Quote:
Originally Posted by HJBeck
Can anyone explain what we are voting for or against on the ammendment? Makes no sense to me as written: "Right to Fish and Hunt"
|
Voting yes for example……..World Animal Protection, are concerned that science-based methods of managing and controlling wildlife and fish will become secondary to hunting and fishing. The phrase “traditional methods” could be interpreted as a return to currently prohibited methods of hunting and fishing, such as steel traps, spearfishing and gill nets. They also say, if we have a statute protecting the right to hunt and fish already, why does this need to be placed in the Constitution now? Opponents warn of potential interference with private property rights by trespassing hunters.
I love wildlife so a no vote for me….. a no vote changes nothing. Everything stays the same. Hunters can keep on hunting…