Flying under the radar during this election lies the fact that four states will vote on whether to add constitutional amendments to protect the right to hunt and fish. Those four states are: Kentucky, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Idaho. Apparently 13 other states already have such language in their constitutions. Many call the effort frivolous because hunting and fishing are not endangered while others say it protects the economic impact of hunting and the hunting rights for future generations.
If I lived in one of those states, I would vote for the amendment. And I think there are two clear motives for the effort.
First, Government overreach has crept into society like unwanted Kudzu on the side of a South Carolina interstate. In an effort to prevent further big government interference, wildlife enthusiast want to employee Ben Franklin’s old adage about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. To insure the heritage of hunting of fishing, some have supported the amendment to their states’ constitution.
Second, hunters and fishermen spend big money on their hobbies. Between the purchase of the license, the gear, leasing land or paying trophy fees, hunting and fishing create jobs and provide economic income for rural areas. These areas want to insure the stability of this revenue source.
Lastly, one day, I hope to experience the thrill of the hunt with my son and daughter. I will never forget the pure joy and excitement of killing that first buck or catching that first largemouth bass. I want to experience these moments with my children and will do whatever I can to protect those rights for generations to come. After all, children need to learn where meat and fish come from, and it’s not created in the grocery store or by the government.