Quote Originally Posted by Firebug2006 View Post
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