# Constitutional Right to hunt and fish



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/HJR015.html

I am loving what I'm seeing here. I really hope the legislature does this, then the voters of Utah step up and make this happen.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Just out of curiosity, how would this amendment affect restrictions like what was recently proposed for dealing with deadbeat dads and previous restrictions involving convicts and firearms?


Overall, I like it too. Preemptive measure against the antis.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Not sure on the "deadbeat dad/mom" (it's 2020, afterall) bill and how this type of thing would impact that. The way it would be written into the constitution would state that it is subject to statute and rule to "promote wildlife conservation and management" and "preserve the future of hunting, fishing, and wildlife harvesting." Keeping people with unpaid child support from holding a hunting/fishing license doesn't further either of those objectives, so this may make that type of legislation unconstitutional. 

That said, even if it was, I still support this premise 1000%! I hope everyone else does too.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Seems about time the Utah legislature had this debate. Will be interesting to see the dialougue and any mark ups.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I wish they would have done it 15 years ago. It would have passed with flying colors in the legislature and Utah public. 

As we have discussed in other threads, times are changing in our great state. This offers a level of protection for a heritage that is worth protecting.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I think its odds are good in the legislature, but it will be interesting to follow. 

The voters probably will still approve it if it only requires a simple majority.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

If this is implemented and it becomes a "right", why would people then need licenses? Do you need a license to speak? A license to own a gun? Just curious the ramifications of this with regard to the existing hunting / application / license structure.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

DallanC said:


> If this is implemented and it becomes a "right", why would people then need licenses? Do you need a license to speak? A license to own a gun? Just curious the ramifications of this with regard to the existing hunting / application / license structure.
> 
> -DallanC


Ramifications would be none on current license structure. See the following language proposed:

"(2) The right under Subsection (1) includes the right to use traditional methods to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to statute, and rules adopted under the authority of statute, to:
(a) promote wildlife conservation and management; and
(b) preserve the future of hunting, fishing, and wildlife harvesting."

They would still be able to have restrictions on the pursuit and harvest of protected wildlife. They'd still have the ability to require fees to promote conservation and management. (IE- license fees)

I view this simply as a placeholder to thwart future attempts to take away our ability to hunt and fish if/when we become the vast minority in our state. Constitutional rights exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

And yes, for some speech you need a licence. (Time, place, and manner restrictions as well) And yes, for some guns you need a license.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

DallanC said:


> If this is implemented and it becomes a "right", why would people then need licenses? Do you need a license to speak? A license to own a gun? Just curious the ramifications of this with regard to the existing hunting / application / license structure.
> 
> -DallanC


If the various other states that have hunting/fishing as state constitutional rights are any example, then people will still need licenses.

One note on the deadbeat parent's bill unconstitutionality issue. Vanilla, you mentioned


> The way it would be written into the constitution would state that it is subject to statute and rule to "promote wildlife conservation and management" and "preserve the future of hunting, fishing, and wildlife harvesting."


While yes, that is the express subjugation in the proposal, I do not think that would prevent a court from upholding other legislation that impacts an individual's constitutional right to hunt if that other legislation passes strict scrutiny.

The deadbeat parent's bill is aimed at encouraging parents to meet the financial obligations to support their children. Presumably, more people paying their child support obligations would lower the burden on state welfare/assistance programs. Plus, the state has a well-established interest in the well-being of the children in the state. And the bill is narrowly tailored to restrict the rights of only those individuals who are legally obligated to pay child support and are not meeting that obligation. Seems like a pretty solid case for the state to argue in support of the deadbeat parent restriction law (if both are passed).


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

It may not even get to strict scrutiny analysis, right? It may only be a rational basis test, which would definitely lend itself to your argument of it remaining constitutional.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Hopefully it passes AND has bearing on firearm laws. Personally I don't care at all if someone has an AR-15, short barrel shotgun, or semi-automatic handgun, but if the gov wants to take them away I also don't care. If that happens and this law keeps other firearms safe that would be great.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I wonder if the child support law could be written to allow individuals to maintain a hunting and fishing license but not apply for tags. That could maintain the Constititional right to hunt and fish but revoke the ability to participate in certain hunting privileges. 

All depends on how the bills are when adopted and what courts decide is the acceptable level of analysis. I haven't taken the time to research how other states deal with this dichotomy. Do any have both the law and Amendment on their books?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Jedidiah said:


> Hopefully it passes AND has bearing on firearm laws. Personally I don't care at all if someone has an AR-15, short barrel shotgun, or semi-automatic handgun, *but if the gov wants to take them away I also don't care. * If that happens and this law keeps other firearms safe that would be great.


One thing about it you certainly are on a roll today! Kind of talking out both sides of mouth aren't you?


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

How's that chief? I'm indifferent to weapons made for killing people. Is that a weird opinion for someone on a hunting forum?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> It may not even get to strict scrutiny analysis, right? It may only be a rational basis test, which would definitely lend itself to your argument of it remaining constitutional.


