The urban hunter amendment

by | Jul 1, 2016 | Editor's Blog, NC Politics | 27 comments

I must say, those small government conservatives in the North Carolina legislature sure are full of big government ideas. The latest one has to do with a constitutional amendment to protect people’s right to hunt and fish—not that anybody is threatening that right or anything.

I couldn’t figure out the reason for it for the longest time. Now, I think I get it. They want to make sure that property owners don’t have the means to stop people from hunting and fishing on their property. Since deer and other wildlife don’t recognize property lines, why should hunters?

If you’re from rural North Carolina, you know the problem. In the fall, those weekend warriors arrive in caravans from places like Charlotte or Greensboro or Raleigh. They’ve got their four-wheelers on trailers and dogs in boxes in big trucks that do most of their four-wheeling in places like Myers Park or Brier Creek. But when the weather gets cooler and there’s a nip in the air, they know it’s almost time to invade some rural county full wide open spaces, thick forests, and hicks with accents.

They spill out of their trucks wearing their camouflage and fluorescent orange caps and vests and head to the forest. They may start out on hunt club property, but that’s not enough territory to contain their adventurous spirits. And if a dog gets a scent and heads over that hill, past the No Trespassing sign, so be it. Can’t let that dog or that dear get away.

Right now, they’re liable to encounter an angry property owner who doesn’t want strangers traipsing across his or her land or four-wheelers creating new paths. With this new amendment, though, the urban hunter’s got the constitution on his side. When that land owner tells him to go, the hunter just has to point out the phrase of the amendment, “The right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, shall not be infringed.” Property rights be damned.

Since the right to hunt and fish has never been in question, the only real reason was for an amendment like this was to pander to somebody. Now, it’s pretty obvious who. Those legislators are trying to protect some big donors from having ignorant rednecks tell them to get off their property. Just more Big Government conservatism.

27 Comments

  1. Wiley Post

    In my county they use dogs and drive through our community like it was the Talladega 500. No regard to property or its citizens. I had to call the sheriffs office twice on the same group twice just last year.

  2. Amy Dahl

    Rights to hunt are under pressure nationwide, from the likes of the Humane Society of the United States. They are very well organized and well-funded, and sophisticated in their tactics. In addition, hunters are a minority, about 6% of the population a few years ago, probably fewer now. That leaves a majority of the population who have little exposure to hunting, a situation that makes them susceptible to persuasion by the HSUS and its allies.

    I disagree with a lot our legislature does, but amending the state constitution to protect the rights to hunt and fish is something that some other states have done to protect their citizens from the HSUS. Many feel hunting is a tradition, a part of their culture, and it is certainly a game management tool. Predators capable of keeping some game species in check often don’t thrive in proximity to humans, and the fate of unchecked populations is arguably crueler than hunting.

    I will have to read the amendment to decide how I will vote. I won’t be opposing it out of hand just because of who has proposed it.

    • Smartysmom

      Reading the comments, the anti-hunting sentiment is loud and clear. Hunting once was a way to put meat on the table. Believe it or not, it still is for some people in my area. I grew up in a family and a culture for whom hunting was the norm, learned gun safety as a child and have always been respectful of firearms. I plan to continue to be an omnivore, which means I will continue to eat meat with my vegies. I resent all those people who want to force me to adopt their vegan live style, which is where the animal rights anti-hunting crowd ultimately get to. I have also lived in states where the animal rights anti-hunting crowd succeeded in getting their laws on the books thanks to an electorate that lived in the cities and suburbs and were innocent of any real knowledge, instead believed the steady stream of propaganda they were fed thanks to HSUS.

      And I am not a member of the NCGOP

  3. Someone from Main Street

    I have no idea what is going on in Raleigh. NCGOP seems certifiably insane the days.

  4. Troy

    That risk already exists. Let me say however that I don’t embrace or support this proposed amendment; gun aficianado that I am. An ingenious solution to a non-existent problem. But the best reason I’m not for it is, This legislature thinks it’s a good idea. If they are embracing it as good, that means it’s caca for everyone else.

    I do think that you should be able to allow or prohibit whomever you please on your property at your descretion. We don’t need a law or a Constitutional amendment for that; unless it serves to solidify the rights of the owner and runs in agreement with established law.

  5. Hawkeye

    Hello Mr. Thomas Mills

    Could you say a few words about the NCGOP , led by Sen. Tom Apoddaca , forcing new voter districts upon Asheville ? How about the Water Grab?

    Not that my town is the only one , Charlotte lost the airport as did Asheville , if I am correct.

