(WI) The Right to hunt, fish , trap

Status
Not open for further replies.

sm

member
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
28,387
Location
Between black coffee, and shiftn' gears
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/apr03/130370.asp
----

The right to hunt, fish, trap
Voters OK inserting pastimes protection into Wisconsin Constitution
By MEG JONES
[email protected]
Last Updated: April 2, 2003
Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly approved a change to the state constitution assuring the right to hunt, fish and trap in the state.



Tongue in cheek: Is securing right to bowl next?


Results



Without any organized opposition, the measure had been expected to pass easily.

The only statewide referendum proposal on the general election ballot asked residents to determine whether fishing, hunting and trapping rights will be guaranteed in Wisconsin.

The measure was proposed by Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Town of Norway), who was not surprised to see the referendum measure approved by residents.

"I think it really shows how strong our hunting and fishing heritage is here in Wisconsin and how many people believe that and believe this is a God-given right, which is why a majority of folks voted that way," Gunderson said.

Voters approved inserting an amendment giving people "the right to fish, hunt, trap and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law" into the constitution's Declaration of Rights.

The amendment allows the state to regulate hunting and fishing but stops it from imposing unreasonable restrictions on sporting activities.

The Senate and Assembly overwhelmingly approved the amendment in two consecutive sessions, a requirement to change the state constitution. Only four legislators voted against the proposal, including Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison), who said it was a trivial reason to change the state constitution.

The amendment was pushed by sportsmen's groups worried about the possibility of restrictions on traditional outdoor pastimes in light of the contentious debate a few years ago over hunting mourning doves.

Wisconsin is now the seventh state, including Minnesota, to enact such a guarantee.

It's the first addition to the constitution's Declaration of Rights since 1997, when voters approved an amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms.

Gunderson conceded hunting and fishing rights are not threatened in Wisconsin. The pastimes are immensely popular - about 700,000 hunt deer with firearms each fall. But he said he worries about the possibility of special interest groups attempting to take away hunting, fishing and trapping privileges.




A version of this story appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on April 2, 2003.
 
A good smack on the head for the PETA crowd though!

:D

Also Roggensack got elected to the WI supreme court as well. I don't think she'll have any bearing on the current CCW cases before them, but the convervative balance on the court has been maintained.

:D
 
We've got a similar amendment here in VA. It passed by about 75%-25%. These kinds of amendments always bring up the old "Federalist Papers" discussion about whether a right should be espoused in a written constitution, or whether by it's absence, it is stronger than a written rule could be.
 
This was a victory for "sportsmen." Now let's hope that they'll come through for those of us who don't hunt or fish.

Also, Roggensack is more conservative than the retiring Bablitch, so she may really be of help in the future.
 
Oh, I forgot to mention another benefit of this election. Madison, WI mayor Paul Soglin--a hero of the radical left and the anti's--got booted out in this election. Soglin was the guy who tried to ban guns in Madison, who got legislation passed that made criminals out of gunowners who were just driving through Madison on the interstate with rifles/shotguns/handguns unloaded in the trunks of their cars.

Do a search on Soglin and you'll find he bears a remarkable resemblance to Geraldo Rivera. :barf:

B'bye, Soglin!
 
It was a very good election day. The supreme court went from a 4-3 kinda conservative / liberal split to 5-2. That should give some breathing room for a while.

Does anyone know if they state supreme court must rule on cases before it before the changeover takes place? Or can roggensack take the bench and rule on cases that have already had arguments presented?
 
Bastiat, IIRC Bablitch won't be retiring until September, before the next session. So Roggensack wouldn't play a part in this.

If anyone knows otherwise, please speak up!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top