Vote Yes on November 2nd.

[Raoul]

If I missed another post about this I apologize.

Hunt and Fish TN > Home

[Oh Shoot]

Well, it's been kicked around a little, but I still don't really get it.

NRA says to vote for it.

But I don't see what it changes, at all.

I mean, basically it says you have a right to hunt/fish, except when it is barred, as opposed to gun carry, which says you don't have a right, except when it is granted.

- OS

[Rightwinger]

Why do we need a law for something we already do?

It's like vote yes for breathing. I don't know of any efforts other than the whack job PETA nuts to shut down or limit our hunting.

[Oh Shoot]

Why do we need a law for something we already do?

...

I dunno.

We freed everybody.

Then we freed the blacks.

Then the women.

Then the blacks and other minorities again.

But we refused to free the women again.

'Bout time to free white men again pretty soon?

- OS

[Sidinman]

I dunno.

We freed everybody.

Then we freed the blacks.

Then the women.

Then the blacks and other minorities again.

But we refused to free the women again.

'Bout time to free white men again pretty soon?

- OS

+1 OS

but I would just about bet the farm that the 'Mexicans' will be before us.

[willis68]

I dunno.

We freed everybody.

Then we freed the blacks.

Then the women.

Then the blacks and other minorities again.

But we refused to free the women again.

'Bout time to free white men again pretty soon?

- OS

I concur 100%

[Chief07]

I dunno.

We freed everybody.

Then we freed the blacks.

Then the women.

Then the blacks and other minorities again.

But we refused to free the women again.

'Bout time to free white men again pretty soon?

- OS

YES SIR!

[ttocswob]

Yeah, it's a feel-good bill, with less teeth than a bluegill...

But I voted "Yes," anyway.

[Guest PapaB]

Yeah, it's a feel-good bill, with less teeth than a bluegill...

But I voted "Yes," anyway.

This isn't actually a bill. This is an Amendment to the Tennessee Constitution.

The reason for it is to prevent future laws from making it illegal to hunt or fish. I don't know its history but it reads like it was written by a committee. The fact that it's so watered down shows the direction we're heading and why it's needed. PETA is fighting it so it's worth voting for IMHO.

[Guest GunTroll]

I'm pro hunting and a hunter myself but I still have to ask......why?

Do we need an amendment for everything? Like typing on a keyboard? Its free speech right? Isn't it all ready covered. If we go down this road with re-affirming rights that we already have then when do we stop. Like the said above....the right to breath? Seems like a slippery slope of good intentions that isn't really needed. That being said I don't see the harm in the specific amendment. Just saying.

[BigK]

I'm for anything that cements our rights, even if it's redundant, watered-down, or toothless. Every little bit helps, but I agree it's silly.

[Guest db99wj]

I'm for anything that cements our rights, even if it's redundant, watered-down, or toothless. Every little bit helps, but I agree it's silly.

I agree and it is silly, but there are those out there that are working daily to take these and other rights away from us. As you said, every little bit helps, even if watered down. Hope it passes overwhelmingly and at least sends a message.

[gregintenn]

I haven't read the ammendment. Is there any possible trick, snare, or downside to it? Is it simply a campaign gimmick someon thought up? What is it exactly?

[Garufa]

Complete text of the proposed amendment....

"The citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state's power to regulate commercial activity. Traditional manners and means may be used to take non-threatened species."

[Rightwinger]

If they would take out reasonable regulations and just keep doing what they are doing now, it would be fine. Bredeson's "reasonable" and Ramsey's probably differ a few hundred feet. That's why I don't like it.

So what happens if we don't vote to ensure our rights? Do they shut down hunting Nov 3?

[oldogy]

From the Tennessee Hunting and Fishing Forum:

Why is it important to pass the Right to Hunt and Fish amendment now?

Following the success of similar amendments in other states over the last 20 years, the Tennessee Wildlife Federation began the legislative process to secure a referendum in 2004. The lengthy process was complicated, but in the end the Tennessee General Assembly voted nearly unanimously to place the constitutional amendment on the ballot to be decided by the people.

Our state’s population is growing and the demographics are rapidly changing. We may not always have the support of the majority of our legislators, and we needed to seize the opportunity while it existed.

