Right to Hunt and Fish

[B-Faithful]

FYI there are 5 states with amendments that will establish state constitutional rights to hunt and fish. I believe all 5 will pass easily. The states are:

Tenn
Ark
Ariz
Kansas
S. Carolina


Good stuff. :thumbup: I wish Maryland was one of those states...

[Brandon]

I thought that Maryland already had something about fishing in its constitution, or at least I thought there was a lot of talk about that in the last election or previous? Anyone?

[B-Faithful]

O'Malley made a declaration that kids have the right to catch a fish under the children's outdoor bill of rights: http://www.gov.state.md.us/speeches/090421.asp

Maryland does have the Freedom to fish act that was signed in to law under Ehrlich too: http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/article/News/Maryland-Freedom-to-Fish-Act-Signed-into-Law

Nothing in the state constitution that declares hunting and fishing a right. Va already has though.

[Shawn Kimbro]

Mostly, I think those initiatives are a solution in search of a problem, but I would've voted for them too. I think the margin was something like 90% in my home state.

[blue lou]

FYI there are 5 states with amendments that will establish state constitutional rights to hunt and fish. I believe all 5 will pass easily. The states are:

Tenn
Ark
Ariz
Kansas
S. Carolina


Good stuff. :thumbup: I wish Maryland was one of those states...

All you need is Kentucky on that list.............More Banjo please.

[Scott McGuire]

There was a bill to push for that amendment in MD this year, but it was poorly worded and never got through committee.

http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/bills/sb/sb0033f.pdf

When I look at bills like this - I think about how they can be exploited - and I saw a hole a truck could drive through with respect to commercial harvest ("We have the right..."), and situations where conservation measures were needed - but not widely supported.

If the bill could be re-written to address those concerns, it would probably survive the General Assembly.

[B-Faithful]

I dont believe a fishing ammendment would apply to commercial industry. It is an individual rights protection. Heck, it may even force our DNR to look at our relatively enormous commercial striped bass take before reducing access and opportunity to recreational fishermen (MD's striped bass commercial take makes up ~1/3 of the entire east coast's commercial take). As far as conservation goes, science certainly would be more important when taking away access and opportunity. "Concerns they have heard" wouldnt cut it anymore. Sound justification would be required. To me it is more dangerous to allow our managers to act on the unknown when there are known impacts that should be acted on when a conservation concern arises. Keep in mind that the only difference between a right and a priviledge is what is required to prevent people from doing it. We have the right to free speach but cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. We have the right to bear arms but cannot carry a firearm where ever we want. The right does not also say keep a fish, rather than protects the action of fishing itself. It certainly would put more emphasis on managing through creel, harvest season length, and size limits before taking the opportunity to fish.

I am glad we have the freedom to fish act. It does give some accountability protection. However, it would be nice to have it recognized by our state's constitution, especially since the world-renowned natural resource of the Chesapeake Bay is in our backyard and the opportunity for an individual to fish from it is essential to one's opportunity to enjoy it.

[Scott McGuire]

Greg,

Unfortunately, the law doesn't really care what we "think". It has to be right there in black an white. Vagueness - or intent - gets exploited by people who "think" they know better than the law. Ulitmately these situations get decided by a judge. I'm all for a right to hunt and fish recreationally, provided that it is clearly spelled out in the law (constitutional amendment) - and allows for managers to do their job - and manage for long term sustainability.

Constitutional amendments are not something we should take lightly. Unlike the rest of our legislative process. they need to be right and correct - the first time.

By the way - I was not thinking about the "concerns we have heard" example - when thinking of unpopular conservation measures. There are other situations where something had to be done to save a resource - despite it being unpopular with a primary stakeholder (oysters for example - even striped bass the first time around).

-S

[Shawn Kimbro]

I dont believe a fishing ammendment would apply to commercial industry.... .

