Thread: SURPRISED AT THE VOTING BOOTH TODAY!!!

Originally Posted by sundance

I respectfully disagree. There is no reason to consider "commercial gear"... traditional methods. I would never make such a connection. Not in a million years.

I don't know that the exception was removed. Can you point me to it? I'd like to see it. I haven't voted yet. I'll change my mind if I know that is what they are trying to do.

I know there has been some fighting at the coast over various things for a long time.

The language of the amendment still makes right subject to laws of the General Assembly.

Originally Posted by brhunt

Traditional and heritage is the industries platform to keep using this gear. So there actually is very good reason to consider commercial gear types, used for hundreds of years, traditional methods. A gill net is a traditional method of harvesting fish, therefore "could" be protected by this amendment.

All the info of original bills leading to this is out there and not hard to find. Lots of info and links on ncwaterman.

That's my issue with this amendment....it's too vague and can be used as a tool to both support good and support bad. To me, the risk outweigh any reward, so I'll vote No. I just encourage everyone to really do their homework on this one as well as on the politicians.

I found these comments posted online as follows: "What's interesting about the hunting and fishing amendment is that, if passed, the language of the newly recognized right would limit itself by making NC resident's ability to hunt and fish subject to statute and rule, both of which are subordinate to the state constitution."

I agree the amendment seems to say it would give people the right to use "traditional methods," to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife. I also agree the law does not define what traditional methods are.

The root of my confusion (and apparently that of others) comes from the statement that the constitution was originally supposed to limit lawmakers' leeway... and to not give them unlimited discretion to affect changes or tweaks of their own, which is exactly how this amendment struck me in the pit of my gut. It is extremely vague and apparently misleading to me... but as it is written on the ballot... the great majority of people will vote for it because of the harmless nature of the way it is stated itself. It remains that this amendment wreaks of political spin... at least to me.