The passage of the amendment will have two positive effects. First, it will act as a serious deterrent to those persons and organizations wishing to end hunting and fishing today; and second, it will prevent the loss of these traditions in the future.

The time was right to act, and this is our chance to put the issue to rest forever.

x========x=========x==========x==========x============x========

With the crazies in government like Cas Sustine or what ever his name is

we should be proactive.

oldogy

[Lumber_Jack]

Bump, cause its important

[Guest Carryin Counselor]

It is more than a law. It is a constitutional amendment. The constitution is the foundation of the law. if hunting/fishing is in the constitution, no legislature or judge can take away that right when some P.E.T.A. group starts whining.

[leroy]

Just voted "YES" to the constitutional amendment! Take that you PETA chumps!!

Mad dog Leroy

[Guest HvyMtl]

poorly written. easily voided. Not good.

"The citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state's power to regulate commercial activity. Traditional manners and means may be used to take non-threatened species."

Effectively, anyone could argue the limitations they propose under law, are "reasonable regulations," voiding the intent of the amendment.

In addition, using the State's ability to regulate commerce has been documented quite well on the Federal Level, changing many laws... Yet another opening to void the intent of the amendment.

And then they could force "traditional means" in the future, by blocking new technology from hunters... limiting you to what they define as "traditional..."

(My version of PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals)

[Fallguy]

HvyMtl you're right in that the State could pretty much restrict the "right" to where it was almost impossiable to exercise (sound familliar?), but I think this an effort to block any future attempt to outright ban the practice. Whether any such attempt was going to be made, I'm not sure...

....and I have heard that use of PETA before...and is my personal favorite as well....

[Guest tnxdshooter]

Apparently, the reason for this amendment is because there were some peta type nut people trying to outlaw hunting and fishing saying it was cruel and unusual punishment for animals and that we should save the fishies and the deer WWF (world wildlife federation was a front runner in this I believe). This amendment would protect us who hunt and fish (myself included) from the anti hunting, and fishing nuts and zealots. These are the same idiots that want to tax a farmer everytime their cow farts because it creates ethanol. If that is the case since there are more people in the US than cows hows about we tax a person every time they fart?

Edited October 29, 2010 by tnxdshooter

[trblmkr13]

After watching a documentary on Ingrid Newkirk (I believe you should know your enemy) this is a step in the right direction these nut jobs want to stop us from having turkey on Thanksgiving!

[JAB]

I voted, "Yes," even though I am among those who think that it is a 'feel good' amendment to make us feel like our rights are 'protected' when it really doesn't do anything. Like others, I think the 'reasonable restrictions' clause makes the amendment useless. I can see where 'reasonable restrictions' could eventually come to mean that you have to wear bright orange from head to toe with a belt of bells around your waist, have to sound an airhorn and call out that you are a hunter every three minutes, can only hunt with single-shot shotguns which must be carried unloaded with shells kept in a locked container until a deer is sighted and within range. All of this would, of course be 'reasonable' as it would be in the interest of hunter safety and preventing accidental shootings in the woods. Compound bows, of course, are too dangerous as they have too great of a lethal range. Therefore, it would be reasonable to restrict bow hunting to small, light recurve bows of no more than, say, 20 pounds of peak draw weight. The bell belt, airhorne, orange jumpsuit and calling out requirements would pertain to bow hunters, too. Oh, and elevated stands are a fall hazard so those would have to go, too. All in the interest of safety, of course.

I mean, we already have to pay the same fees to hunt an animal the TWRA considers a nuisance, invading pest (feral hogs) as are required to hunt any 'big game'. How much more evidence do we need that the powers that be consider bassackwards, unreasonable regulations to be perfectly 'reasonable'?

It would have been much more effective had the amendment specified that people hunting on their own property are immune to any and all regulations, required the state to maintain a certain amount of public hunting and fishing land, as a minimum (say, at least as much as they currently maintain) and maybe a few, other things.

Edited October 29, 2010 by JAB

[raydog1]

Good to Go!

Voters in Tennessee and Arkansas vote "yes" for hunting and fishing rights - Memphis fly fishing | Examiner.com