https://www2.ncleg.net/BillLookUp/2017/S677

Quote :

" The right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is a valued part of the State's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good. The people have a right, including the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to laws enacted by the General Assembly and rules adopted pursuant to authority granted by the General Assembly to (i) promote wildlife conservation and management and (ii) preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. Nothing herein shall be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain.""

This is might be the only amendment I vote for in November. I have 2 qualms:

- I think it’s a cynical ploy by the GOP to improve their turnout. Their other amendments suck ass, and I don’t want to give them anything.

- the language “traditional methods” is never defined. Does that include dynamite? Gill netting? Hunting with dogs? Could it somehow be construed to mean commercial harvest of fish by some unsustainable method? This might be the kicker that gets me to vote against it.

7/23/2018 8:15:20 PM

I guess I'm a little confused as to where this is coming from. Don't we already have the right to hunt and fish in this state? Are they trying to get rid of the permitting system?

7/23/2018 8:25:26 PM

Supporters would suggest that it would guarantee a right to hunt and fish on public lands. That animal rights activist couldn’t make hunting and fishing illegal somehow. It could be used to increase harvest limits, if restrictions were found to be “unconstitutionally” strict??? It could guarantee funding to wildlife rehabilitation and reintroduction programs. It could guarantee a sporting species to be preserved if it was threatened in the state???

[Edited on July 23, 2018 at 8:46 PM. Reason : Probably other stuff too?]

7/23/2018 8:44:52 PM

Cities should be allowed to regulate hunting withing their municipal limits

7/23/2018 8:49:58 PM

^^I'm all about hunting but I think there should be major restrictions on what constitutes public land. I assume it is limited to public game lands.

7/23/2018 9:36:56 PM

This is coming from the group of hunters who hunt with dogs. Possibly also the seafood magnates at the coast who make their living with unsustainable gill netting and trawling methods.

[Edited on July 23, 2018 at 9:47 PM. Reason : asdf]

[Edited on July 23, 2018 at 9:48 PM. Reason : the "traditional methods" phrase is the most important part]

7/23/2018 9:43:13 PM

^this and I think gill netting. Those are the exact two issues that concern me the most. It’s probably why I’ll end up voting against.

^^gamelands, you can fish in most state parks and Wildlife Access spots. You can currently use a NC hunting license in many areas of US Forest Service Land. I think restricting hunting in state parks would be a fair restriction, and The amendment does allow the legislature to restrict hunting laws.

But our legislature......./rant

7/23/2018 9:53:26 PM

i don't have a problem with dog hunting as long as they keep themselves and their dogs off land they don't have permission to hunt. that's nearly impossible nowadays, though.

7/23/2018 10:24:59 PM

http://www.smithenvironment.com/constitutional-amendments/

Quote :

"The amendment would allow regulations to protect species and maintain fish and wildlife populations for future harvest, but those would seem to be the only constitutionally protected types of regulation other than “laws concerning trespass, property rights or eminent domain”. The limit on adoption of other types of hunting and fishing regulation appears to apply to laws enacted by the General Assembly as well as rules adopted by state agencies and local government ordinances. The impact of the constitutional amendment could be significant since the language does not allow for other common types of fishing and hunting regulation such as: ? Public safety regulations. State laws and local ordinances regulating hunting for protection of public safety — such as restrictions on hunting within city limits or hunting close to houses and schools — could be unconstitutional under the amendment. The legislature rejected a floor amendment that would have added language allowing for public safety regulation of hunting and fishing. ? Regulation to protect fish and wildlife habitat. The amendment may also raise questions about the constitutionality of regulations affecting gear used by fishermen if the purpose of the regulation is to protect habitat (such as submerged aquatic vegetation or salt marshes) rather than fish or wildlife species. ? Regulation of hunting and fishing methods. A number of state laws and wildlife regulations limit certain types of hunting; time of day; the nature and use of traps; or put other restrictions on hunting activities. For example, Wildlife Resources Commission rules restrict use of dogs in certain hunts. A number of counties have additional local laws regulating use of lights in hunting; imposing county-specific time of day restrictions; setting standards for traps; etc. It isn’t clear that those kinds of regulations would be constitutional under the proposed amendment since they don’t obviously fit within the two categories of constitutionally protected regulation. It also isn’t clear how a decision about the constitutionality of regulations would be affected by the amendment language specifically (but not exclusively) protecting “traditional methods” of hunting and fishing."

So we were basically spot on with some of the questions this amendment raises.

[Edited on August 1, 2018 at 5:21 PM. Reason : also Smith Environment Blog is the best source for NC environmental-legal discussion....EVARRRR]

8/1/2018 5:18:57 PM

This is way too broadly/ambiguously worded, definitely will not be voting for it.

Doesn't seem like something that's remotely needed anyway, the right to hunt and fish is not even in jeopardy, no one ever has questioned this right.

8/1/2018 7:01:06 PM

^https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/cruel-sports/hunting/
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/cruel-sports/fishing/

8/1/2018 7:46:11 PM

Quote :

"I think it’s a cynical ploy by the GOP to improve their turnout. "

Those sneaky bastards

[Edited on August 2, 2018 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ]

8/2/2018 11:53:28 AM