    I’ve lived in several states before 1990 , but I have never seen the kind of tyranny as that coming from this GOP majority

  6. Debra Bost

    I’m dead-set against this ridiculous “amendment,” with no restrictions–noise, distance, safety–on when and where overarmed people can use their deadly guns. Some days, our once-quiet neighborhood sounds like I’m surrounded by a firing range. When will we restrict permission to fire guns any time, any where, no matter who is in the line of fair? Where’s my right to live without fear and without the noise of everyone’s guns? I want a f’ing amendment that guarantees me safety and quiet in my own home. When are we voting on THAT amendment?

  7. Linda

    Oh, great. So us horsewomen (and the occasional horseman) are supposed to risk an artillery barrage when we’re enjoying an invigorating gallop across our property. Just because some (usually) man is so insecure in his manhood that he has to prove it by blasting his stupid firearms all over the place. And, on top of it, he’s more than likely scared to death of horses.

    What about OUR rights?

    • Melissa G

      Nothing herein shall be construed to modify any provision of law relating to eminent domain, trespass, or property rights if you go read the WHOLE ammendment its not as scary … funny how this article cut and pasted what it wanted

    • Elizabeth O'Nan

      Right there is a long heritage of equestrians too. Lets protect their rights. We came home once to find our horse had been attacked and hit over the head with a board by frightened cowardly bear hunters trespassing in our horses paddock area.
      Another time our horse was deliberately turned loose and on on three occasions in one single bear hunting season our horse was attacked and harassed by hunting dogs and hunters to the point where he coliced. At this point we gave up and had to find him a new home. What is this but a ‘taking’ of private property by sports killers, when we can no longer use our private property as intended? Now they want to be granted ownership of our public lands and we the people shall be forced to wear tacky orange clothes just to enjoy a view of the fall leaves?

  8. Paleotek

    This sounds like a piece of legislation written by fifth graders to impress their sixth grade friends. My dog in this fight is that I’m an owner of timberland. I give exclusive rights to hunt that land to an old friend every year, and get some venison in return. That’s a property right. I use it.

    Many, or most small timber owners have such agreements, often commercial: $10/acre/year to a hunting club, which doesn’t sound like much, but it more than covers property taxes, which for rural folks with little cash flow and unencumbered land is a big deal.

    Help! I’m being oppressed! Just who are these clowns, anyway?

  9. Chris Holly

    So, can the legislature amend the NC Constitution, or must this bill be put before the voters for a referendum?

    • Chris Holly

      Never mind. Just found the answer on Ballotpedia.

  10. Smartysmom

    Having come from elsewhere (not the south) we’re still learning a bunch. First was what our rights were as property owners with livestock in so far as the free range packs of dogs (no leash laws here; they have a right to roam where ever they may go) that were practicing their ancient hunting skills (called hamstringing) on our live stock. We were told by the animal control officer, completely off the record of course, about the “3 S’s” or how it was done “down here” (shoot, shovel, shut-up). Not sure if that just applies to free range dogs or to other species, but hey, we’re originally from NY so we can get with it I guess.

    On the pro-hunting amendment tho, I realize the anti-hunting lobby, also know as the animal rights people, aka HSUS and PETA amongst others, has not considered the south a particularly fertile field for their “good works” but they have been scarily successful elsewhere in getting hunting, trapping and fishing banned and are making serious inroads on banning raising life stock (cow farts, the #1 source of global warming!). So I can see a pro-hunting amendment as a legitimate attempt to get in front of the anti-hunting campaigns of those folks. And before you scoff please, have you noticed recently that the only way anyone gets a dog these days is to “adopt” one and the only viable form of birth control is neutering the poor guys? People have been totally brainwashed so I suspect making hunting verboten is not far behind.

  11. An Observer

    Yee Haw!

  12. JC Honeycutt

    Well, this law could certainly dissuade people (myself included) from visiting state parks: guess I’ll have to forego a trip to the mountains to view the turning leaves this fall–which raises a question: if there can’t be any restrictions other than those relating to private property, does that make licensing and having specific (i.e. limited) hunting seasons illegal? The language quoted suggests that would be the case.

    • Bea

      Republicans aren’t in favor of state-owned land; the GOP takeover in West Virginia has resulted in the closure of recreational activities (swimming pools, etc.) in that state’s once beautiful parks. No activities to bring in extra money and draw tourists will further hurt the parks’ attendance and bottom lines, thus making it easier for lawmakers to argue for closing them all together and selling off the land – or allowing fossil fuel corporations to set up there. Privatization is their main goal for everything, including schools. As a bonus, this plays to their “base” by further expanding hunting. (Used to be that you could wander around safely in the woods on Sundays. No longer, thanks to this crew.) If you aren’t depressed yet, search for “republican support sell federal lands” and check out the 2M+ results.

