Awesome. Explains how few there are. So no votes on expanded gambling, hemp, legalized and/or medicinal marijuana. But an amendment on something that isn't an issue at all?

 

The things you list aren't an issue either. Just because you want them to be doesn't make them an issue. Let me ask this, is it better to wait until something like this is needed before it's acted upon?

I actually just talked to some of my "hunting" friends and they are voting No. Apparantly it gives anyone the right to hunt on others property without permission?

Your friends need to do a better job educating themselves.

 

The things you list aren't an issue either. Just because you want them to be doesn't make them an issue. Let me ask this, is it better to wait until something like this is needed before it's acted upon?

 

They are an issue because both currently aren't allowed. Last I checked you are free to hunt/fish.

 

If you don't think expanded gaming is an issue in KY you have your head FIRMLY planted in the sand.

They are an issue because both currently aren't allowed. Last I checked you are free to hunt/fish.

 

If you don't think expanded gaming is an issue in KY you have your head FIRMLY planted in the sand.

Do we wait until it's an issue before doing something? What's wrong with being proactive?

Do we wait until it's an issue before doing something? What's wrong with being proactive?

 

So whats the scoop, we voting yes or no BGP.

 

 

Side note, isn't proactive one of those face cream things?

Do we wait until it's an issue before doing something? What's wrong with being proactive?

 

Proactivity is needed when there is a legitimate potential problem to address -- for example, we should be proactive when dealing with our country's infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), not problems that don't exist and never will.

Do we wait until it's an issue before doing something? What's wrong with being proactive?

 

For some reason, the show "Doomsday Preppers" comes to my mind.

A serious question. What is the difference between hunting and harvesting wildlife (...the personal right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife...)?

A serious question. What is the difference between hunting and harvesting wildlife (...the personal right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife...)?

I assume the latter refers to legal trapping methods.

Voting yes on this amendment will likely result in you noticing no differences in the way your state manages wildlife resources. Voting no, especially out of spite, could have detrimental effect on that issue in the future and I urge you not to do that.

 

I certainly didn't expect this kind of backlash. It surprises me, growing up in this state as someone who has enjoyed hunting and fishing my whole life and I hope to see my kids and grandkids be able to enjoy the same.

 

This amendment is a proactive, preservation amendment as woodsrider alluded to. It is not a suggestion that our hunting and fishing rights are going to be taken away without the amendment, rather a move to clarify the couple of issues that are being addressed.

 

The measure would protect the right of residents to hunt and fish in the state. It was sponsored by Representatives Leslie Combs and Greg Stumbo. The measure was proposed in order to mandate that hunting and fishing should never be outlawed in the state without the vote of the people. LINK.

It isn't a scare tactic, it has nothing to do with anything other than legally preserving those rights, specifically naming hunting, fishing and trapping as the preferred method of game control and conservation of our wildlife resources (which KDFWR does an amazing job of doing).

 

I support those actions as a preservation tool, if you believe that hunting and fishing and trapping should remain as the best tools for that job, then PLEASE vote yes on this amendment. If you think some other method is a better option, I respect that. But please, don't vote no out of spite or misunderstanding, please.

 

From the link:

 

The National Rifle Association has been working throughout the country to adopt meaningful state Right to Hunt and Fish constitutional amendments for good reason. We see what the well-funded “animal rights” extremist groups are doing to erode our sporting heritage in countless states. To assume the attacks will never come to Kentucky is naïve.

 

Voter ratification of this constitutional amendment will preserve Kentucky’s rich hunting and fishing heritage for future generations. In addition, it specifies that hunting, fishing and harvesting of wildlife shall be used as a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. This ensures that sportsmen will continue to act as the state’s responsible game managers instead of the taxpayer-funded sharpshooters and unproven, expensive wildlife contraception schemes employed in other jurisdictions.

 

This constitutional amendment recognizes hunting, fishing and harvesting of wildlife as constitutional rights. These rights are subject only to laws and rules that have the purpose of “wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing.” Specifically, it prohibits regulations that would ban the use of “traditional methods” such as bow hunting or the sustainable taking of wildlife such as deer, elk and doves. It will protect the citizens’ hunting heritage from attacks initiated by well-funded anti-hunting extremists who have assailed sportsmen throughout the country in recent years.

Edited November 6, 201213 yr by Watusi

I apologize for being tardy in responding to this thread after I started it yesterday. Not long after I started the thread, I got a call from my wife and had to rush her to the doctor. She is in the hospital with kidney stones, which she finally passed last night.

I probably botched up the explanation, but if you want an authoritative view, check out the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife's stance on this amendment. They are the organization charged with protecting and managing our wildlife resources in this state. They are one of the leading organizations of their type nationwide and they do an amazing job. They fully support the amendment, as does the League of KY Sportsmen.

 

PLEASE read the KDFWR info on House Bill 1 (2012), CLICK HERE

 

I actually just talked to some of my "hunting" friends and they are voting No. Apparantly it gives anyone the right to hunt on others property without permission?

 

Please call those friends and tell them that is dead wrong.

 

From the KDWFR link above "This amendment guarantees a right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife while continuing protections for private property rights. In other words, this constitutional amendment in no way establishes a "right to retrieve" option for hunters, or allows anglers hunters or trappers to trespass on private landowners' property for any reason. To the contrary, current law requires that "Persons shall not enter upon the lands of another to shoot, hunt, trap, or fish, or for other wildlife-related recreational purposes, without the oral or written permission of the landowner, tenant, or person who has authority to grant permission." This law will not change with passage of this Constitutional Amendment. "

Full explanation from the KDFWR:

 

"Right to Hunt and Fish in Kentucky"[h=3]Constitutional Amendment: November Ballot[/h]

• The full text of the Constitutional Amendment is as follows:
   
  
  • "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."
    

   

  [*]The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) fully supports passage of this Amendment. This amendment provides the opportunity for Kentuckians to establish a constitutional right to be able to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife in Kentucky, and will protect this heritage into the future.

   

  [*]Our department worked closely, during the 2011 General Assembly, with the sponsors of House Bill 1, which established the ability to have this ballot initiative during this election year. Through these efforts, KDFWR was able to insure the amendment will not inadvertently impact our ability to properly manage fish and wildlife resource in the Commonwealth.

   

  [*]This constitutional amendment also includes language that elevates hunting and fishing to "a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife."

   

  [*]This amendment guarantees a right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife while continuing protections for private property rights. In other words, this constitutional amendment in no way establishes a "right to retrieve" option for hunters, or allows anglers hunters or trappers to trespass on private landowners' property for any reason. To the contrary, current law requires that "Persons shall not enter upon the lands of another to shoot, hunt, trap, or fish, or for other wildlife-related recreational purposes, without the oral or written permission of the landowner, tenant, or person who has authority to grant permission." This law will not change with passage of this Constitutional Amendment.

   

  [*]Currently, a person can hunt, fish and harvest wildlife according to both state and local laws. Establishing the constitutional right to "hunt, fish and harvest wildlife using traditional methods" will provide for a constant reminder when developing laws, regulations and ordinances that reasonable access to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife is paramount.

   

  [*]This amendment is also supported by the League of Kentucky Sportsmen, the National Rifle Association, and countless other conservation organizations in the Commonwealth.

   

  [*]At least 15 other states already have added similar language to their constitutions that guarantees their citizens the right to hunt, fish, or harvest wildlife.

I thought we had a brief discussion on this a little while back. What changes will this amendment bring about?

It takes the rights we have now and makes them a part of our constitution, preserves them for the future.