Right to hunt, fish will be on November ballot

Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 12:05pm
hunting-legislature.jpg

Tennessee voters will decide in November’s elections whether to make hunting and fishing a state constitutional right.

The state House joined the Senate Thursday in voting to place the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. Only one legislator — Rep. Johnnie Turner, D-Memphis — voted against it.

Rep. Tommie Brown, D-Chattanooga, abstained after arguing that supporters of the amendment are grandstanding for the votes of conservatives.

“You know I’m totally confused,” she said. “Do we not have the right to hunt and fish and carry guns right now? This is a knee-jerk response. … Eventually we’re not going to be able to read the constitution because it’s going to be so long.”

The sponsor — Rep. Joe McCord, R-Maryville — said Tennessee should guarantee the right to hunt and fish "subject to reasonable regulations” just in case politicians should try to curtail the sporting life in the future.

“I’m asked why do we need this? The answer is to guarantee the right that we currently have and assume to have in the future. Secondly I’m asked do we have a problem in Tennessee right now? The answer is no, right now we don’t have a problem. But that’s why the time is right to address this issue. Don’t wait until you’re embroiled in a problem to address it. They didn’t think they had a problem in Great Britain and other European countries until it was politically popular to ban certain types of hunting, and then it was too late.”

McCord said 12 other states have similar constitutional provisions and at least eight others are considering them. 

25 Comments on this post:

By: revo-lou on 3/18/10 at 12:51

This is a right? What about the "rights" of the animals? Oh, wait, I forgot, it is all here for us to do as we please. God, why did you make people SO FREAKING STUPID?

By: tammiep777 on 3/18/10 at 1:10

we have been able to hunt and fish since the dawn of time began, as for me and my family we hunt deer and turkey etc, to feed us it does cut down on the grocery bill because after we have it processed it's a lot cheaper than going to walmart and buying meat. it's not just a sport for us. it would be different if we just killed them for the fun of it and left the animal to rot.

By: pswindle on 3/18/10 at 1:12

When the republicans take over TN completely, this is one of the stupid things that they will pass. They will let the important issues stay on the table. We do not want to do anything to help the quality of life, just stupid things like this. Maybe, it is time to vote for new faces with a litle sense.

By: bfra on 3/18/10 at 1:12

Oh we can vote on this dumb bill but when it came to karl's $$$$$$$$ boondoggle ego boosting MCC, it got rammed down our throats!

By: TharonChandler on 3/18/10 at 1:41

March 18th, 2010 1:36 pm

A Copy of a message sent in my needful regard to MY previous web-site address. Message Sent:

With all due respect; the ‘domain name’ (tharonchandler.com) was mine as purchased in January 2008 and also is my given name, alone. In my best judgement [someone] have ‘hi-jacked’ the domain against my wishes and against my better judgement. Though the material is not in bad focus (antiques and art) I actually have not submitted it and could not reply to an pertinent inquiry; and worse the header continues to list me as a candidate in Missouri, of which I certainly am not. I ask you to ‘cease and desist’ in the use of this and any similar domain name, on the world wide web, under penalty of [my misgivings]. Clear.
W.T. Chandler

By: karman37206 on 3/18/10 at 2:04

There are enough laws in place for people who hunt for food. The rest are just idiots who want to kill something to feed their barbarous egos....I say give Bambi the gun and then watch the animal- stalking morons run!!!!!!

By: JohnGalt on 3/18/10 at 4:09

Entertaining post, karman. Stupid, but entertaining nevertheless.

By: willtw on 3/19/10 at 12:11

do any of you actually have a clue as to WHY this would become a constitutional issue requring a vote? There was a report off of ESPN that the federal government had before it a report that our government could potentially ban hunting and fishing in all states, on all lakes, bodies of water regardless of ownership of that water, even private lakes? Reportedly because it caused pain to fish to catch and release or to hunt any game unless for food. Not sure if it was an EPA thing but reportedly it was an administration project originating with one of the CZARS....I can't quote chapter and verse and apologize for that but any remark trying to explain is better than blowing soot and smoke out one's orifices as I have read here today.

