Hunting as a right

[deserthntr]

im not sure if this is the right place to put this or not... but this morning on the news the state is trying to loosen up on the gun laws so you dont have to have a ccw to carry your pistol concealed. people against it say that more criminals will carry guns. those with it say criminals will carry guns no matter the law which is what i agree with. and im not sure who the group who is doing it is but they are trying to get hunting and fishing as a state right and put in our state constitution therefore we cant have it taken away. it will be the way that fish and animals will be managed. i sure as heck hope it passed. i hope more people know more about it and can post

[PhxHunt]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/aze...unting0131.html

[CouesWhitetail]

the link didn't work for me...

[bonecollector]

Page not found on the Link.

[PhxHunt]

Sorry about that...try now.

[PhxHunt]

A group of state legislators and gun-rights advocates wants to make hunting and fishing a constitutional right in Arizona.

 

Rep. Jerry Weiers, R-Glendale, has proposed House Concurrent Resolution 2008.

 

 

It states that citizens would have a right to "hunt, fish and harvest wildlife" and make public hunting and fishing the "preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife."

 

If supported by the Legislature, the resolution would put a proposed constitutional amendment on an upcoming ballot for the voters to consider. If approved by voters, it would become Arizona's 36th right. The state's 35 constitutional rights include the right to petition and assemble, right to bear arms and the right to a trial by jury.

 

Ten states include hunting and fishing rights in their constitutions.

 

In Arizona, a similar bill failed two years ago. It was opposed by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and environmental groups.

 

National Rifle Association lobbyist Matt Dogali said this time, the group is working with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and other groups with a vested interest to find wording everyone can support. But he said that while the wording will likely change, the overall intent will not.

 

"We are seeking constitutional recognition of people's right in Arizona to have access to land to both hunt and fish," he said.

 

He said the resolution would not change the state's ability to allow the Game and Fish Department to regulate hunting and fishing.

 

"As it is right now, Game and Fish sets most of the rules," Dogali said. "We don't have a problem with that."

 

Dogali said the resolution is not in response to any threat to hunting and fishing rights in the state, but to preempt them in the future.

 

He said this resolution is one piece of an effort to assure Arizonans continue to have access to state land and other open space.

 

"We recognize that cities grow, and as they grow, they try to annex land where they can," he said. "But at the same time, we want to make sure there is recreation land, fishing areas and hunting areas available so the state of Arizona 100 years from now will continue to have those activities available."

 

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission has not taken a position on the resolution, spokesman Tom Cadden said.

 

"At this point the (Arizona Game and Fish) department is still in the process of analyzing the bill," he said.

 

The Sierra Club opposes it.

 

Grand Canyon Chapter director Sandy Bahr said they believe resolution takes science and wildlife experts out of the mix when it comes to wildlife management, giving the state Legislature the authority to make decisions that had previously been made by the game and fish commission.

 

"If you look at the language, it refers to the Legislature as having the exclusive authority," Bahr said. "I would say the last entity we want managing wildlife is the Legislature. Most of them know very little about wildlife issues. Having them decide bag limits on hunting is ludicrous."

 

She said the bill would put the politics back into wildlife management, and offered an example.

 

"Say the biologist in Game and Fish said, 'We recommend a 45-day break from hunting in this area while we recover the prairie dog population and so they can raise their young,' " she said. "The way this is written, Game and Fish couldn't do that. It would be the exclusive authority of the Legislature to go get a bill."

 

Bahr said she also is concerned the resolution makes hunting the preferred way to manage wildlife as opposed to science, and that it would preclude citizen initiatives to protect a species.

 

"I have no idea why anyone would support this," she said. "It would give the Legislature so much more power. This has the legislative branch totally infringing on the executive branch."

[billrquimby]

A group of state legislators and gun-rights advocates wants to make hunting and fishing a constitutional right in Arizona.

 

Rep. Jerry Weiers, R-Glendale, has proposed House Concurrent Resolution 2008.

 

 

It states that citizens would have a right to "hunt, fish and harvest wildlife" and make public hunting and fishing the "preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife."

 

If supported by the Legislature, the resolution would put a proposed constitutional amendment on an upcoming ballot for the voters to consider. If approved by voters, it would become Arizona's 36th right. The state's 35 constitutional rights include the right to petition and assemble, right to bear arms and the right to a trial by jury.

 

Ten states include hunting and fishing rights in their constitutions.

 

In Arizona, a similar bill failed two years ago. It was opposed by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and environmental groups.

 

National Rifle Association lobbyist Matt Dogali said this time, the group is working with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and other groups with a vested interest to find wording everyone can support. But he said that while the wording will likely change, the overall intent will not.

 

"We are seeking constitutional recognition of people's right in Arizona to have access to land to both hunt and fish," he said.

 

He said the resolution would not change the state's ability to allow the Game and Fish Department to regulate hunting and fishing.

 

"As it is right now, Game and Fish sets most of the rules," Dogali said. "We don't have a problem with that."

 

Dogali said the resolution is not in response to any threat to hunting and fishing rights in the state, but to preempt them in the future.

 

He said this resolution is one piece of an effort to assure Arizonans continue to have access to state land and other open space.

 

"We recognize that cities grow, and as they grow, they try to annex land where they can," he said. "But at the same time, we want to make sure there is recreation land, fishing areas and hunting areas available so the state of Arizona 100 years from now will continue to have those activities available."

