WFHB Bloomington Community Radio
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 2:21 — 2.1MB)
This year’s November ballot comes with an unusual proposition: an amendment to Indiana’s constitution. Question Number One on the ballot asks Hoosiers whether the state should incorporate hunting and fishing as a right in the state constitution, in the same article as freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial. In addition to assigning constitutional protection to hunting and fishing, the amendment would declare hunting, quote, “the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.”
The amendment was authored by Brent Steele, a state senator from the Bedford area. It passed in two consecutive legislative sessions by a wide margin before being forwarded to voters, with both roll calls falling largely on party lines. The state of Kansas also has a constitutional right to hunt and fish on the ballot this year. 17 states have passed similar amendments. Almost all of them have been passed within the last 20 years. The movement for adding the right to hunt and fish to state constitutions is heavily supported by the National Rifle Association and several other groups that advocate for hunting. Advocates say the amendments are a kind of insurance against efforts by animal rights groups and environmental lobbyists to control or limit hunting.
The likely impact of the amendment is unclear. Hunting is legal in all 50 states, and Indiana has seen no credible efforts to curtail it outside of the seasons and bag limits that are set by the Department of Natural Resources every year. Animal rights groups argue that the amendment is unnecessary, and may be used as justification for lawsuits seeking to overturn DNR regulations or legalize hunting methods they see as unethical. The amendment could theoretically be used to challenge environmental regulations on the grounds that they interfere with hunting, though there are no clear examples at this time. A “yes” vote on the ballot would be in favor of adding the right to hunt and fish to the state constitution, and a “no” vote would be against adding the amendment.
