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. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT