Jump to content



Photo

Hunting & Fishing

Indiana Constitutional Amend-

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 05 September 2016 - 03:29 PM

I must be really bored today. Went over to in.gov to see

if they'd updated the NOV ballot info yet. They have.  :thumbsup:

 

I noticed something interesting at the bottom of the ballot.

Ratification of State Constitutional Amendment CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BY ADDING A SECTION 39 TO ARTICLE 1 Shall the Constitution of the State of Indiana be amended by adding a Section 39 to Article 1 to provide that the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife shall be forever preserved for the public good, 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?

First I've heard of it. Took a look elsewhere https://ballotpedia....estion_1_(2016)

Other than the NRA support (which is a given) I don't see any problem with it.

It seems to be blowback against groups like PETA but I'd like to hear some other

opinions ... both pro & con.


Edited by RiverFox, 05 September 2016 - 03:30 PM.

  • kelley likes this

#2 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 06 September 2016 - 03:34 PM

All that I could find :

Supporters touted the bill as a way to block spurious lawsuits by radical environmental groups and animal rights activists hoping to ban all forms of hunting.

But opponents say the measure is troubling because it could encourage and protect egregious unethical hunting practices.

Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, questioned why the amendment was needed at all, since hunting is already intensely regulated by Indiana’s wildlife agency

and has broad public support.

http://www.indystar....-fish/25795525/

Pretty much what I thought. Basically making a statement. Probably unnecessary

but not a big deal.    Anyone?


Edited by RiverFox, 06 September 2016 - 03:34 PM.


#3 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,132 posts

Posted 06 September 2016 - 04:10 PM

All that I could find :
Pretty much what I thought. Basically making a statement. Probably unnecessary
but not a big deal. Anyone?


I hadn't heard of it, but there are anti-govt peeps worried about preserving, basically, the right to feed yourself including hunting and fishing. There are the guns rights guys and those that advocate either prepper or a more green-focused, nature-valuing off-grid lifestyle that would also push for something like this.

A little surprised I haven't heard of it. Whoever worked to get it on the ballot should be out there somewhere working to get it passed.

Edit: somehow missed the IndyStar link. That reads a little familiar, but not very. The overwhelming support and little public discussion is kind of interesting.

Edited by kelley, 06 September 2016 - 04:14 PM.

  • RiverFox and Donna like this

#4 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 06 September 2016 - 05:22 PM

Dunno. I may just skip voting on that one.

Doesn't really seem to be an issue.

Thanks.  :thumbsup:



#5 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,465 posts

Posted 07 September 2016 - 09:10 PM

Why would this be on the ballot?  What legislator petitioned for this?  Indiana has large swaths of rural areas and hunting/fishing is a way of life.  There are already plenty of rules to go by.  Think I'll vote "no" on this one unless someone can 'splain it to me!


  • RiverFox likes this

#6 averageguy

averageguy

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 219 posts

Posted 07 September 2016 - 10:28 PM

its on the ballot because the dnr and other state agency's are increasingly run by peta types..in other states it is very hard to hunt and fish. so indiana sportsmen and women would like it in the state constitution that we actually do have a right to hunt and fish in this state.......or something close to that


  • kelley and Bigfoot like this

#7 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,132 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 06:26 AM

The same day I responded to this I later saw a pick-up with a "Vote Yes on Question 1" bumper sticker. There was some smaller text at the top I couldn't make out and the silhouette of a deer. Dude had Army veteran tags, and his other bumper sticker said his kid is in the Air Force.

#8 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 06:52 AM

I think everyone should vote in favor of this. 

 

Sportsmen and our way of life are constantly under attack these days. I would like to see this way of life protected as much as possible. 


  • kelley and Col-Arthur like this

#9 Col-Arthur

Col-Arthur

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 753 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 08:31 AM

The latest issue of the NRA magazine features a story about the amendment and includes a free bumper sticker "Vote Yes on Question One". 

I'm thinking of framing the bumper sticker because it is rare to receive anything "free" from the NRA!


  • kelley likes this

#10 averageguy

averageguy

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 219 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 09:28 AM

kelley, it says " support Indiana's right to hunt and fish "


  • kelley likes this

#11 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,132 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 10:42 AM

I'm ambivalent.

It kind of reminds me of the supposed "religious freedom" legislation which, in my opinion, was more about pandering than protecting rights and also sort of weakened the existing natural law and Constitutional protection by assuming such legislation was necessary. Continuing to stand on the rightness of not being forced to act contrary to conscience, continuing to stand on Constitutional grounds would have done more to protect rights.

