Monday, November 3, 2008

State question: hunting rights

By John Sutter

I hadn't heard anything about State Question No. 742, which would amend the Oklahoma Constitution to list hunting and as fishing personal rights, until this morning, when I was listening to KGOU, the local NPR station.

The station pointed me to a voter's guide, by the League of Women Voters, which says animal rights groups oppose the amendment because it could limit the state's ability to preserve wildlife for uses other than food and sport. Proponents of the amendment fear animal rights people will try to strip them of their rights to hunt and fish.

Not that this sounds like a reliable source, but someone on at site called glocktalk.com, which has a big ole' gun as its banner, says the measure, if passed, would provide a "permanent Constitutional safeguard against anti hunting efforts in the state of Oklahoma."

Let me know if you all have any thoughts. If I learn more, I'll add to the post.

Here's the text of the question, which will be on the ballot tomorrow:
This measure adds a new section to the State Constitution. It adds Section 36 to Article 2. It gives all people of this state the right to hunt, trap, fish and take game and fish. Such activities would be subject to reasonable regulation. It allows the Wildlife Conservation Commission to approve methods and procedures for hunting, trapping, fishing and taking of game and fish. It allows for taking game and fish by traditional means. It makes hunting, fishing, and trapping the preferred means to manage certain game and fish. The new law will not affect existing laws relating to property rights.

2 comments:

David Glover said...

A friend sent me this link. http://getactive.peta.org/PETA/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=32741784&r=tdXCjw4qyI35

Maria said...

I only learned about the initiative yesterday too. I guess my head has been in the sand. Anyway, I'm not sure exactly how I would interpret it, but I am in the camp that was opposed to the amendment. My concern is that hunting rights would then trump other rights that I think are equally as important.