Thread: Help please with this proposed amendment..............

speck's fault

There are some people legitimately concerned about the possible ramifications.
ROBERT W. NEILL Jr.: Be wary of a 'guarantee' to hunt and fish | Letters to the Editor | The Sun Herald

"While this amendment may sound good, it could very well open up a Pandora's box.Tinkering with the constitution often brings about unintended consequences. If this amendment passes and a constitutional right is established, it will be up to the courts to provide a remedy for any of the 3 million residents of the state who feel their "guarantee" to hunt and fish is being violated.
This may put pressure on public land managers to open unsuitable public lands and waters to hunting and fishing. Wildlife and marine regulators and the Legislature might be pressured to loosen regulations. Lawsuits could even conceivably impact private property owners."

Originally Posted by Firebug2006

There are some people legitimately concerned about the possible ramifications.
ROBERT W. NEILL Jr.: Be wary of a 'guarantee' to hunt and fish | Letters to the Editor | The Sun Herald

"While this amendment may sound good, it could very well open up a Pandora's box.Tinkering with the constitution often brings about unintended consequences. If this amendment passes and a constitutional right is established, it will be up to the courts to provide a remedy for any of the 3 million residents of the state who feel their "guarantee" to hunt and fish is being violated.
This may put pressure on public land managers to open unsuitable public lands and waters to hunting and fishing. Wildlife and marine regulators and the Legislature might be pressured to loosen regulations. Lawsuits could even conceivably impact private property owners."

Thanks for posting, this is the exact article that I read.

Oh that Woukd be horrible,,,,lol.... I vote yes,,,

Originally Posted by Firebug2006

There are some people legitimately concerned about the possible ramifications.
ROBERT W. NEILL Jr.: Be wary of a 'guarantee' to hunt and fish | Letters to the Editor | The Sun Herald

"While this amendment may sound good, it could very well open up a Pandora's box.Tinkering with the constitution often brings about unintended consequences. If this amendment passes and a constitutional right is established, it will be up to the courts to provide a remedy for any of the 3 million residents of the state who feel their "guarantee" to hunt and fish is being violated.
This may put pressure on public land managers to open unsuitable public lands and waters to hunting and fishing. Wildlife and marine regulators and the Legislature might be pressured to loosen regulations. Lawsuits could even conceivably impact private property owners."

That's what the Anti's want you to believe. I am voting yes. Some of the other states have had this amendment now for several years and its to protect us against the Anti's

If you read a artical or a editorial do a quick search of that person............ Most times you will discover groups or organizations the person belongs to that can give you a hint of the writers true motive..............I am pretty sure just from a very quick search Mr. Robert W. Neill Jr Is involved in some pretty left wing enviromental projects.................

A constitutional right to hunt does not gaurantee you an adequate place to hunt.................. If that were the case then every single person that hunts on WMA lands would be disenfranchised in relation to the people who hunt on private 10k acre clubs...................It just does not pass the common sense test.

Mr. Neills article is a scare tactic.........It is an attempt to make people think the woods are going to be choke full of 3 million new hunters............ And even if that turned out to be true thats not such a bad thing is it? that makes the sportsmans voice much more louder!

I didn't realize there were any Anti's.

I'm sure he means liberal tree huggers who don't want Bambi killed or white perch caught.