However, this isn't just a bill, it's a constitutional amendment. So it's necessarily subject to a statewide vote, and the state constitution is a better place for fundamental rights than just within the code.

I'm leaning "yes," but a little iffy.
  • Quasar, RiverFox and Donna like this

#12 Col-Arthur

Col-Arthur

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 753 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 11:01 AM

I'm ambivalent.

It kind of reminds me of the supposed "religious freedom" legislation which, in my opinion, was more about pandering than protecting rights and also sort of weakened the existing natural law and Constitutional protection by assuming such legislation was necessary. Continuing to stand on the rightness of not being forced to act contrary to conscience, continuing to stand on Constitutional grounds would have done more to protect rights.

However, this isn't just a bill, it's a constitutional amendment. So it's necessarily subject to a statewide vote, and the state constitution is a better place for fundamental rights than just within the code.

I'm leaning "yes," but a little iffy.

FWIW, PETA and the Gun Control wing-nuts have colluded in other states to try to ban certain scary black guns under the guise of hunting regulation, I believe.

Them darn lefties are a shifty bunch! 



#13 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 11:17 AM

Good discussion. Thanks everyone.   :thumbsup:  

I believe that I'll be voting against this one.

(I also think that it will probably pass)



#14 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 01:09 PM

Why would this be on the ballot?  What legislator petitioned for this?  Indiana has large swaths of rural areas and hunting/fishing is a way of life. 
There are already plenty of rules to go by.  Think I'll vote "no" on this one unless someone can 'splain it to me!

It started here > http://iga.in.gov/le...#digest-heading

Supporters:
The following officials sponsored the amendment in the Indiana Legislature

  • Sen. Brent Steele[/url] (R-44)
  • Sen. James Buck[/url] (R-21)
  • Sen. Carlin Yoder[/url] (R-12)
  • Sen. Michael Young[/url] (R-35)
  • Sen. Dennis Kruse[/url] (R-14)
  • Sen. Jim Tomes[/url] (R-49)
  • Rep. Sean Eberhart[/url] (R-57)
  • Rep. Heath VanNatter[/url] (R-38)
Other officials supporting the amendment include:
  • Gov. Mike Pence ®
Organizations
  • National Rifle Association
  • Safari Club International

Opponents

  • The Humane Society (of the United States)
  • People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals


Edited by RiverFox, 08 September 2016 - 01:13 PM.


#15 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,132 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 06:32 PM

FWIW, PETA and the Gun Control wing-nuts have colluded in other states to try to ban certain scary black guns under the guise of hunting regulation, I believe.
Them darn lefties are a shifty bunch!



Yeah...your...enthusiasm doesn't really help me lean farther that way.
  • Col-Arthur likes this

#16 Col-Arthur

Col-Arthur

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 753 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 07:31 PM

Was it the "wing-nuts" or the "lefties"?

 

kaiKWKK.jpg


  • kelley likes this

#17 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 07:48 PM

Base (and stupid) pandering.  

 

"amended by adding a Section 39 to Article 1 to provide that the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife shall be forever preserved for the public good, 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"

 

Ok...so its a "right" to hunt , fish and harvest....."forever preserved" ....BUT.... "subject to the laws ...(and rule making authority) of the General Assembly.  i.e.,  EXACTLY what we

have today.  

 

What a load of crap.  All you constitutionalists should be a bit amused that they are 'establishing' a right.... a right that is subject   "Only to the laws" they might wanna pass.  That is hilarious!

 

How about we amend the Federal constitution... You have a right to free speech...subject to any laws we wanna pass about it. 


  • kelley, Debbie and Donna like this

#18 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,132 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 08:13 PM

It started here > http://iga.in.gov/le...#digest-heading


I'm not trying to hang with any of those guys.

I ain't in it.

Skip.

#19 Col-Arthur

Col-Arthur

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 753 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 08:20 PM

How about we amend the Federal constitution... You have a right to free speech...subject to any laws we wanna pass about it. 

My take on free speech. Present company excepted.

I've always operated under this proviso. Your right to free speech stops at my fist. Call me "old school".


Edited by Col-Arthur, 08 September 2016 - 08:22 PM.


#20 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 09:12 PM

I've hunted and fished throughout southern Indiana since I was very young...

During this time I've run across various groups and individuals that are rabid extremists seeking to disrupt this activity in anyway that they can. I've even been confronted by some of them in our forests.

So it's probably because of my real life experiences with the anti's over the years that I'm glad to see this even with its flaws.

I know to many people this stuff isn't important... however it's a way of life to me, my family and my friends.

I believe it's a God given right... however due to the haters, we need whatever protection we can get to help us hold onto it...
  • Bigfoot likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users