  13. R Beck

    If hunting and fishing are determined to be rights, why would state residents still have to buy a hunting or fishing license? Wouldn’t that be considered an infringement?

  14. Norma Munn

    So, joking aside, I repeat why do we this constitutional amendment? And is not hunting and fishing on public land already legal — subject to reasonable safeguards, such as a license, specific time for such activities, etc.? Or is this just a way to insure that hunting and fishing shall be the “preferred ways” of managing wildlife? And what does that mean for land management, wildlife management, endangered species, etc. Are pubic lands mostly used by hunters? Where do hikers fit in? I still say, we don’t need to amend the NC Constitution for this, and there are a lot of questions about this proposed amendment.

    • Elizabeth O'Nan

      The fact is that hunters represent only about 10% of public land recreational users. Hikers, bird watchers, nature enthusiast make up the vast majority of users and do not deserve to be threatened and endangered by sports killers with loose uncontrolled and uncontrolable dogs. Sports killing is bad for tourism, especially when visitors have their pets viciously attacked by bear dogs and find there are NC laws that indemnify the hunters instead of their victims. Sports killing also causes lead contamination from bullets that pollute drinking water and poison unintended wildlife. The hunting lobby has managed to block the EPA from regulating lead on USFS land in order to again protect the anti social behavior of sports killers. The fact is hunting should be banned on public land. As far as trespassing on private property the responsibility should be changed to the hunters not the property owner for staying off private property. Painting trees and posting signs do not impeded aggressive trespassers who have not respect for private property and think they have a right to game any place they can chase it. Perhaps trespassing sports killing gunmen were the necessary if unintended purpose of “Stand you ground” laws.

  15. Lan Sluder

    I figured it was a Republican’t idea to get out more conservative, rural voters in November.

    I don’t think it does away my right as a landowner to prevent trespassing by hunters, if I so choose (and I do so choose — our 250 acres in WNC are posted, and we do not allow hunting on our little “game preserve”).

    However, one of the posters may be correct in assuming that it gives hunters more rights to hunt on state land and in state parks.

  16. E. Penland

    Or is this bill giving hunters the right to hunt on public lands, also know as, State Parks?

    • Christopher Lizak

      Bingo

  17. E. Penland

    Now, the end of the bill states “Nothing herein shall be construed to modify any provision of law relating to eminent domain, trespass, or property rights.” So, am I stupid or does this expressly state it will not infringe on my rights as a property owner? (I.E. no trespassing signs must be honored.) So I can still kick them off my property or charge them with trespassing, right? Or if things get way out-of-hand, I can’t introduce them to Mr. Shotgun and protect my property?

    • E

      Having suffered from hunting abuses for a long time now, I would invite you to try to get justice of any sort now if bear dogs trespass on your property and say kill your expensive exotic poultry. You quickly get told that “bear dogs can’t read no trespassing signs” and that hunting dogs are exempt from vicious dog laws as long as they are vicious while hunting. I would hate to say what would happen to you if your Mr. Shotgun killed a hunting dog while trying to save your pet chickens. I don’t know either if hunter trespass threatening private landowners and their property would trigger the “stand your ground” laws, but I doubt it.

  18. Norma Munn

    Just curious but does anyone know how frequently state legislature recommend amendments to their state constitutions? It certainly seems that this bunch in Raleigh is going out of their way to permanently change everything they can about this state before they leave office. This latest idea is completely alien to conservative concepts. I doubt they would be so welcoming of an expansion of eminent domain, of which this is at least a first cousin.
    Do you think they would expand this idea to include flower picking? There is this gorgeous garden near me and I would love to pick those flowers. They would be lovely on my dining room table. Not quite as permanent as a mounted deer head over the mantle, but aren’t my rights to flowers just as important as someone’s right to hunt deer? Have to call my representative quickly and get into this game!

    • Elizabeth O'Nan

      I agree. The great heritage of flower picking deserves a constitutional amendment to protect our rights to pick our neighbors annually blooming tree peonys. While they are at it I would like another law that protects my right to frack on my neighbors property or anywhere I want to and tax funds to study my fracking adventures…oops, the legislature has already done that, but it is not a constitutional amendment yet. Well, how about a law that would allow my hunting dogs to trespass and viciously attack other dogs or livestock as long as we are having a good time hunting…they already passed this law too? Well it should be codified in our state constitution. We have a rich herritage of criminal abusive bullies. They need to be protected and celebrated in our state constitution. Further, the US Constitution does not really guarantee every person can have a gun, with this NC Constitutional amendment we can prevent any type of gun regulation from taking place in NC and gurantee the right to own guns, threaten and endanger other when we choose. A mass shooting every now and then is just the price we pay for these freedoms.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!