I hope you are right about that, but remember that fishing rights rally in DC last year when all those commercial fishing industry people showed up? Perhaps we should wonder why? I'll just say beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

[B-Faithful]

The right to fish would not establish the right to sell fish harvested from our resources. Reduction in harvest limits would also not be protected. Also Rights are given to individuals, not industry. I dont believe "corportate personhood" is widely accepted in our Judicial system in this regard. You can google the term and give me an example of I am wrong.

Regarding unpopular conservation measures.. They will always be prominate in our resource management. Establishing a right to fish would not hinder those necessary moves. They would just have to be justified through better means. In your example of the oysters, there is pleanty of science that shows the need for DNRs conservation measures. It is their responsibility to act on their known problems with the oyster population. (can you imagine DNR making changes to the oyster harvest without data or other sound justification) However, the oyster issue would be moot to a right to fish amendment would not establish a right to sell fish harvested from the bay.

[Scott McGuire]

Greg -

I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just saying it would be easier to support if the language was tightend up. The version attempted in last year's general assembly left too much to question in my opinion.

-S

[B-Faithful]

I hope you are right about that, but remember that fishing rights rally in DC last year when all those commercial fishing industry people showed up? Perhaps we should wonder why? I'll just say beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

That had to do with wanting flexibility in rebuilding schedules under the MSA so that access and opportunity could be afforded while fisheries were rebuilding. A right to fish amendment wouldnt establish a right to resell a harvest. Besides the commercial concerns can be addressed through harvest limits and allocation.

[goose70]

Also Rights are given to individuals, not industry. I dont believe "corportate personhood" is widely accepted in our Judicial system in this regard. You can google the term and give me an example of I am wrong.

Legal persons, such as corporations, do enjoy many rights that one might think were established for individuals. The sixth amendment, for example, comes to mind in my practice.

As you note, rights can be regulated. Even foundational rights such as free speech are subject to time, place and manner restrictions (the popular example is the prohibition against falsely shouting "fire!" in a movie theater).

However, when something becomes a constitutional right, then government regulation of it can become more difficult than it otherwise would be, particularly if the right is drafted in a manner that convinces a court that it is a foundational right. The right can, for example, be subject to a higher standard than the "rational basis" test, which governs most government regulation. While this is not always a bad thing, in the realm of fisheries management it could present practical difficulties. With fisheries, so many variables interplay; identifying many of these variables, let alone factoring them in, can be enormously difficult, resource intense, technologically prohibitive and expensive. Because of this, I worry that fishing as a right could be used to hamstring regulators from doing much practical fisheries management. Emergency management of a crashing resource could be even more difficult.

You know more about fisheries rights initiatives than I, but these are my 20,000-foot concerns based on initial impressions.

[B-Faithful]

Good discussion guys...Scott, I agree that it would be good have a well written bill to start. I just dont want it so watered down that it doesnt recognize the right to access fishing either. Jeff, Good to have the perspective of a lawyer. I am just a printing salesman with a political science/philosophy degree so can only go based on my world perspective..

The way I look at it.. if emergency management is needed due to a crashing resource, then obviously there is data showing it in some regard. I do not believe it would in any way prevent DNR from acting accordingly as they have a fiduciary responsibly to protect the resource for the future as well. It would force the managers to act on known areas of issue and not allow escapes by addressing areas of no-known or little-known impact. I think it would force the hand towards better management.

[threesteps]

Do you think a right to fish belongs in the constitution alongside the right to freedom of religion, the right to no cruel or unusual punishment, the right to vote, etc.? I like to fish and would not want to be told i couldn't go fishing. But I also like to play golf, and don't think that belongs in the constitution. I like to have a beer or two, but I don't think that belongs in the constitution. just my worthless $.02.

Based on history, the threat of an outright ban on fishing doesn't seem likely. Regulations related to fisheries management are one thing, but no government is going to stop people from recreational fishing, and if they do, the political process can remedy that. Shawn made a good point about a solution in search of a problem.

[B-Faithful]

Yes, I believe there is already a right to fish even if it is not written in our states constitution and it could be argued as such. However, I do want to see it officially recognized in our states constitution as access to fishing is under attack across our nation and I believe it would provide for better accountability and management towards the owners of our public resources.