Exactly.



backcountry said:


> I wonder if the child support law could be written to allow individuals to maintain a hunting and fishing license but not apply for tags. That could maintain the Constititional right to hunt and fish but revoke the ability to participate in certain hunting privileges.


You don't need any type of license to hunt coyotes. Still is hunting


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Jedidiah said:


> How's that chief? I'm indifferent to weapons made for killing people. Is that a weird opinion for someone on a hunting forum?


Not at all. You and Paddler can argue all day.

I'm pretty sure if the first use of any weapon was for "hunting" The second would be for killing people. You know the saying "sticks and stones...."


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

middlefork said:


> I'm pretty sure if the first use of any weapon was for "hunting" The second would be for killing people. You know the saying "sticks and stones...."


Uhhhh...no, it does not follow that the second use would be for killing people. I'm not going to elaborate because I don't feel like it needs arguing beyond disagreeing.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Feels like hunting season is over and everyone has cabin fever....


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Bax* said:


> Feels like hunting season is over and everyone has cabin fever....


Expo tomorrow. Maybe it will be a quieter day?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Sorry Bax. Thanks for all you do.


----------



## olibooger (Feb 13, 2019)

3arabians said:


> Bax* said:
> 
> 
> > Feels like hunting season is over and everyone has cabin fever....
> ...


If one has a bunch of kids who want to see all the big animals at the Expo, would you go? For just one year and that would be it?

I know the Expo is like taboo in some cultures.

Cabin fever is flowing in this house. It's almost chile season!


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

olibooger said:


> If one has a bunch of kids who want to see all the big animals at the Expo, would you go? For just one year and that would be it?
> 
> I know the Expo is like taboo in some cultures.
> 
> Cabin fever is flowing in this house. It's almost chile season!


Yes, I'd take all the kids and go!


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

olibooger said:


> If one has a bunch of kids who want to see all the big animals at the Expo, would you go? For just one year and that would be it?
> 
> I know the Expo is like taboo in some cultures.
> 
> Cabin fever is flowing in this house. It's almost chile season!


Hell ya! Go every year if you want. I'm indifferent about the expo taboo but do you

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## olibooger (Feb 13, 2019)

Wow. Wasnt expecting that. 

Thanks both of you guys.


Didnt mean to derail the thread at all but considering the other same topic thread in big game was closed, maybe a little derailing was in order.

Kind of happy the two threads were allowed to continue as they did to hear both sides. My opinion changed reading them. I think the bill should pass. Good for the law abiding Utah hunters and single parent struggling with no child support. That's my on topic .02


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I’m glad to see that hunting is being considered a protected pastime as the numbers indicate a decline in participation over the past several years. If this trend continues, I fear conservation will go with it based off sheer ignorance and not for lack of appreciation of wildlife but a deep misunderstanding of management.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

I have to wonder if this proposed amendment has a lot to do with the national decline of hunters in general. Not that we have this problem here, but maybe they're thinking ahead on this issue with the changing demographics in Utah.

I see this as flying in the face of anti-hunters, the thought of which I enjoy immensely. There is quite a growing, and mislead contingent of people who seem to think that a total non management stance is the correct stance and nature will self correct. A school of thought that I suppose would be true, if not for the fact that millions of **** sapiens have reshaped and fragmented the land.. but I'm going off on a tangent.

The whole thought of "right vs privilege" is unavoidable though. My understanding is that hunting and fishing is a privilege. A privilege can be taken away, a right is inalienable. So I'm not sure what to think about that. Some rights can be taken away if the offense is grievous enough, but that in itself, at least in my mind leads to the discussion of the integrity of the matter. 

A right is something you either have or you don't, and by definition cannot be taken away, if it is taken away, then was it ever a right to begin with? A right is something everyone possess and owns. A privilege is something that is temporary in nature, requires granting of some sort of permission, and is something that not everyone posses and owns.

Yup, I sure can open a philosophical can of worms when I want to. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure verbiage on this type of thing matters.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Seems to me that if we need the government's permission (license) to hunt or fish, it's a privilege, not a right. So as written, this amendment wouldn't change anything. That being the case, is it maybe best to let a sleeping dog lie?

"In 2016, nearly 497,000 people spent time fishing in the state compared to 244,000 who hunted (although thousands of Utahns participate in both)." Utah's population is somewhere around 3.2 million, so a big majority of Utah residents don't hunt or fish. While I'm confident that this amendment will get the required 2/3 vote in the legislature, I'm not nearly so sure that it will get the majority vote on the ballot. And that's assuming there'll be more than 50% voter participation in the election (also required).

I'm seeing some evidence that the anti-predator bill has already stirred up at least a couple environmental NGOs. We know that this sort of political fodder makes great marketing for donations for these organizations. So does this amendment proposal just toss gas on the fire?

Granted, I'm not nearly as freaked-out by the anti-hunter boogeyman as most. Truth is, the only folks who've ever messed with my ability to hunt over the past 60 years have been other hunters. Be that as it may, I don't see much of anything to be gained here in a fight that might have some consequences we don't need.


----------

