Reply With QuoteInteresting, I guess I would have fallen for it as a means of protection but I see your point. Looks like its just an open door to do whatever they want.
| Search Fishin.com |
Senior Member
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.
Member
Interesting, I guess I would have fallen for it as a means of protection but I see your point. Looks like its just an open door to do whatever they want.
Member
Wow, Magicsmallie, thanks for explaining. In other words, vote NO!!!! I've read this on a sample ballot a couple times and one could be somewhat confused by the wording.
Member
Maybe vote yes. Confused in ky
Junior Member
yes vote "YES"
Senior Member
Magiksmallie – I belive that’s a radical way of looking at this amendment. I will agree however that the wording could be better. We can all look at any word and use our own interpretation as to what it “means”. “Fishing” to me means going out on beautiful day trying to catch a bass or two. The guy sitting next to me sees “fishing” as the only means of dinner most nights. My point is, don’t get caught up in the webster’s dictionary meaning of each and every word and what it “might” mean if a word is left out – let the lawyers and congressmen/women worry about that should the amendment pass. Rather, look at the overall meaning of it and its purpose. Heck, the KY Department of Fish and Wildlife (the very institution we rely on and trust in regulating our wildlife) are the ones pushing this amendment!
I just got off the phone with KY Fish and Wildlife and NOTHING is being changed with this amendment – no laws are being changed, no regulations are being added or taken away. Simply put, this amendment is taking what we have right now, which is simply a basic “right” to hunt and fish and making this “right” a part of the KY Constitution. Currently, any local or state government can take away this “right” with little to no effort for any reason they want. We’re lucky that this has not happened in our State…yet. Look at it this way, if the right to bear arms was not part of the US Constitution, we wouldn’t have guns PERIOD. No questions asked, no brainer – no 2nd amendment, no guns for hunting or personal protection. There are too many far left wing liberals who would take that “right” away from us if it was an easy option to simply take away. We have our forefathers to thank for our 2nd amendment rights.
Now it’s our turn with something we all hold true and dear to our hearts – the ability to hunt and fish whenever and wherever (permission given of course from property owners) we want to. I for one will vote yes to turn my simplistic and basic “right” to hunt/fish and make it part of the KY Constitution. I don’t see how any of us on this forum could POSSIBLY call ourselves Conservationists and vote no on this.
Sorry for the soapbox and I mean no disrespect to you Magiksmallie. You da man!
Senior Member
No disrespect felt, I just hope that what we perceive to be the intentions of this amendment are really what we get. I like the idea in theory of course! I am a staunch conservative hunter and fisherman. I just hope it doesn't somehow get turned against us in the future. I do agree with your point about the 2nd amendment. Hopefully this amendment will truly protect our rights to hunt and fish. I will probably vote yes for the amendment. It would be difficult not to. Like I said I just hope that over-regulation and conservation methods aren't taken too far.Originally Posted by twise7
Senior Member
Can't agree with you more.
Member
Just FYI, I've done a little more research on this and found that it is backed by the NRA along with others.
Senior Member
Sorry I am a little late to the discussion. I have talked about this with officials at KDFWR and with Mark Nethery, president of the League of Kentucky Sportsmen. This amendment doesn't really change anything. IMO the biggest thing it does is to guarantee that KDFWR will be the agency responsible for managing the state's fish and wildlife and it makes it clear that hunting and fishing are the most important means of managing wildlife. I will definitely be voting in favor of this amendment.
Member
I feel this vote should be in favor for or "yes" as it is on the ballot! It favors all sportsman under the current system. We need to protect our rights for the future. Fish and wildlife has no hidden aggenda here. Our state funds for this department is driven by the purchase of fishing & hunting licenses as well as taxes from our purchasing fishing and hunting equipement. I don't believe it would be benifical for any sportsman to vote "no." I too have spoke with reresentitves and I feel that the the only entent is to insure our rights for the future. We holders of licenses are the customers of the KDFWR and have our League of Kentucky Sportsmen that have our backs. This just firms up our and our childrens rights for the future. I feel this alone is important!
Let's not have individuals and other groups with other motives take our rights away from us! Vote "Yes"!
Member
It's a shame that we have been put in a situation by our government and by fellow man-both of those being driven by agenda and special interest- that we have become cynical. I admit to being first in line regarding conspiracy theories and reading the fine print. Maybe its where I am a fisherman and realizing that there may be a hook involved. I guess its kinda like this- make sure your eyes are wide open and your other end is closed....and protected. Lol
Posting Permissions