Hodge: Right to hunt, fish amendment needed
By Bob Hodge
Sunday, September 12, 2010
It's an interesting tactic anti-hunting groups are taking when it comes to states considering right-to-hunt-and-fish amendments to their constitutions: they are trying to kill them with disinterest.
When Tennesseans go to the polls Nov. 2 the state's right-to-hunt-and-fish amendment will be on the ballot. For the amendment to become part of the state constitution it will need 50 percent of the total number of votes in the gubernatorial race plus one. Three other states - Arkansas, Arizona and South Carolina - have similar referendums this year.
Animal rights groups are out and about saying "What's the point?"
"It's a solution in search of a problem," said Michael Markarian, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. "These measures don't accomplish anything."
The better-known and more rabid People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals also had a take on Tennessee's amendment.
"All these amendments are a solution in search of a problem," Ashley Byrne of PETA told the Tennessean. "If people have a right to hunt, why not a right to shop or golf?"
Of course, while Markarian says there's no problem, the president of the Humane Society of the United States, Wayne Pacelle, has his group actively fighting Arizona's amendment, called Proposition 109. In Arizona, HSUA has joined up with the Sierra Club and the Animal Defense League to try and defeat the amendment. Read More
Animal rights groups most certainly have hunting and fishing restrictions or outright elimination as their goals. We’ve learned it’s important to get ahead of them with common sense legislation that will hopefully protect these honored and necessary traditions.