I already voted NO! This amendment forever makes the game commission the keeper of wildlife. I won't minimize their importance to managing wildlife, but this amendment makes it then difficult to enact legislature to stop inhumane trapping or hunting methods if it becomes the will of the people. This amendment is unnecessary and gives extraordinary rights to hunters as mentioned above.

I apologize for being tardy in responding to this thread after I started it yesterday. Not long after I started the thread' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I hope Mrs. W mends quickly!

 

Ok...I won't vote no out of spite. But I really don't understand why this is so important it must be an amendment. Doomer's post concerns me. And I also fear what difficulties making changes in the future. I don't oppose hunting at all. I simply don't feel this is a "rights" issue that needs Constitutional protection.

"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."

 

Above is the essence of the bill HB1. I don't believe this legislature is necessary, and it gives hunting and fishing complete domain over wildlife management which I do not believe to be a balanced approach to wildlife management. To vote no to this is not anti-hunting, but keeps the system and balance as it is today rather than deferring complete authority to hunting and fishing interests.

Above is the essence of the bill HB1. I don't believe this legislature is necessary, and it gives hunting and fishing complete domain over wildlife management which I do not believe to be a balanced approach to wildlife management. To vote no to this is not anti-hunting, but keeps the system and balance as it is today rather than deferring complete authority to hunting and fishing interests.

 

This bill changes nothing as we know it today EXCEPT it takes the principles we have now (hunting fishing and trapping as our preferred method of game control) and makes them constitutional, thus ensuring the preservation of our heritage.

 

What balance are you referring to? Hunting, Fishing and Trapping are the preferred methonds used by KDFWR to manage our wildlife, and that will continue. I don't understand what you are opposing.

 

If passed it means that no matter what happens in the future, our right to hunt and fish can not be taken away by anyone unless it is ratified by a vote of the people. It does nothing to give the KDFWR more power than the legislature or take anything away from the legislature in the future.

Edited November 6, 201213 yr by Watusi

I think I read where there have been 20 or so states where they have written similar amendments and all have passed. As a gun owner and seeing how quickly someone wants to take away my rights to carry, it is a safe way to make sure if our hunting privilege is taken away from me it is not because of some rogue politician, rather by a vote of the majority of the people.

Your friends need to do a better job educating themselves.

 

That's what I was thinking. I put it on here to see if anyone else knew exactly what it was for.

I voted YES on this because 2C told me to.

This is leading 83-17.

Is it passing for or against?

Is it passing for or against?

 

Heavily passing for last I checked. But I don't think it was ever a question.

Is it passing for or against?

 

Passed for.

"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."

 

Above is the essence of the bill HB1. I don't believe this legislature is necessary, and it gives hunting and fishing complete domain over wildlife management which I do not believe to be a balanced approach to wildlife management. To vote no to this is not anti-hunting, but keeps the system and balance as it is today rather than deferring complete authority to hunting and fishing interests.

I've got news for you. The department of fish and wildlife already have complete domain over wildlife. Who else do you think would have "domain" over it? Nothing in this legislation precludes further legislation in the event something were to arise within the fish and wildlife realm that need be addressed by a legislative process. This is a far cry better than what they have in Wyoming who claims the state owns all of the resources. It doesn't impede any of the resources or rights of landowners. I don't understand your stance against.

I voted YES on this because 2C told me to.

That's what I'm talking about :lol:

That's what I'm talking about :lol:

 

Glad I could give you (and others) a laugh, but I'm 100% serious. :thumb:

I've got news for you. The department of fish and wildlife already have complete domain over wildlife. Who else do you think would have "domain" over it? Nothing in this legislation precludes further legislation in the event something were to arise within the fish and wildlife realm that need be addressed by a legislative process. This is a far cry better than what they have in Wyoming who claims the state owns all of the resources. It doesn't impede any of the resources or rights of landowners. I don't understand your stance against.

 

You didn't notice my earlier post where I am well aware of which agency has domain over wildlife management. I am not aware of any group who wants to take away hunters rights, but animal welfare advocates (and I consider myself one) would like to curtail those trapping activities and hunting activities which are inhumane (meaning no quick kill). Everything isn't good about "heritage". Kentucky has THE worst ranking in animal welfare in the country. But, I am pretty sure I am speaking to a brick wall here. It may be shocking and a surprise to many Kentuckians that everyone doesn't think like they do.