Arizona’s Prop 109 – Make Hunting a Constitutional Right In Arizona?
Outdoor sportsman’s groups in AZ are proposing hunting and fishing be afforded constitutional protection. This proposal was initiated by the NRA. As wildlife activists continue to push their agenda, our ability to hunt and fish continues to come under pressure. You can read the story by clicking here : AZ Prop 109 Gets a Strong Reaction from the Pro and Anti Groups
Some states do allow the public, via the voting booth, to determine how wildlife is managed. California voters do not allow mountain lions to be hunted. As a result, many more encounters between lions and humans have occurred and several people have been killed. Pulblic safety should be a priority. Just last month a Mt. Lion had to be killed by police in Berkeley after the large cat wandered into the city. Several Berkeley citizens, seeking the protection of the government, called police to the scene. After police acted appropriately & lawfully and killed the lion, a memorial was erected for the lion at the place it met its demise and a backlash against the police for “overreacting” began. How would these same Californians have reacted had the cat attacked a small child and dragged it off?
The right of states to manage wildlife is currently being challenged in Idaho and Montana in the wolf hunting controversy. The ability of these states to control wolf populations has been temporarily knocked down by the federal court, giving wolves (that have reached a sustainable population and then some) far more rights & protections than the elk, moose, and deer. And let’s not forget cattle ranchers and sheep herders whose livelihood’s depend on the well-being of their livestock. These western states have all but been excluded from game management within their own borders.
Allowing an emotional voting population to determine how states regulate and manage wildlife populations is a slippery slope. People not familiar the science behind biodiversity and the way game animal balances are established by trained wildlife biologists and state game managers can be easily swayed by emotion, fear, and anthropomorphic fallacies or ”the humanization of wild animals” into cute, cuddly creatures that in no way resemble their true counterparts in the wild.
It’s more than obvious that I believe in state’s rights and think hunting regulations, game animal population management, predator control, and other aspects of hunting are best left to state game agencies. I’m voting YES on AZ Prop 109. But, what do you think?
Should hunting and fishing become a constitutional right with management reserved to professional biologists & game managers or should it be maintained as is? Would you like to see these protections in your state? Is there a downside I’m missing?
We’d like to hear from you on this, so feel free to comment. As always, it’s free to subscribe, just enter your info below.
Thanks for reading,
Marc Reindell
