Indiana Ballot Measure - Public Question 1

VoteSmart ^

[digger48]

A Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana Concerning Natural and Cultural Resources.

Summary 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.

Measure Text SECTION 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of the State of Indiana, which was agreed to by the One Hundred Eighteenth General Assembly of the State of Indiana and referred to this General Assembly for reconsideration and agreement, is agreed to by this the One Hundred Nineteenth General Assembly of the State of Indiana.

SECTION 2. ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA IS AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

Section 39. (a) The right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife: (1) is a valued part of Indiana's heritage; and (2) shall be forever preserved for the public good.

(b) 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.

(c) Hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. (d) This section shall not be construed to limit the application of any provision of law relating to trespass or property rights.

[digger48]

Any other states have anything like this in their Constitution?

[Battle Axe]

Why do they have to say that?

When I had the ice cream parlor, I gave a pint of ice cream, any flavor, to any hunter that could prove the killed one of those dang bambies.

I'm out there delivering pizza and ice cream on the road at night and those crazy things are all over the road. I even advertised that if you killed one with your car, you got ice cream.

There has to be DNR paperwork if you kill one with your car, I guess so it can be counted.

[Repeal 16-17]

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.

So you have this right, except when the State legislature says otherwise. Isn't this true even without this amendment?

[grame]

Why don’t they say it in normal speak, not legislative language? Many times I get confused by the language, I know how I want to vote but the wording confuses me.

This is confusing because it seems like a question you wouldn’t need to ask. Wonder why there is a need for this.

[Frapster]

That’s why I voted no.

[whistleduck]

Here in Kansas the same measure is on the ballot. My first thought was this is kind of transitory and subject to being overridden at the drop of a corrupt politicians purse.

But per constitution, state law (10th amend) should rule superior—except it has not for decades! At least it is one more small speed bump in our republics decline/overwhelm by the parasitic feds.

[piasa]

Apparently this is intended to protect the trapping tradition from the animal rights movement - the AR movement is trying to shut down hunting and trapping by banning types of traps and ammo and so on, anything to increase the number of hoops one has to jump through to hunt or fish.

[Gasshog]

Bump!

[FamiliarFace]

Some Hoosier help me out here. I’m new to the state and not familiar with the constitution of Indiana. I don’t understand what this is asking me. I may abstain because I don’t get it.

[digger48]

A “YES” is preferred by conservatives.

Maybe this will help...

https://ballotpedia.org/Indiana_Right_to_Hunt_and_Fish,_Public_Question_1_(2016)

The Indiana Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment, also known as Public Question 1, is on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Indiana as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment.

A “yes” vote supports amending the state constitution to include the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.

A “no” vote opposes amending the state constitution to include the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.

Question 1 would permit the constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap to be subjected to regulations promoting wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing. Furthermore, public hunting and fishing would be the preferred method of wildlife management under the amendment.

The amendment would be added to the Indiana Bill of Rights.

Citizens of Kansas are voting on a similar right to hunt and fish amendment on November 8, 2016.

[digger48]

Basically, it makes hunting and fishing a Constitutional Right in the state.

Curtails the whims of judges and activists who are a-scared of guns and think furry critters are for looking at, not eating.

[FamiliarFace]

Thank you, that’s very helpful!