SURPRISED AT THE VOTING BOOTH TODAY!!!

I'll be the first to admit that I do not understand the course of politics or for our country as a whole, nowadays, (for that matter) -- but I thought it very strange or perhaps even very suspicious -- that on the North Carolina mid term ballot there were six proposed amendments to the State Constitution--one of which had to do with the right of NC citizens to hunt and fish in North Carolina. If you're like me you didn’t know that your hunting and fishing rights were threatened. But, the more I thought about this, the more I realized -- If religion, free speech, border control and even our democracy as a whole is threatened, nowadays -- I'm sure hunting and fishing rights can be threatened along with gun control too.

As I'm sure all of you feel (and have always felt): The right of the people to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife is a valued and traditional part of any state’s heritage and (supposedly) would be forever preserved for the public good without the need for anything else -- but now (strangely) needs be preserved by way of voting for this new amendment to the constitution.

As best I could ascertain from my research: Voters in North Carolina are being asked to vote for or against a "Constitutional amendment protecting the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife." Amazingly, the ballot measure suddenly seeks to establish state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife for the people of North Carolina. I understand that 26 other states (possibly yours) are proceeding with similar amendments to their constitutions.

Once upon a time a person could feel somewhat protected by their representatives in the government and the fact that they were constantly looking after the best interests of the American people.

Nowadays, I'm afraid I don't trust the political system or government protections of our rights much any more. What do you think? How do you feel???

Its good to see them thinking ahead. If this state can put Roy Cooper in as Governor, there is just no telling what will happen in the future.

I know there are some that like him because he's done something good for them.... but a little good here and there doesn't buy my support. The metropolitan areas of the state are doing their best to establish a long term position of power in government. If they succeed, you'll lose your guns, your gifts of liberty and your right to call on God when and wherever you choose.

I don't want to push anything. I just want to remain free. I have the motto.... Generally do as you please, just let me do the same.

Lived in NC for 67 years. Love the state then and still do. It is a good idea to put this on the ballot and add it to the constitution. There are many who would deprive us of these rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Special K

I'll be the first to admit that I do not understand the course of politics or for our country as a whole, nowadays, (for that matter) -- but I thought it very strange or perhaps even very suspicious -- that on the North Carolina mid term ballot there were six proposed amendments to the State Constitution--one of which had to do with the right of NC citizens to hunt and fish in North Carolina. If you're like me you didn’t know that your hunting and fishing rights were threatened. But, the more I thought about this, the more I realized -- If religion, free speech, border control and even our democracy as a whole is threatened, nowadays -- I'm sure hunting and fishing rights can be threatened along with gun control too.

As I'm sure all of you feel (and have always felt): The right of the people to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife is a valued and traditional part of any state’s heritage and (supposedly) would be forever preserved for the public good without the need for anything else -- but now (strangely) needs be preserved by way of voting for this new amendment to the constitution.

As best I could ascertain from my research: Voters in North Carolina are being asked to vote for or against a "Constitutional amendment protecting the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife." Amazingly, the ballot measure suddenly seeks to establish state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife for the people of North Carolina. I understand that 26 other states (possibly yours) are proceeding with similar amendments to their constitutions.

Once upon a time a person could feel somewhat protected by their representatives in the government and the fact that they were constantly looking after the best interests of the American people.

Nowadays, I'm afraid I don't trust the political system or government protections of our rights much any more. What do you think? How do you feel???

---

Our forefathers didn't either.

Amendment II

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

God Bless America

Saw the following on another form, don't who or what to believe!!!


" The amendment codifies "traditional hunting and fishing methods" in North Carolina which includes gill net fishing in inshore waters. You may be planning to vote for it to protect your hunting and fishing rights. If the amendment is approved, it will make gill netting a constitutional right protecting the "traditional" rights of the netters. NC is the only state on the East coast that still allows inshore netting. There's been a lot of pressure to end it and the Hunting and Fishing amendment is an end run around that pressure. Just vote NO. C'mon folks, you didn't really think the politicians were doing it to protect our rights, did you?

