IBJNews

Proposed hunting, fishing amendment to start over

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Senate committee passed a proposed constitutional amendment Monday that would protect Hoosiers’ right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife – but without language to protect farming that was included three years ago.

That means the constitutional amendment process must start over.

Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, who authored Senate Joint Resolution 9, also authored the proposed amendment when it passed in 2011.

“The facts haven’t changed. The numbers haven’t changed, hardly, with regard to its financial and fiscal impact both to the state and your local communities,” Steele said. “This resolution is self-explanatory. We’ve been to this dance before.”

In Indiana, a resolution must pass two consecutive legislatures before it goes to the ballot for ratification.

But the 2011 the amendment included language that extended the protection to include farmers’ rights. Steele said he changed the amendment to comply with requests from agriculture groups that he said didn’t want to fight for it.

He’s also backing Senate Bill 186, which would provide a statutory protection for farmers.

Erin Huang, Indiana director of the Humane Society of the United States, said she is concerned that poachers and others who wish to exploit the system would use it to challenge existing restrictions. She called it “a solution in search of a problem.”

“Unnecessarily putting this existing right into our constitution ties the hands of the legislature, limits its power and could invite lawsuits from individuals who want to argue that conservation laws like bag limits and season dates for a particular species infringe upon their right to hunt and fish or harvest wildlife,” Huang said.

But Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Carlin Yoder said it is a non-issue, as current regulation laws would still be in full effect.

The amendment once again passed the first round of ratification but it must still be agreed to by the General Assembly one more time before it can go to state voters.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Confusing
    I really do not understand this amendment. I am for hunting and fishing, but what are they trying to do with this? What additional rights will this give hunters? Will it allow them to hunt in a populated area? I really don't know the ramifications. Actually, I've seen more need of a right to farm, with some cities cracking down on gardens, chickens, etc.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

ADVERTISEMENT