http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/outdoors/s_706940.html#
Outdoorsmen in many states face important votes
About the writer
Bob Frye is the Tribune-Review outdoors editor. He can be reached at 724-838-5148 or via e-mail.Ways to get us
Is everyone sick of election season, too?
Every day, it's another stack of candidate fliers in the mail. Another pre-recorded phone call. Another television ad.
Have mercy, already.
There is one interesting thing going on, though. In four states — Arizona, Arkansas, South Carolina and Tennessee — voters Tuesday are going to be asked whether to make hunting and fishing constitutionally protected rights.
The idea is to forestall any attacks by animal rights activists.
"They start with cats and dogs and the next thing you know, someone says it's inhumane to shoot a deer. It's like buying an insurance policy," Arkansas State Sen. Steve Faris, a Democrat and the prime sponsor of the measure there, told Reuters.
Ten states already have such constitutional protections. Vermont's law dates to 1777; all of the others have been adopted since 1996.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is among the sportsmen's groups in favor of adding to the list, saying such amendments are critical to "protect sporting traditions and the revenue they generate for conservation."
Equally predictable, non-hunting groups disagree.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals spokesmen have been quoted as saying the group has no official opposition campaign, but they have called the measures the last gasp of the dying sports. The Humane Society of the United States, meanwhile, has reportedly contributed $250,000 to the effort to defeat Arizona's right to hunt and fish legislation.
It will be interesting to see how the bills fare, especially since it could be a clue to what might happen here.
In Pennsylvania, bills to make hunting and fishing constitutionally protected rights have been introduced several times, but have not come up for a vote before lawmakers nor been put before voters.
The question is, could such a referendum pass at the ballot box?
It's estimated that fewer than 10 percent of the state's residents buy a hunting license in any particular year. There are probably more hunters than that. Studies done elsewhere have shown there's a lot of "churn" among license buyers, with more than half buying a license just once or twice every five years. The same kind of numbers hold true with fishing license buyers.
Assume — and this may be an overestimate, but assume — there are enough passionate anti-hunters and anti-fishermen out there to counterbalance them.
That means it would fall to the 80 percent of the people in the middle — neither die-hard sportsmen nor vehement antis — to decide how much value to place on hunting and fishing.
Sounds like an argument you want to be sure you can win before you make it.
Have mercy, already.
There is one interesting thing going on, though. In four states — Arizona, Arkansas, South Carolina and Tennessee — voters Tuesday are going to be asked whether to make hunting and fishing constitutionally protected rights.
The idea is to forestall any attacks by animal rights activists.
"They start with cats and dogs and the next thing you know, someone says it's inhumane to shoot a deer. It's like buying an insurance policy," Arkansas State Sen. Steve Faris, a Democrat and the prime sponsor of the measure there, told Reuters.
Ten states already have such constitutional protections. Vermont's law dates to 1777; all of the others have been adopted since 1996.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is among the sportsmen's groups in favor of adding to the list, saying such amendments are critical to "protect sporting traditions and the revenue they generate for conservation."
Equally predictable, non-hunting groups disagree.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals spokesmen have been quoted as saying the group has no official opposition campaign, but they have called the measures the last gasp of the dying sports. The Humane Society of the United States, meanwhile, has reportedly contributed $250,000 to the effort to defeat Arizona's right to hunt and fish legislation.
It will be interesting to see how the bills fare, especially since it could be a clue to what might happen here.
In Pennsylvania, bills to make hunting and fishing constitutionally protected rights have been introduced several times, but have not come up for a vote before lawmakers nor been put before voters.
The question is, could such a referendum pass at the ballot box?
It's estimated that fewer than 10 percent of the state's residents buy a hunting license in any particular year. There are probably more hunters than that. Studies done elsewhere have shown there's a lot of "churn" among license buyers, with more than half buying a license just once or twice every five years. The same kind of numbers hold true with fishing license buyers.
Assume — and this may be an overestimate, but assume — there are enough passionate anti-hunters and anti-fishermen out there to counterbalance them.
That means it would fall to the 80 percent of the people in the middle — neither die-hard sportsmen nor vehement antis — to decide how much value to place on hunting and fishing.
Sounds like an argument you want to be sure you can win before you make it.
No comments:
Post a Comment