Over the past six years, a wave of so-called "right to hunt" legislative and constitutional provisions has been sweeping through state legislatures. The movement is sponsored by the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, formerly known as the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, the same group which co-authored the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act with the American Legislative Exchange Council. At least 21 states have considered these provisions, and they have passed in at least six states. The provisions are a radical response of some members of the hunting community to new initiatives regulating certain types of hunting, trapping, and other perceived "threats" to the sport. In addition, they could be used to limit the public's use of ballot initiatives as a tool for managing wildlife. The impact of these provisions is unclear, particularly since many of them grant the right to hunt "in accordance with law and regulation." They could, however, be used as a basis to challenge existing and/or new laws and regulations in the courts, or as a defense for individual violations of game and fish laws. Concern has also been expressed that these provisions may interfere with endangered species protection, Native American treaty rights, restrictions on hunting on public lands, and firearm regulations. In most states, hunting and fishing activities are already well protected by law. Groups opposing "right to hunt" provisions argue that they are not only unnecessary but also could be harmful to wildlife management by taking away the authority of the legislature and regulatory agencies to make hunting and fishing decisions on behalf of the public. Most important, however, is the fact that wildlife belongs to all citizens of a state, hunters and non-hunters alike, and is held in trust by the state for their benefit. Establishing a constitutional right to hunt and fish violates that basic trust responsibility, and elevates the desires of a segment of the population over the needs of the whole.

Ran 4/19/2004