This one is a slippery slope. And by you being surprised to see it says something is being hidden. It is my understanding that language was changed on this amendment to remove the exception of "traditional" commercial fishing methods. This very well could guarantee that gill nets will never be removed from our inland waters. If this amendment passes, it could be the end of inshore fishing in NC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polarcrafter

Saw the following on another form, don't who or what to believe!!!


" The amendment codifies "traditional hunting and fishing methods" in North Carolina which includes gill net fishing in inshore waters. You may be planning to vote for it to protect your hunting and fishing rights. If the amendment is approved, it will make gill netting a constitutional right protecting the "traditional" rights of the netters. NC is the only state on the East coast that still allows inshore netting. There's been a lot of pressure to end it and the Hunting and Fishing amendment is an end run around that pressure. Just vote NO. C'mon folks, you didn't really think the politicians were doing it to protect our rights, did you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brhunt

This one is a slippery slope. And by you being surprised to see it says something is being hidden. It is my understanding that language was changed on this amendment to remove the exception of "traditional" commercial fishing methods. This very well could guarantee that gill nets will never be removed from our inland waters. If this amendment passes, it could be the end of inshore fishing in NC.

---

This is exactly what struck me as being so odd and why it prompted me to post this thread. It is not EVEN phrased in such a way that anyone with any sort of hunting and fishing heritage would vote "NO".
I knew the proposed amendment must surely have some other hidden agenda looming within it other than just the "GOOD INTENTIONED" protection of our hunting and fishing rights.

Amen brother. I gill netted for 21 years at the outer banks. The big commercial trawlers pays lobbyists to benefit there needs out to try and push out us small netters. They line the pockets of the politicians to try and push there agenda through the marine fisheries which is located in Morehead city NC. I still believe that all seats held in politics should be term limits of no more than 8 years like the seat of the president. I just wish that most of you guys could here some of the politicking going on in these meetings I have attended around the state here in NC. It is absolutely scary on some of the traditional things that we take for granted that politicians are trying to take away from us just to line there pockets with money. Please take the time to research the politicians that are running for office in your district you will be amazed on some of there voting records.


Sent from my iPhone using Crappie.com Fishing mobile app

Here is the exact text of the amendment that would be added.

North Carolina Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment (2018) - Ballotpedia


Sec. 38. Right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.

The right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is a valued part of the State's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good. The people have a right, including the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to laws enacted by the General Assembly and rules adopted pursuant to authority granted by the General Assembly to (i) promote wildlife conservation and management and (ii) preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. Nothing herein shall be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain.[2]


It doesn't appear to me to say anything particularly about methods

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sundance

Here is the exact text of the amendment that would be added.

North Carolina Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment (2018) - Ballotpedia


Sec. 38. Right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.

The right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is a valued part of the State's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good. The people have a right, including the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to laws enacted by the General Assembly and rules adopted pursuant to authority granted by the General Assembly to (i) promote wildlife conservation and management and (ii) preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. Nothing herein shall be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain.[2]


It doesn't appear to me to say anything particularly about methods

---

It clearly says "traditional methods" which includes destructive commercial gear. It will protect this gear. If this wasn't the agenda, then why would the language be re-written to remove the exception of commercial gear from protection? This amendment was first written to exclude destructive commercial gear form traditional methods. Way too vague to get my vote knowing what is going on down east! And I've attended meetings and had front row seats to some of it as well and I can say that the current direction of things (including this) is not resource friendly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brhunt

It clearly says "traditional methods" which includes destructive commercial gear. It will protect this gear. If this wasn't the agenda, then why would the language be re-written to remove the exception of commercial gear from protection? This amendment was first written to exclude destructive commercial gear form traditional methods. Way too vague to get my vote knowing what is going on down east! And I've attended meetings and had front row seats to some of it as well and I can say that the current direction of things (including this) is not resource friendly!

---

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.

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.

https://webservices.ncleg.net/ViewBi...77-ARI-136-V-1

Here's the link to the failed version that originally excluded commercial.

More info on the history of this bill Senate Bill 677 / SL 2018-96 (2017-2018 Session) - North Carolina General Assembly

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Special K

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.

