PDA

View Full Version : Ky constitutional hunting/fishing amendment



CitizenBBN
10-28-2012, 11:28 PM
Going to vote for this one, hoping everyone will. It's a constitutional amendment to guarantee hunting/fishing rights in Kentucky as well as state the preferred method of game control is management through hunting instead of the lefty "humane" methods like deer contraception (no kidding, some places do this).

here's the text:

The citizens of Kentucky have the personal right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, using traditional methods, subject only to statutes enacted by the Legislature, and to administrative regulations adopted by the designated state agency to promote wildlife conservation and management and to preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. This section shall not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or the regulation of commercial activities.

I'm not a currently active hunter or fisher, but the animal rights guys are going after hunting in an organized fashion and while Kentucky is like every southern state in being very pro hunting, I see no reason to not get ahead of them and make it all the harder to attack hunting in this state. Responsible hunting works well IMO. The state sets the hunting dates and manages the population and I don't know anyone who doesn't respect those dates and rules. It's a good system and all the animal rights people want is to just stop hunting altogether b/c they don't want any animal killed even for population management.

I'd think it will pass, but most of these things are so poorly publicized people don't even know about them till they walk in the booth.

I don't really use this board to encourage an action, and would be curious to hear from those against it, but yes I do hope we all vote for this one. I don't even hunt, but it's another fundamental freedom that some want to use the power of the state to stop. Right now it's a compromise position. The state sets boundaries and people can work as they please within those rules. Not true libertarianism, but far better than an outright ban on anything.

Doc
10-29-2012, 08:15 AM
So now they want us to pay for "deer birth control" too?

CitizenBBN
10-29-2012, 10:05 AM
So now they want us to pay for "deer birth control" too?

In some places yes that's what they do. It is in fact expensive and 100% tax money versus letting hunters hunt who buy their own gear.

Doc
10-29-2012, 11:21 AM
So who puts the condom on the buck? That doesn't sound like a very fun job.

CitizenBBN
10-29-2012, 12:58 PM
So who puts the condom on the buck? That doesn't sound like a very fun job.

I think it's that guy who was Marlin Perkin's assistant on Wild Kingdom. I think he had to circumcise a water buffalo in one episode. Wasn't it Jim Fowler, who does all the appearances now?

jazyd
10-29-2012, 05:08 PM
Vet school students. :) during the rut no less



So who puts the condom on the buck? That doesn't sound like a very fun job.

Doc
10-29-2012, 06:19 PM
Yes, Jim Fowler was Marlin Perkin's "helper".

CitizenBBN
11-06-2012, 07:43 PM
Seems to have passed by an overwhelming margin.

I'm glad. I'm not a "hunter" b/c of time like I said, and no one right now is lobbying against such things but it is happening in other states and not just the deeply liberal ones. Good idea to put such things in place while it's still a formality and keep the fascists of all kinds at bay.

KeithKSR
11-06-2012, 07:53 PM
I had some folks in the line while waiting to vote ask me to read and interpret this one. I told them it basically makes hunting and fishing a constitutional right, which means it would take an amendment to the constitution to take away those rights.

dan_bgblue
11-06-2012, 08:30 PM
Glad to know my vote was not wasted.:p

ShoesSwayedBlue
11-06-2012, 08:53 PM
I voted for it. I can't imagine why anyone would not.

dan_bgblue
11-06-2012, 09:02 PM
Shoes, given the fact that some folks felt it necessary to amend the state constitution to guarantee this right to all Kentuckians, it is obvious to me that there must be a lot of folks outside KY that would vote the other way if they could.

Jeeepcat
11-06-2012, 09:12 PM
Actually, the notion of contraception shouldn't be jokingly dismissed in situations where people have completely overrun the habitat. The herd will correct for over hunting but not for contraception.

I have seen it used (WITHOUT taxpayers dollars) effectively in the South - specifically on an island.

http://www.fipoa.org/fyi_files/HSUS%20Report%202009.pdf

My dad started this program after they wanted to have an open hunt to completely eliminate the deer (3 mile long island with houses everywhere)

dan_bgblue
11-06-2012, 09:20 PM
That is very interesting Jeeep. It does appear to be a very humane and workable solution where conventional methods of population control are not really workable. Thanks for the link.

CitizenBBN
11-06-2012, 09:23 PM
I voted for it. I can't imagine why anyone would not.

I figured it would win strongly, but like Dan said you'd be surprised. Some states are being pushed to use contraception instead of hunting permits, some silly stuff. It hasn't reached the south, but the NRA backed these initiatives across the country to try and get out ahead of it.

It carried 84% to 16%. Some of that 16% is probably people who didn't see it as necessary, but you have to figure a good chunk of that 16% are the PETA people who think hunting is murder or some other kind of crime.

I'm not eye to eye with the NRA or any other group (who is?), but the hang together or hang separately axiom is in play on a lot of issues these days esp. gun related issues. Hunters need to hang with other gun owners on bans on "assault weapons" and non-hunters have to hang with them on the basic right to hunt and fish and of course have the guns and other things one may use for it.

It's a commonsense amendment, plain language, that hunting and fishing is a right, just making it harder for the PETA groups to come in and argue it's not a right so it can be regulated into oblivion or banned outright. So you spell it out as a "right", even though in a Libertarian world we'd all agree we have ALL the rights other than those specifically given to the government in writing. It's sad we've lost all understanding of the presumption of the rights of Man and Americans in particular, but that's what it is so I'm all for spelling out every right we can think up and putting it in every constitution.

Sorry for the blabbering. It passed, I'm glad. One more hurdle for the PETA loonies.

CitizenBBN
11-06-2012, 09:35 PM
Actually, the notion of contraception shouldn't be jokingly dismissed in situations where people have completely overrun the habitat. The herd will correct for over hunting but not for contraception.

I have seen it used (WITHOUT taxpayers dollars) effectively in the South - specifically on an island.

http://www.fipoa.org/fyi_files/HSUS%20Report%202009.pdf

My dad started this program after they wanted to have an open hunt to completely eliminate the deer (3 mile long island with houses everywhere)

Very interesting.

I read up on this broad issue very quickly when I got the NRA email for it. It seemed to have some very reasonable applications, clearly does in your situation, but had become a way for the extreme animal rights people to argue we no longer needed to allow hunting. Hunting groups quickly list wildlife management as one of the reasons to allow hunting and this was a way for them to knock that one off the list. They've also pushed for state sanctioned hunting but not by private individuals, etc.

Contraception has been used increasingly in control of feral cat and dog populations, and I think is a GREAT idea for control of out of control species like feral pigs and coyotes. Of course you still shoot every pig and coyote you see, but along with contraception could help get the population cut back.

I hadn't thought about it in areas like that one where you have a human population but a less mobile animal population. Thanks for the link and info. Like Dan said that's very interesting. It makes me want to push this harder with the Lexington humane society. We give to them each year, not tons but maybe enough that they'd at least hear us out, and have friends on their board.

Ironic huh that I hate PETA but give to the Humane Society? Well the humane society is concerned with animal ABUSE, and I despise abuse of animals, and with feral populations of non-native pets. Contraception is being used effectively in other areas and I've mentioned it but I wouldn't mind earmarking our donation to a more serious effort here in Lexington for the feral cat population.

Obviously like yours that's a situation where hunting isn't an option for various reasons.