Though hunting, fishing, and trapping has long been a part of America’s heritage, the “right” to hunt, fish, and trap has recently come into question through the efforts of anti-hunting organizations. In order to establish what has been inherent for centuries, many states have now amended their state constitutions to give their citizens the right to hunt, fish, and trap in a responsible manner.
Though hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife have long been an American heritage since before the first Europeans arrived in North America, only recently has the “right” to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife come into question. Anti-hunting organizations would lead the public to believe that hunting, fishing, and harvesting wildlife are only a privilege subject to social pressures and prevailing public sentiments, rather than an inherent right. In order to establish in perpetuity what has been assumed for centuries, several states have sought amendments to their state constitutions that give their citizens a right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife and to continue a consumptive, yet responsible, use of natural resources. Currently, 22 states have enacted legislation or amended their constitution to protect the right to hunt and fish. Though there has been little resistance in several of the states that have recently passed ballot initiatives, others have met considerable resistance and, in one instance, defeat.
- Vermont was the first state to adopt a constitutional provision protecting the rights of its citizens to hunt, trap and fish. The right has been protected in Vermont since 1777.
- Other states that have amended their constitution to protect hunting, angling and trapping include: Alabama (1996 & 2014), Arkansas (2010), Georgia (2006), Idaho (2012), Indiana (2016), Kansas (2016), Kentucky (2012), Louisiana (2004), Minnesota (1998), Mississippi (2014), Montana (2004), Nebraska (2012), North Carolina (2018), North Dakota (2000), Oklahoma (2008), South Carolina (2010), Tennessee (2010), Texas (2015), Virginia (2000), Wisconsin (2003), and Wyoming (2012).
- California and Rhode Island have language in their constitutions protecting the rights of their residents to fish.
- Missouri introduced a right to hunt and fish bill in the 2020 legislature.
- Utah, in 2020, passed UT HJR 15 which proposes that the state constitution be amended to protect the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.  The measure will go before voters for approval in November 2020.
Points of Interest
Simply passing an amendment guaranteeing a “right to hunt and fish pursuant to all laws and regulations” doesn’t necessarily guarantee any long-term benefits of such an amendment. The language should consider the following:
- Recognition of an individual right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife.
- Preservation of the state’s power to regulate these activities.
- Codification of the Public Trust Doctrine.
- Preemption of local regulation that frustrates comprehensive, statewide wildlife management.
- Protection of traditional hunting methods such as the use of archery equipment and hunting with dogs.
- Recognition of hunting and fishing as preferred means of managing wildlife, rather than unproven contraception schemes and unwarranted use of government “sharpshooters”.
- Clarification that private property rights are not affected or diminished.
- It should be noted that the state agency should be named only if it is already a constitutionally-recognized entity. If this is not the case, a generic term such as “designated state agency” should be used.
For specific language examples please contact CSF staff.
While the rights of citizens to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife can be established through a number of different legislative options, it is up to local elected officials, working with the state natural resource agency, to identify the most comprehensive option and advance it in their state. Such legislation is important in securing the heritage and future of sportsmen and women.
For more information regarding this issue, please contact:
Chris Horton, (501) 865-1475; email@example.com.
|North Carolina Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Wildlife Infographic||Download File|
Share this page
Your opinion counts
Sportsmen and women have been on the receiving end of increased attention from the non-hunting public, criticizing the traditional “grip and grin” photos on various social media platforms. As a sportsman or sportswoman, what strategies have you utilized to address this negative feedback?Vote Here
- I don’t post “grip and grin” photos for that reason (34.48%)
- My social media is private to avoid unwanted comments (20.69%)
- I engage the individual in the comment section or in direct messages (3.45%)
- I post more “grip and grin” photos to prove a point (3.45%)
- When posting hunting or fishing photos I tell a narrative that focuses on aspects of hunting that the general public widely supports, such as the procurement of meat for family and friends (20.69%)
- I don’t engage those individuals (17.24%)