not just in Jefferson County.