By: idgaf on 3/19/10 at 4:03

Rep. Tommie Brown, D-Chattanooga, abstained after arguing that supporters of the amendment are grandstanding for the votes of conservatives.

******************************************

No its to protect ourselves from Federal legislation that barry is proposing and to establish standing before the courts on the states rights issue.

Barry and the progressives are out of control. Look at what they are trying to do (and may be successful) on the health care issue.

By: Kosh III on 3/19/10 at 7:50

I'll probably vote against it. Not because I have anything against the practices, but we don't need unnecessary crap cluttering up the Constitution.
I wish the Legislature would do something productive like find ways to fix the economy instead of this pointless pandering.

By: mauser on 3/19/10 at 8:25

Mauser
revo-lou You wrote "This is a right? What about the "rights" of the animals? Oh, wait, I forgot, it is all here for us to do as we please. God, why did you make people SO FREAKING STUPID?"

You invoked the name of God, which makes me assume you are a believer. As such you should know that Genesis 1:26 says "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Dominion means "the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority." Which means God has given us the right to do whatever we want to these these animals including killing them for food or even for sport.

Our current Federal Government seems focused on removing as many of our God given rights as possible. So I say that it is a good thing that our State Government is doing what it can to protect these rights given to us by God.

By: Kosh III on 3/19/10 at 8:47

Mauser

Get God to fix the federal government.
Then show me in the CONSTITUTION where God gave us the right to hunt and fish and despoil the environment.

By: revo-lou on 3/19/10 at 9:00

By: mauser on 3/19/10 at 8:25
You invoked the name of God, which … as many of our God given rights as possible. So I say that it is a good thing that our State Government is doing what it can to protect these rights given to us by God.
--
Well, you would be wrong. But, I know most of the “hunters” do, so it was for their benefit. As to dominion, if your definition includes the decisions of life and death, you have overstepped your boundary, don’t you think? (Rhetorical, don’t bother, I already know your answer).
--
As to God, if you think he “gave” you the right to destroy the earth, and to do with it as you please (it is HIS creation, you know) then it would appear that you have MISSED a great many points of the bible, religion and of course GOD himself. But, then, we have come to expect that.

By: localboy on 3/19/10 at 9:12

"I'll probably vote against it. Not because I have anything against the practices, but we don't need unnecessary crap cluttering up the Constitution.
I wish the Legislature would do something productive like find ways to fix the economy instead of this pointless pandering."
Exactly.

By: gruntz on 3/19/10 at 9:43

Kosh III: "I wish the Legislature would do something productive like find ways to fix the economy instead of this pointless pandering"
They can chew gum and walk at the same time despite evidence to the contrary. Just because they took a vote on hunters' rights doesn't preclude them from writing and passing laws to help create more jobs in TN. I know they are working on a law to do just that and they will take a vote on it soon.

By: NonyaBidness on 3/19/10 at 9:54

"There was a report off of ESPN that the federal government had before it a report that our government could potentially ban hunting and fishing in all states, " followed by, "not sure if it was an EPA thing but reportedly it was an administration project originating with one of the CZARS....I can't quote chapter and verse and apologize for that but any remark trying to explain is better than blowing soot and smoke out one's orifices as I have read here today."

So who's blowing soot and smoke? I don't get it. I really just don't get it. Why are so many Tennesseans so quick to believe the most dire conspiracy theories that they hear about without any further investigation of the source. This why Rep. McCord's was able to get his proposed amendment passed. Because he knows that too many Tennesseans will believe in any conspiracy theory regarding threats to their rights, and there are not enough principled legislators willing to stand up to this kind of grandstanding.

If I were serving in the Legislature right now, I think I might propose a constitutional amendment that says every Tennessean has the right toplay with their dog in the park in the spring, drink lemonade in the summer and attend college football games in the fall!

By: Kosh III on 3/19/10 at 9:58

gruntz
I won't hold my breath.
Hasn't the deadline for new bills expired for this session?
What's the bill #, more details please.