In regards to a solution in search of a problem. I disagree. I believe there are a lot of problems with fisheries management. (not that our DNR doesnt do a good job in the current environment). I do believe by establishing fishing as a right in our counstitution that it would lead to more productive and effective management decisions because of a higher level of accountability. It would also provide for some safe haven to DNR from some politically strong interest groups if it were too. I believe there is already a problem

[blue lou]

Do you think a right to fish belongs in the constitution alongside the right to freedom of religion, the right to no cruel or unusual punishment, the right to vote, etc.? I like to fish and would not want to be told i couldn't go fishing. But I also like to play golf, and don't think that belongs in the constitution. I like to have a beer or two, but I don't think that belongs in the constitution. just my worthless $.02.

Based on history, the threat of an outright ban on fishing doesn't seem likely. Regulations related to fisheries management are one thing, but no government is going to stop people from recreational fishing, and if they do, the political process can remedy that. Shawn made a good point about a solution in search of a problem.

There is no "right to vote" look it up.
While we are at it, can I have the right to sort fish by size in 100lb lots.

[Shawn Kimbro]

I would like the right to play bluegrass music at 400 decibles outside Lou's bedroom window..... or at least go fishing with him and sing.

[threesteps]

There is no "right to vote" look it up.


Not trying to get into a back and forth here, :surrender: but Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights says "That the right of the People to participate in the Legislature is the best security of liberty and the foundation of all free Government; for this purpose, elections ought to be free and frequent; and every citizen having the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution, ought to have the right of suffrage"

My point was that the constitution protects rights that are fundamental to a person's ability to participate in the political process (voting, speech, press, right to petition the government, etc.) and rights protecting people against the most serious exercise of government power--incarceration (right against self incrimination, right to jury trial, etc.). But most issues are addressed through the political process, and if someone does not like certain policies, they have constitutional rights to speak out against those policies, to protest them, to vote against them, etc. Personally, I just thought most policy decisions should remain within the political process and not be written into the constitution because, as stated by someone else earlier, constitutional provisions can often have unintended consequences and it is very hard to fix them later, if, for example, circumstances change. Sometimes, the political process leads to stupid outcomes, but that's democracy. :usa:

Again, just my own insignificant opinion. And to be clear, I would be against a policy banning recreational fishing.:nono:

[Shawn Kimbro]

I won't forget the hundreds of netters and longliners that showed up at that DC fishing rights rally. Frankly, I think some organizations owe us an apology for that one, and it's made me think twice about the rest of their efforts.

While I would most-likely agree with a well-crafted ammendment, Threesteps points to a valid concern about unintended consequences and pitfalls. One has been mentioned in that it could make proper management of our wildlife resources more difficult. (Greg is already trying to apply it to pre-season trolling.) :-) Another is that it needs to be very clear that the right applies only to private individuals and not those seeking to profit from our wildlife resources. Or how about how the right is applied to hunting methods that may be traditional, but humanely questionable such as steel-jaw traps or punt guns? My thoughts are that we should tred carefully so that we don't step in a constitutional trap we can't get out of.

Here's the best article I've ever seen on the issue. Some of it is lawyer speak, but it covers almost every aspect of the ammendment in Tennessee and other states: http://www.huntandfishtn.com/Portals/huntandfishtn/pdfs/research%20documents/TN%20Law%20Review%20RTHF.pdf

[BILL H]

I like to fish. I like to hunt. But I am not greatly in favor of having them enshrined in the constitution (of the State or of the nation).

I come down on the side of the others who have a concern that such a recognition (a real elephant gun solution to terminate a theoretical mouse) could have unanticipated consequences in terms of commercial abuse or hamstrung regulators, unless it were crafted so carefully that the loopholes were closed. And I don't see such careful crafting taking place many places in our political systems. Once something is in the constitution, it is difficult to remove and becomes the playground of the judicial system which decides just what the words (whether carefully or carelessly crafted) mean. This can result in a situation analogous to the one we face now where unions and businesses are "individuals" whose political speech (in the form of dollars) are unfettered and unaccountable.