---

That's what threw the red flag for me. That these methods were defined in the original bill but later removed. Look at the history of the bill, there were a lot of things removed. This along with being exposed to the way things are happening on our coast tells me something's fishy about this amendment.

Hopefully I'm wrong as I expect this to pass with the way it's presented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brhunt

https://webservices.ncleg.net/ViewBi...77-ARI-136-V-1

Here's the link to the failed version that originally excluded commercial.

More info on the history of this bill Senate Bill 677 / SL 2018-96 (2017-2018 Session) - North Carolina General Assembly

---

I appreciate the link!

Here is the failed langauge.

Quote:

---

shall not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to public safety, trespass, property rights, eminent domain, or the regulation of commercial activities."

---

I appreacite the information. That makes me weary as well. ....

I like the idea of it but it seems they've had other motives..... I hate poltics.

I already voted and I too had to ponder this amendment. When I look at other countries I see that the people in many of these countries do not have the right to hunt and fish. In many places the fish and game are property of the state and are used to create windfall profits from Trophey hunters and fishermen. People must not take anything they enjoy doing for granted. If some lawmaker can see how to make big bucks (no pun) from our wildlife they may try to do it. We may have to fight to control some aspects of the wildlife while protecting our right to hunt and fish and take wildlife. I like the government telling me that a crappie in Jordan lake has to be 10". instead of telling me It is a government lake and I have to pay big bucks to catch a trophy fish. I already voted and I stand by my "yes". Good fishing everyone.

jigpuller - The big money in comm fishing got even bigger when the Canadian company Cooke Seafood bought Wanchese Fish (Daniels) a few years back. Cooke is the company that had the big escape of Atlantic salmon in the Pacific last year when their net pens collapsed. Originally they blamed it on tides due to the eclipse but then it came out that they were in disrepair. After that problems were found in other areas they operate them too. Some say they were behind the push for single individuals being able to lease up to 300 acres of bottom for oyster farming last spring. The key thing is those leases would be of public bottom where you and I could fish for trout flounder or whatever today but not if it was leased. Usually these are in shallower water near the banks vs in the open Pamlico Sound.

We all need to be careful at the polls. But we all need to vote!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trypman1

We all need to be careful at the polls. But we all need to vote!

---

You said a mouthful there trypman1.

In no way did I interpret the amendment on the ballot to be directed toward netting. If it were worded this way I strongly feel netting would have been outlawed. I already voted "yes" on it when I oppose inshore netting. I had no idea there were 6 amendments on the ballot until I got to the polls. Shame on me I guess but shouldn't we be informed ahead of time?

This is what I have being told. If you are not sure what those amendments are, just say NO to them.

I usually vote NO for amendments since they are usually adding taxes or regulation or creating more bureaucracy. The lawyers worded this one very tricky.

Kelbroyou are exactly right. Some of the wildlife meetings and and especially the marinefisheries meeting I've been to those proclamations and amendments are wording on purpose to have a lot of gray areas in them. These laws are pushed by activist that most people don't here about. I assure you those people are at those meetings and they push THERE agenda and laws to the lobbyist which line the pockets of the politicians. Please I beg everyone that is going to vote to please do a little research on your politicians and your amendments


Sent from my iPhone using Crappie.com Fishing mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roach1

In no way did I interpret the amendment on the ballot to be directed toward netting. If it were worded this way I strongly feel netting would have been outlawed. I already voted "yes" on it when I oppose inshore netting. I had no idea there were 6 amendments on the ballot until I got to the polls. Shame on me I guess but shouldn't we be informed ahead of time?

---

I don't think the amendment is directed towards any one thing in particular, but do see it as being a road block to getting nets out of inshore waters. I would support it in its original form, but not with the commercial exception removed.

You don't really win either way. Vote No and you have unintended consequences and if you vote Yes you have unintended consequences. The double talk done by our legislatures is so frustrating and really turns so many people off from voting altogether. I try to teach my kids the importance of voting and then this kind of stuff comes up. It's fun teaching a 13 and 16 year old about what is written and then you have to dig much deeper to get the actual story. Everybody should do their research and be informed before making a decision but just when you think you understand what is going on the double talk happens.

