Today, we’re talking about one of the more head-scratching amendments up for a vote in November: the Hunting and Fishing Amendment. If the amendment is approved, it will add the following language to the Constitution:
“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.”
I have no quibble with folks who hunt and fish being able to do so, but the first question this proposed Amendment brings to mind is “why?” Hunting and fishing are already allowed in North Carolina and I can find no evidence that they are under any sort of threat. So, why do we need to alter our Constitution to protect a right that (a) already exists and (b) isn’t being threatened? I can’t seem to find any good answer to that question. And without any compelling reason to change our Constitution, there doesn’t seem to be any excuse to vote in favor of the Amendment.
I also want to point out one aspect of the Amendment’s proposed language that concerns me. Currently, NC’s municipalities have some say in hunting and fishing within their town limits. So, for example, when the State decided to allow alligator hunting in NC, certain municipalities declined to relax their own rules, so that hunting alligators was still prohibited in those towns (see http://www.jdnews.com/news/20180405/no-nc-towns-have-taken-bait-to-allow-alligator-hunting )
But the language the Amendment would insert into the Constitution says that the rights to hunt and fish should be subject only to laws made by or with authority granted by the NCGA. If I’m reading that correctly, it means that if the NCGA ever decides that it wants to strip municipalities of their authority to control hunting or fishing within their borders, it will have a Constitutional right to do so. And there has been ample evidence that this NCGA, in particular, is very willing to exercise its power over municipalities, no matter what the people in those towns may want.
That provision, in my opinion, takes the Hunting and Fishing Amendment from merely useless to openly dangerous. It, like the rest of the Amendments, seems to provide an already-overpowered General Assembly with yet more power. For that reason, I urge you to vote “No.”