I would be more in favor of a law(s) recognizing access to hunting and fishing. In such an approach the legislative sausage-maker has less chance to do lasting damage. Remember, the last time the Md. constitution was revised was more than 40 years ago. Imagine the damage to our game and fish resources that could take place during 4 decades of abuse resulting from well-intentioned but poorly-executed constitutional meddling.

BTW, I did vote to hold a Md. constitutional convention.

[B-Faithful]

We will have to disagree on this one as I think it would be good for fisheries management and create a better level of accountability in management. It certainly would force managers to respond to problems in areas of known impact rather than the flexibility in creating restrictions without known effects in the name of conservation. If there is a known conservation issue, dont you want it addressed in areas where the impact is known? I am not sure that a federal constitutional amendment would be appropriate but I definately think it is appropriate on the state level to preserve that right.

I dont think it would pose challenges on gear uses such as punt guns or jaw traps as they are gear restrictions.. Just as we have the right to bear arms in the federal constitution, many weapons are restricted. It would create a higher level of justification for restriction though. This should not hinder warranted regulations as there would be a clear cause or need for the restriction. I will say thought that It is a fine line when deeming one method of hunting or fishing more humane than another as we all are harming fish in someway. Some claim catch and release is inhumane due to us harming in some way and releasing fish for our pleasure (many commercial guys point to the rec discards). Of course I do not agree that it is a problem but a fundemental right to access the public resource and derive enjoyment from the process of fishing and catch and release fishing is a good tool for keeping access open to the public while aiding in the sustainability of the resource.

[Scott McGuire]

We will have to disagree on this one as I think it would be good for fisheries management and create a better level of accountability in management. It certainly would force managers to respond to problems in areas of known impact rather than the flexibility in creating restrictions without known effects in the name of conservation. If there is a known conservation issue, dont you want it addressed in areas where the impact is known? I am not sure that a federal constitutional amendment would be appropriate but I definately think it is appropriate on the state level to preserve that right.


I'm having trouble following you here - but It seems like you're singing a different tune now. Earlier you stated that a constitutional amendment would protect access, but here you're saying that it will provide for better management... those two arguments really don't belong together. I see the constitutional amendment as purely attempt to address access concerns - and in effect, promoting fishing and hunting at the expense of other activities. I know there are countless stakeholder conflicts in this state - and I would wager to guess that there are dozens of other stakeholders that wouldn't get a warm fuzzy about fishing and hunting trumping their hobby because it is a constitutional right.

If we want better management there are easier ways to influence policy than passing a constitutional amendment. If we want more access - we need to start buying land.
-S

[B-Faithful]

Scott, I think you need to look at all my posts. I am not singing a different tune. I have stated that an amendment would benefit the state in two ways earlier in this thread. It would protect access and opportunity for sportsmen while creating a higher level of accountability for those managing the resource. My last post more so focused on the accountability aspect since some have stated their concerns over whether or not it would hinder necessary managment actions. I was merely stating that I disagree and believe it would hold DNR more accountable to effective management actions since it would force them to act on known problems with known solutions. I think I have made my points clear even though some may not agree.

Addressing your point about buying more land leads me into JimRockfish's statements on other activities as well. The reason a constitutional amendment is necessary for hunting and fishing is that those actions are completely regulated/limited buy the state. Whether or not you hunt or fish from your own or other private land, you must adhere to regulations set by the state. Seasons, creels, size limits, etc. are all enforced whether or not you are fishing from a pier behind your house, hunting a private farm, or hunting and fishing public land or the Bay/state Ocean waters. Since access and opportunity can be taken away, I want an amendment that ensures that if that access and opportunity is taken away that it is clearly justified. The problem must be identified and the solution must be resolved through actions that can be shown and measured to whether or not the reduction in access and opportunity are effective. Given a right to fish and hunt amendment would not prevent necessary actions/regulations from being taken, it would just hold DNR more accountable to what actions they take to rectifiy a problem. The only difference between a right and priviledge is the justification needed to greatly limit or take away the action.