" Just because they took a vote on hunters' rights doesn't preclude them from writing and passing laws to help create more jobs in TN."

Their past performace shows that they can't. They did nothing last year about the economy, just guns, abortion and the usual show pieces.

By: xhexx on 3/19/10 at 10:22

Here's why it's needed...

http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=2588

0bama's “regulation czar” Cass Sunstein favors making hunting illegal. He promotes an “animal rights” agenda that included a flat ban on sport hunting, “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law.”

"Sunstein, like most other leftists has a vision of federal regulatory power that is almost unlimited, and in his new position he will have some ability to promote his agenda." He has the ability to write draconian regulations, which require no action by Congress to implement.

By: mauser on 3/19/10 at 10:26

Kosh III and revo-lou,

I am afraid you missed my point and that is entirely my fault. I wish I could get God to fix the Federal Government in fact I pray for that more and more often these days.

I think you will find that hunters are typically far better conservationist than most of the people who believe themselves to be advocating for the environment. Because we practice what we preach. The money for my hunting licenses goes to TWRA, who uses this money to secure additional lands for not only hunters but for everyone who enjoys the beauty of Gods creation. The money is also use in programs like the elk and wild turkey reintroduction in Tennessee. My land will not be developed as long as I own it rather it will remain as a refuge for all wildlife. My money and time are put into planting feed plots, which improve the forage for all wildlife thereby improving their health and ability to thrive. What have you done to improve the environment other than complain about my right to eat organically grown food.

God did not give me the right to destroy the earth. We are to be good stewards of his creation. He did however give me the right to harvest any animal for my consumption. And unless you total abstain from the consumption of meat you are no better than me.

By: revo-lou on 3/19/10 at 10:47

No, I believe I got your point in its entirety. If you believe in God, as you claim, the last thing in the world you should want is for “him” to interfere with the government. The reason why is far harder to explain than we have time for here, but you would be wise to study a bit more.
-
I think you will also find that most hunters are NOT better conservationist, as theirs is an ulterior motive. Where I come from, and in the true meaning of the word, conservation is for the element or entity being preserved, and no other reason. TWRA money goes for the ability to HUNT more, and for no other reason. To present an argument otherwise is misleading, naïve, or, an outright lie.
-
I have done what I have always done, tread lightly (in the world, not just on the trail), been respectful of the WHOLE world, and recognized that it is NOT all here for me. My land is preserved for the things that live on it, including me, to the best of my abilities for THOSE things because it is theirs as well, a philosophy that I am sure is hard for you to understand.
-
And, just to put your mind at ease, I do fully abstain, which, I guess, makes me better than you, according to you.

By: mrspris on 3/19/10 at 10:54

I wish they would all stop being so self indulgent and concentrate on helping to fix this awful mess America is in. They need those big guns to shoot them big bears.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 3/19/10 at 1:51

geez, this was all a Fox hoax:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fishingban.asp

By: Blanketnazi2 on 3/19/10 at 1:54

ESPNOutdoors.com inadvertently contributed to a flare-up Tuesday when we posted the latest article in a series of stories on President Barack Obama's newly created Ocean Policy Task Force, a column written by Robert Montgomery, a conservation writer for BASS since 1985. Regrettably, we made several errors in the editing and presentation of this installment. Though our series has included numerous news stories on the topic, this was not one of them -- it was an opinion piece, and should have been clearly labeled as commentary

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/columns/story?columnist=bowman_steve&id=4982359

By: pswindle on 3/19/10 at 2:27

I thougth that I could already fish, hunt and etc. Do you mean that I have been doing this and it is aginst the law?

By: EddieA on 3/19/10 at 9:14

revo-lou,

I agree with you. The word hunting has been replaced with the word harvesting. Hunters no longer hunt animals, they harvest them. You may enjoy a new novel, 'The Harvesting of Joseph Victorio'. It is a satire on American's Second Amendement right to bare arms. What would happen if the defensless animals were no longer defensless? What would happen if the animals had guns and the harvesters did not have guns? What woulde happen if the harvesters became the harvested?