We Need a "Right to Hunt"

[Shlwego]

Perhaps now that we've suffered a defeat on the "Dove Issue" at the polls, it's time to look at the larger picture. There were "hunters" who voted against dove hunting, and that's unfortunate and it angers me. But it's in the past now. What we need now is an initiative that will bring all hunters back together, and it's not going to be trapping, believe me!

What we need is an ammendment to the State Constitution guaranteeing a "Right to Hunt." Currently in Michigan, hunting is just a "priveledge," and as such it can be taken away. Many other states have constitutionally guaranteed hunting as "Right" that cannot be taken away.

If we don't protect hunting as a right, it will be slowly picked away at until we lose it all. The anti's have proven in this dove fight that they have WAY MORE MONEY available to spend on advertising than the pro-hunting side does. They were able to tell outright lies ("doves are used as target practice" "too small to eat") and we didn't have the funding to challenge them. They can do the same thing again, and they will, with trapping, and then bow-hunting, and then, and then, and then.... and they will STILL have more money than they can spend left over.

If we word the ballot language correctly, then we can TAKE IT ALL off the table, by guaranteeing a Constitutional "Right to Hunt, Trap, and Fish" all game species, by all currently acceptable methods (i.e. bow, dogs, firearms, trapping, etc.). The anti's would scream and howl over this, to be sure, but since it would effect ALL hunters and fishermen, we'd probably be able to stick together and get it passed. Without it, I'm afraid the anti's will just divide and conquor.


Just my $0.02

[bownutty]

I agree! I have been harping this for years and have written my reps about it. So, let us start the movement today!

[hungry hunter]

If we word the ballot language correctly, then we can TAKE IT ALL off the table, by guaranteeing a Constitutional "Right to Hunt, Trap, and Fish" all game species,
Just my $0.02

I have thought of this many times my self and always think if we get this passed what stops them from attacking us one species at a time by getting them declassified as a game species and getting them reclassified as some other protected species. we need the language to be right to ensure this does not happen, but I think it can be done if we unite as a whole and spend a whole lot more on advertising to get this passed.

[Shlwego]

I have thought of this many times my self and always think if we get this passed what stops them from attacking us one species at a time by getting them declassified as a game species and getting them reclassified as some other protected species. we need the language to be right to ensure this does not happen, but I think it can be done if we unite as a whole and spend a whole lot more on advertising to get this passed.

Well, I think that the DNR has control of species management, once a species is classified as a "game animal." I don't think it would be very easy for the anti's to get a species reclassified. The dove issue was different, because, until 2004 they were classified in Michigan as a songbird (Federally they were gamebirds, but NOT here). So the anti's just had to push for re-classification to what they WERE. We weren't really voting on hunting doves, if you read the ballot laguage. We were voting on the law that changed their classification to "gamebird." I think it would be a LOT harder for them to do the same thing with, for example, pheasants or ducks. Especially if a Constitutional Right to Hunt could be cited along with the historical hunting of any given species: i.e. pheasants have traditionally been gamebirds and, ideally, the Right to Hunt would come in to play to protect that tradition.

The question is: How do we make it happen?

[brdhntr]

Nope, they get enough signatures to remove a species from the game list, it goes to a vote. They need more signatures than they needed for the dove because the legislation has been on the books for more than x number of days, but it is doable.

[Shlwego]

Nope, they get enough signatures to remove a species from the game list, it goes to a vote. They need more signatures than they needed for the dove because the legislation has been on the books for more than x number of days, but it is doable.

Not to be disrespectful, but HOW do you know this is true? Can you point to a section of MCLA law that says so?