Jim, I think fishing is under attack in many areas and many conservationalist organizations are pushing for preservationist actions. While I hope the freedom to fish act goes a long way in protecting against these types of actions , I would like to see a state constitutional amendment that addresses the right to hunt and fish to further protect sportsmen in our state.

In regards to buying land... I do agree that the state needs to buy more land for better access to the bay and hunting. However a constitutional amendment would not force this, but only stand to encourage it. At a time when budgets are tight, it is a tall order for our elected officials to justify budget allocations. However, with enough public influence and attention to the issue, I think it is possible. I even believe that it would help stimulate the economy in the long run through more people participating in these recreations and sports. Plus it would put more citizens in touch with our environment and the issues surrounding it.

[Scott McGuire]

Jim, I think fishing is under attack in many areas and many conservationalist organizations are pushing for preservationist actions. While I hope the freedom to fish act goes a long way in protecting against these types of actions , I would like to see a state constitutional amendment that addresses the right to hunt and fish to further protect sportsmen in our state.


I'm just nit picking now - but don't you mean Environmental orgs, enviro-whackos, eco-terrorist, and Peta-types? I don't think there's many conservation orgs that have a problem with fishing or Hunting (TU, DU, CCA, etc...).

-S

[B-Faithful]

Scott, Yes. I mean the more extreme organizations who look to shut down access and opportunity in the name of conservation.. Like through the quick uses of MPAs.. some groups even call themselves conservation groups such as the Marine Conservation Biology Institute. If you dont think they work here in Maryland, you need to look more closely. Our DNR has a contract already with the EDF for commercial crab studies and catch shares. The EDF website states "Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a key tool to rebuild fish populations and revitalize ocean ecosystems" and touts that 15% of the coastal waters off of CA are protected in some way or another. Many areas there prohibit recreational fishing.. Then you have issues like catch shares that put fishing into the hands of a few and limiting access and participation. I would like a state constitutional amendment protecting our rights before we face these extreme progressive policies when other alternatives that embrace more open access are available. Sometimes a good defense is a good offense and being proactive prevents future problems.

To be clear, I think a right to hunt and fish constitutional amendment would benefit our sportsmen in two ways. First it would protect access and opportunity to hunt and fish in our state and secondly would benefit our state conservationally as it would hold our managers more accountable to better and more effective management decisions.

[gwag]

Jim you must not of heard of Cape Hatteras ,the right to access OUR public land to fish is being denied there and many other area's through out the country. Any thing we can do to control the government is a good thing.

[B-Faithful]

Jim. the anti fishing organizations have a lot of money and work directly with the government. Like I said, our own DNR is paying a ton of money for info from the EDF. You may not hear their voices but their influence is there. DNR even had the latest EDF newsletter linked on their website at one point in time. Fisheries managment is also heavily influenced by organizations like PEW all the way to the federal level..

Like I said, I believe establishing a state constitutional right would also help promote effective management decisions on our rockfish populations, while protecting access and opportunity of sportsmen.

[gwag]

I figured you had heard of the distaster there ,thats why I was confused by your comment. Are you catching any thing? I have not been in a couple of years because the whole mood and climate of the place has changed so much that it depresses me to go.

[Shawn Kimbro]

North Carolina has a Right to Hunt & Fish ammendment in the works. It will be interesting to see if it changes much on the beach access issue. I hope it does but I don't really see how a right to fish could be interpreted as a right to drive on the beach. I agree with Greg that there are a lot of groups that would like nothing better than to shut down hunting and fishing. Whether or not they have a hope in hell in Maryland is a matter of opinion. Either way, there is no emminent threat. Mostly, like with other political issues these days, I think there is a lot of fear-mongering going on here. Still, like I said, if it's crafted right and doesn't restrict proper management, what fisherman wouldn't support the right to do what we love to do? The devil is in the details.