Fellows, thanks for keeping this civil. As it does pertain to fishing rules, we let it run for a while in the normal forum. But since it does involve a political issue of sorts, we decided it is best to move it to the off topic forum. "D"

************************************ I seen this post last night !!! ************************* and was surprised about it !!!
they just had a thing about this on FOXNEWS !!! ***********
please guys and gals research before you pull the lever !!!!! vote with what you think is right for you and your family and fellow man !!! GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!:ThumbsUp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hockey86

You don't really win either way. Vote No and you have unintended consequences and if you vote Yes you have unintended consequences. The double talk done by our legislatures is so frustrating and really turns so many people off from voting altogether. I try to teach my kids the importance of voting and then this kind of stuff comes up. It's fun teaching a 13 and 16 year old about what is written and then you have to dig much deeper to get the actual story. Everybody should do their research and be informed before making a decision but just when you think you understand what is going on the double talk happens.

---

Agreed on unintended consequences both ways. The vagueness is concerning and no one will truly understand the law until there is a legal definition of traditional methods. This is a state government release that explicitly says traditional methods is not defined. I am not a NC voter but definitely seems confusing what they are trying to preserve or what is considered traditional methods which could criminalize legal methods currently.

https://www.sosnc.gov/static_forms/N...xplanation.pdf

More information,

One of the six amendments to receive comparatively less attention in recent weeks, however, is the proposal to establish a constitutional right “to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.” While many critics have derided the proposal as a blatant attempt to spur voter turnout this fall amongst conservative rural voters, substantive criticism of the amendment has been largely muted, with many critics simply arguing that the amendment is silly and unnecessary because it wouldn’t really change anything.
This may be an accurate assessment. The full language of the proposed amendment goes on to say that the “right” established by the amendment is “subject only to laws enacted by the General Assembly and rules adopted pursuant to authority granted by the General Assembly to (i) promote wildlife conservation and management and (ii) preserve the future of hunting and fishing.” It goes on to add that “Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. Nothing herein shall be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights,or eminent domain.”
These caveats would appear to place some meaningful limitations on the so-called “right” established by the amendment. After all, if the state will remain free to regulate hunting and fishing as it long has, then it’s not immediately evident what will change if voters were to approve the proposal. In effect, the amendment would be little more than an expression of opinion by voters, with no real world impact. One might as well establish a constitutional right to drive a motor vehicle.
That being said, it’s also true that the overwhelming majority of Americans and legal scholars once held similar views of the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution – namely, that the “right” to bear arms was subject to the obvious limitation that Congress and state legislators remained free to enact laws to, among other things, regulate militias and protect public safety.
Unfortunately, of course, this interpretation has been greatly undermined in recent years as what might be described as “Second Amendment fundamentalists” have pushed ever more aggressively for a rigid, absolutist interpretation.
Could the same thing happen with respect to the hunting and fishing amendment? It seems at least worth noting that the two amendments share many of the same champions, including the National Rifle Association. What’s more, hunting and fishing amendment supporters have been quite open about linking the amendment to gun rights.
And while the apparent limitation of being “subject” to laws and rules established by the General Assembly sounds significant at first blush, it also includes a potentially truck-sized loophole in that such laws must be exclusively for the purpose of promoting wildlife conservation and management and preserving the right to hunt and fish.
What about laws or rules that are enacted in order to protect human life or wellbeing, like a ban on hunting with machine guns or silencers, or burning forests to flush out game, or even hunting in a state park? By a strict reading of the amendment language, such laws could be subject to court challenges by hunting supporters as unconstitutional.
At a minimum, state lawmakers would now be subject to a new and strict test that would permit a close review of their motives every time they seek to regulate hunting and fishing. Add to this the proposal’s failure to define “traditional methods” of hunting and fishing and the vagueness of the proposed amendment becomes that much more maddening and problematic.
Of course, the obvious preventative remedy to the amendment’s absurd lack of clarity and potential for abuse would and should have been a lengthy, deliberate legislative process that would have provided plenty of time for constitutional experts, scholars, interest groups, regulators, lawmakers of the minority party and the public at-large to weigh in.

Meaningless or dangerous? Hunting and fishing constitutional amendment raises huge questions | NC Policy Watch