PROP 109

[CouesWhitetail]

thx for all the info! my question wasn't really about how stuff gets on the ballot, just if it required a simple majority or 2/3 of the voters to pass it once it was on there. But the other stuff you posted is interesting stuff as well! thank you.

[2 Full Curls]

Tony,

 

Thank you for that explanation. The process of developing a proposition initiative has always been somewhat confusing to me, and your post certainly answered my questions.

 

As for prop 109... I wish more of my fellow college students cared. Despite my persuasions and persistence, many of my friends did not take the time to vote this past election. If the Humane Society goes after lion hunting on the next ballot, I'm going to do everything thing I can to stimulate some young voter opposition here at ASU.

 

 

[Outdoor Writer]

We never see the Republic, nor the Arizona Daily Star for that matter. I was in Greer until just a couple of weeks ago, and saw nothing about Prop. 109 on TV or in the White Mountain Independent. My only exposure to it came through the internet.

 

Bill,

 

This is the editorial that ran in the Repulsive -- the one I referred to as a htchet job.

 

 

Prop. 109 would spur legal battles

Hunting and fishing are woven into the fabric of Arizona's history and culture. Hunters and anglers, and the fees they pay, play a big role in protecting wildlife and habitat.

 

But a proposed constitutional amendment, which goes far beyond its advertised purpose of establishing the right to hunt and fish, is a minefield of potential problems.

 

Arizona should say "no" to Proposition 109.

 

As we have written on other issues, the bar for changing the state constitution should be set very high. The risk of unintended consequences is too great, especially when the only remedy would be another constitutional amendment.

 

What problem does Prop. 109 aim to fix? There are no threats to hunting and fishing in Arizona, except the waning interest among young people.

 

The big concern seems to be the possibility of a ballot initiative to prevent hunting a particular species, as happened with mountain lions in California. But advocates are fully capable of fighting such a battle on its own merits.

 

Prop. 109 would set a bad precedent. Amending the constitution to spell out the rights of traditional recreational activities is a slippery slope. Will hikers, skiers, ATV users and others be next?

 

This proposed amendment - with broad, undefined terms - is ripe for legal battles. It would open up any action of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, including establishing seasons, to a constitutional challenge.

 

Under Prop. 109, no law or rule shall be adopted that "unreasonably restrict hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods."

 

This is open season for lawsuits. What is the meaning of "unreasonably restrict"? If hunters killed elk out of season, they could argue that it was a reasonable exercise of their rights.

 

"Traditional means and methods" are protected but undefined. This could bring back the steel leg traps that voters outlawed.

 

Prop. 109 would designate public hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing wildlife. In an area with, say, problem with deer, hunters could challenge any solution besides hunting. They could argue they have a right to ignore seasons and bag limits.

 

In the long run, it's entirely probable that Prop. 109 could work to the detriment of the wildlife population. That would be an enormous loss to all Arizonans, including those who hunt and fish.

 

Voters should shoot down the highly flawed Prop. 109.

 

 

 

 

[Outdoor Writer]

thx for all the info! my question wasn't really about how stuff gets on the ballot, just if it required a simple majority or 2/3 of the voters to pass it once it was on there. But the other stuff you posted is interesting stuff as well! thank you.

 

I posted the stuff about how many signatures are needed for each type because that is where a lot of the confusion comes from -- a belief it requires a higher percentage of the vote rather than a higher percentage of signatures to amend the Constitution.

 

As for the 2/3 majority, I believe someone had proposed such as an amendment in the past (2000 maybe?) for any changes to wildlife laws. If I recall, it was Prop 102, and it also went down in flames.