NRA getting its way on proposed constitutional right to hunt
Supporters said the change was needed to protect the right of people who hunt with dogs, bows or other methods that might be limited in the future for “political purposes.”
Critics, including those who support the proposed amendment, say the last-minute change pushed by the NRA will gut the state’s ability to regulate hunting of animals that might become endangered and cause other problems.
So far about a half-dozen states have approved some sort of constitutional protection for hunters and anglers, according to the Humane Society of the United States. Several others are considering similar proposals.
Tennessee’s latest proposed version would make it constitutional to use any type of hunting or fishing that has been legal within the past 10 years. It would also make legal challenges to state laws easier.
The measure, which has yet to be taken up by the state House, was scheduled for a final floor vote in the Senate this week after the latest change.
Lawmakers went with the NRA amendment despite a cool reception from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, which says it will be harder to regulate hunting. The agency often lowers and raises limits, or restricts certain hunting methods, based on the availability of game.
Attorney General Paul Summers weighed in Thursday with “a number of potential concerns” over the NRA-backed proposal, such as possible noncompliance with federal endangered species law.
“The proposed language change could also impact the continued ability of the state wildlife agencies to regulate hunting, fishing and harvesting of game and fish effectively,” Summers wrote lawmakers late last week.
Sen. Jeff Miller, R-Cleveland, ushered the new language into the measure with an 18-9 floor vote late last week, saying it was needed to prevent the state Wildlife Resources Agency from taking away the traditional hunting uses.
In recent years the use of dogs in some types of hunts has become more controversial.
“We know there are factions out there that want to do away with our rights to hunt and fish. And if they can’t get it all away, they want to get part of it away,” he said. “If it was good enough for granddad, it is good enough for me.”
His amendment also says that “hunting, fishing, and the harvesting of game and fish shall always be a preferred and available means of controlling all invasive and overpopulated species.”
Sen. Doug Jackson, the Dickson Democrat who first proposed the constitutional right to hunt and fish in Tennessee, worried the NRA-backed change would make it difficult for the state to limit commercial fishing operations in the future.
“The right to hunt and fish is meaningless unless there is game and fish to pursue,” he said. “And in order to have the resources … it requires effective regulations.”
But Jackson said he is still supporting the constitutional change, even with the new restrictions on state management of game.
“It’s just a philosophical debate that is taking place,” he said. “It’s a fine balance.”
Even if the latest twist passes muster, it will be years before voters see it. Proposed constitutional amendments must clear both houses of the Legislature in two different sessions before going to the voters on a ballot.
On the Net:
See Senate Joint Resolution 44 at: http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/