Kansas voters are faced with a single constitutional amendment this election, yes or no on amendment 1, which would add to the state's constitution "the right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife."
Read full amendment proposal at the bottom of the story.
On opposing sides of the issue are powerful organizations including The NRA, PETA and the Humane Society of the United States.
The NRA supports amendment one because it believes altering the KS constitution protects hunters, trappers and anglers from future attempts to ban types of hunting.
"What we're seeing over the past several decades is extremists groups have come into states and they have tried to ban hunting and fishing either outright or incrementally," said NRA spokesperson Catherine Mortenson.
Mortenson points to a 1990 California mountain lion ban and a 2006 dove ban in Michigan.
The Humane Society of the United States argues that the amendment could take away the Kansas Department of Wildlife's power to manage wildlife.
"They're not going to be allowed to say 'Hey, this is a bad idea,' because now it's in the constitution," said Midge Grinstead, Senior Kansas director of the Humane Society.
Grinstead also believes amendment one could open the state to frivolous lawsuits it can't afford.
"It really opens the door to anything. The right to canoe, the right to forage. Where does it stop?" said Grinstead.
PETA released a statement to 41 Action News, saying in part, "An amendment to 'protect' the right to hunt and fish is bizarre and frivolous."
The statement goes on to say "a Hail Mary play for a constitutional amendment isn't going to stop more and more people from choosing wildlife watching over wildlife killing."
Indiana is also voting on the issue Nov. 8th.
19 states in the country have similar language in their constitutions.
Amendment one reached the ballot by passing through the Kansas legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTExplanatory statement. This amendment is to preserve constitutionally the right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife subject to reasonable laws and regulations. The right of the public to hunt, fish and trap shall not modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain or any other private property rights.A vote for this proposition would constitutionally preserve the right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife that has traditionally been taken by hunters, trappers and anglers. This public right is subject to state laws and rules and regulations regarding the management of wildlife and does not change or diminish common law or statutory rights relating to trespass, eminent domain or private property.A vote against this proposition would provide for no constitutional right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife. It would maintain existing state laws and rules and regulations governing hunting, fishing and trapping wildlife.Shall the following be adopted?§21. Right of public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife. The people have the right to hunt, fish and trap, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to reasonable laws and regulations that promote wildlife conservation and management and that preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. This section shall not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights or water resources.• YES• NO
---
Brian Abel can be reached at brian.abel@kshb.com.
