Yes or No vote for hunting on ballot

Indiana Right to Hunt and Fish, Public Question 1 (2016)
Indiana Right to Hunt and Fish, Public Question 1
Flag of Indiana.png
Election date
November 8, 2016
Topic
Hunting and fishing
Status
On the ballot
Type
Constitutional amendment Origin
State legislature
2016 measures
Seal of Indiana.png
November 8
Public Question 1
Campaign finance
Polls
The Indiana Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment, also known as Public Question 1, is on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Indiana as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment.

A "yes" vote is a vote in favor of amending the constitution to include the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.
A "no" vote is a vote against amending the constitution to include the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.
Question 1 would permit the constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap to be subjected to regulations promoting wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing. Furthermore, public hunting and fishing would be the preferred method of wildlife management under the amendment.[1]

The amendment would be added to the Indiana Bill of Rights.

Citizens of Kansas are voting on a similar right to hunt and fish amendment in November 2016.

Text of measure

Ballot title
The ballot title is as follows:[2]

“ Public Question #1
Shall the Constitution of the State of Indiana be amended by adding a Section 39 to Article 1 to provide that the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife shall be forever preserved for the public good, subject only to the laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly to:

(1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and
(2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing?[3]
”
Ballot summary
The ballot summary is as follows:[4]

“ Provides that the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is a valued part of Indiana's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good. Provides that the people have a right, which includes the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to the laws prescribed by the general assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the general assembly to: (1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and (2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Provides that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. Provides that this constitutional amendment does not limit the application of any laws relating to trespass or property rights. This proposed amendment has been agreed to by one general assembly.[3] ”
Constitutional changes
See also: Article 1, Indiana Constitution
Public Question 1 would add a Section 39 to Article I of the Indiana Constitution. The following text would be added by the proposed measure's approval:[1]

Section 39.
(a) The right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife:

(1) is a valued part of Indiana's heritage; and
(2) shall be forever preserved for the public good.
(b) The people have a right, which includes the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to the laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly to:

(1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and
(2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing.
(c) Hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.
(d) This section shall not be construed to limit the application of any provision of law relating to trespass or property rights.[3]

Seems kind of odd to me I guess the obvious would be yes we want that, but is there some form of hidden agenda

No hidden agenda.

This amendment should get a YES vote from all Indiana sportsmen.

The fact that PETA and HSUS are all against this should be enough of a guide to answering "yes" on this question.

So I'm reading a lot of hunters want to vote no. And I see their point. "Section 39, 2-C is very detrimental. That's the only change. They want to put hunting and fishing is the "preferred" way to manage our wildlife. Currently that's legally the only way. What they "prefer" is for those padding their pockets (i.e. insurance companies) to now have the means to kill as many as they want. It has nothing to do with i can't afford a liscense but want to feed my family. Vote NO! We have the right already. It doesn't need amended to open up more friggin loopholes!" That was a guy on Facebook. My opinion right now is. This law is kind of pointless. They will never take away our right to hunt, so putting this ammendment in may interfere with other laws making hunting and fishing way more Complicated then it already is. It may turn hunting and fishing into another government hoop we have to jump through to enjoy.

Where are you reading that "a lot of hunters want to vote no"??? :rolleyes:

I've several say that on FB.... just ask Trapperdave... he has run into a few that are against it as well! :p

You sure they are hunters?

PETA/HSUS supporters, and a few gullible hunters who fall victim to their spin machine, will vote no. The rest of us will support this amendment, as we should.

In the end, I believe it will pass with ease, like it has in 19 other states.

https://www.nraila.org/issues/hunting-and-conservation/right-to-hunt-fish-amendments/

Well, my apologies! The NRA article is very insightful and I will be voting YES. Thank you for the info!

I have seen much misinformation and some outright lies from PETA/HSUS/HEC folks regarding why hunters should vote no. That alone gets it my yes vote.

I'm going to have to vote no ! With a yes vote we inadvertently protect the right for commercial harvest also !! High Fence "hunting " would also be protected a amendment excluding Commercial aspects must be added to get my vote Sorry !!

I don't see any connection between this amendment and high fence operations. The amendment refers to "wildlife". The animals behind the fences are not wildlife but domesticated animals like cattle. The state has given control of them to BOAH. DNR has nothing to do with those operations. Granted I have been out of the loop for awhile but I would like to see this pass.

some definitions need to be explained for sure People behind High fence call that hunting and people using pay lakes call that fishing ! just be sure any commercial use is explained and written down as not a protected right NOT IMPLIED what are traditional methods ?? for example

High fence issues have already been settled by the legislature and the courts. That ship has sailed, and this amendment changes nothing on that front.

Up for vote is a constitutional amendment, not a detailed list of statutory code.

However, bringing that topic into question, unfortunately is one of the ways the AR groups could try to twist facts, haze up the issue, and deceive sportsmen.

Looks like this will pass easily

80% voted yes for it with 44% reporting....