 

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission has not taken a position on the resolution, spokesman Tom Cadden said.

 

"At this point the (Arizona Game and Fish) department is still in the process of analyzing the bill," he said.

 

The Sierra Club opposes it.

 

Grand Canyon Chapter director Sandy Bahr said they believe resolution takes science and wildlife experts out of the mix when it comes to wildlife management, giving the state Legislature the authority to make decisions that had previously been made by the game and fish commission.

 

"If you look at the language, it refers to the Legislature as having the exclusive authority," Bahr said. "I would say the last entity we want managing wildlife is the Legislature. Most of them know very little about wildlife issues. Having them decide bag limits on hunting is ludicrous."

 

She said the bill would put the politics back into wildlife management, and offered an example.

 

"Say the biologist in Game and Fish said, 'We recommend a 45-day break from hunting in this area while we recover the prairie dog population and so they can raise their young,' " she said. "The way this is written, Game and Fish couldn't do that. It would be the exclusive authority of the Legislature to go get a bill."

 

Bahr said she also is concerned the resolution makes hunting the preferred way to manage wildlife as opposed to science, and that it would preclude citizen initiatives to protect a species.

 

"I have no idea why anyone would support this," she said. "It would give the Legislature so much more power. This has the legislative branch totally infringing on the executive branch."

 

 

 

 

I agree with the Sierra Club that the legislature is the last entity we want managing our wildlife.

 

Bill Quimby

 

[elecshoc]

I agree with the Sierra Club that the legislature is the last entity we want managing our wildlife.

 

Bill Quimby

 

With the legistative branch managing our wildlife, where are most of them elected from? Will the major population areas have the most pull? Do we really want elected officials to have a say when they could be swayed by groups with influence?

 

We may have the advantage now, what happens in the future?

 

Looks like a stituation that may end up bad just as easily as good for sportsmen.

 

[PhxHunt]

I agree...it is too bad that the bill can't just simply put it as giving arizona residents the right to hunt/fish without legislature making the decisions.

 

At least at this point. Maybe things will be more clear when the bill is finished and released so we can read it.

[Outdoor Writer]

The devil is in the details. The problem with the bill as written is likely a semantical one because of the wording.

 

In reality, the legislature has been involved in "regulating" wildlife for years under all the LAWS included in Title 17 (everything listed in the booklet as A.R.S. 17-###.##). There's actually a lot more to Title 17 than what is included in the regs, so every hunter would be smart to read the entire statute occasionally . The cost of licenses and tags are an integral part of this process. AND...the possible ban on baiting also would go through the legislature. That's why it has been delayed to date. These laws are generally proposed by the department/commission but must be passed by the state legislature before they can go into effect. Actually, Title 17 spells out everything the department/commission can or cannot do, and the legislature also has the power to change anything in Title 17 on its own.

 

As it now reads, under Title 17, the department/game commission is authorized to set RULES --not LAWS -- without any input from the legislature. Seasons, limits, etc. (everything listed in the booklet as R##-#-##) all come under the Rules rather than the state statutes of Title 17.

 

Here's just a part of the above:

 

A.R.S. 17-231. General powers and duties of the commission

 

A. The commission shall:

 

1. Make rules and establish services it deems necessary to carry out the provisions and purposes of this title.

 

2. Establish broad policies and long-range programs for the management, preservation and harvest of wildlife.

 

3. Establish hunting, trapping and fishing rules and prescribe the manner and methods which may be used in taking wildlife.

 

4. Be responsible for the enforcement of laws for the protection of wildlife.

 

 

 

Thus, if it's ambiguous and can be interpreted to give the legislature ALL the power to set regulations AND the rules, it would be a disaster. But if the wording gets clarified so it doesn't change who sets the rules, the constitutional amendment will change nothing from what it is now.

 

This is the present version with the possible ambiguous wording in red:

 

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring:

 

1. Article II, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended by adding section 36 as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:

 

START_STATUTE36. Hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife

 

Section 36. A. The citizens of this state have a right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, including the use of traditional means and methods, subject only to regulations prescribed by the legislature to promote sound wildlife conservation and management.

 

B. Public hunting and fishing are preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.

 

C. This section shall not be construed to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass or property rights. END_STATUTE

 

2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.

[elkaholic]

hello - heres what G&F had to say when they proposed bill2037 last 2008 - minutes of the meeting - now that we have new blood on the commission - wonder how this will change things? gary

 

http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/inside_azgfd/min...g%20Minutes.pdf

[Outdoor Writer]

I don't recall the wording from that one, but I note that this one says, "citizens of the state," which was a concern with the last one. I somewhat agree with the commission in regards to the "right." But then again we also have the right to bear arms enumerated in the AZ Constitution, but that doesn't remove the ability to regulate such. The "subject only to regulations prescribed by the legislature" seems to address that. The "regulations prescribed by the legislature" include the powers enumerated to the commission.

 

Also, the last time the commission suggested a statute in lieu of an amendment. But like any other statute in Title 17, it is open to change as the winds blows. As it is right now, the legislature can change anything the commssion may do simply by changing Title 17. In fact, they could eliminate the commission altogether. It's a lot harder to amend the state constitution, however.

 

That said , if I had to guess, I would say the amendment might fail when put on the ballot for the voters to decide.