Senate resolution for hunt, fish, trap

[Tallbear]

SJR H of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SJR-H)
Natural resources; hunting; hunting, trapping, and fishing as a constitutional right; establish.
Last Action: 3/1/2011 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON OUTDOOR RECREATION AND TOURISM

[Jerbear1098]

Wonder if that law would preempt our stupid township ordnance, that doesn't allow live trapping. We have hundreds of feral cats running around multiplying and can't get anything done about it because all the humane people we contact use live traps.

[brass hat]

It's about time,and at the same time pretty sad that we need a constitutional ammendment to protect such a basic right.

[Quaamik]

I'm torn.

On one hand it would be nice to have protection for this (as a right).

On the other:
1) I don't like extending gaurantees on new "rights". It starts down the slippery slope that ends where other people have a "right" to your stuff.

2) What use are amendments gauranteeing rights? We've had the 2nd for over 200 years, and it's been trampled into unrecognition. We have the 4th, yet police and courts always seem to find a way around it to search you or your vehicle for whatever "contraband" they are looking for. I seriously think it's time to correct an oversight that the founders had and put an penalty clause into the bill of rights.

“Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government,
who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify,
evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this
Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily
removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and
benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.”

[sse]

I'm torn.

On one hand it would be nice to have protection for this (as a right).

On the other:
1) I don't like extending gaurantees on new "rights". It starts down the slippery slope that ends where other people have a "right" to your stuff.

2) What use are amendments gauranteeing rights? We've had the 2nd for over 200 years, and it's been trampled into unrecognition. We have the 4th, yet police and courts always seem to find a way around it to search you or your vehicle for whatever "contraband" they are looking for. I seriously think it's time to correct an oversight that the founders had and put an penalty clause into the bill of rights.

“Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government,
who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify,
evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this
Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily
removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and
benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.”
I'm not sure a bad track record in these matters is a legitimate argument against taking it to the next step.

[Roundballer]

What we don't know here is what precipitated this resolution.

I am thinking that this might be an attempt to prevent closing of Federal lands inside Michigan to hunting. There was a thread on the closing of certain lands because some guy thought that it would be better to keep them for year round for hiking and the such.

IANAL so I don't know how something in the MI Constitution would affect these groups that are trying to take land that was bought with funds generated by the hunting fees, those that want to have year round horse trails with no hunting etc. But that may be the motivation behind this.

This is just a resolution, it carries no real weight right now, AFAIK.

Just some thoughts.

[Leader]

Why do law makers think we need this & will it mean we no longer need a license to hunt & fish?

[brass hat]

It's a result of liberals and animal rights activists/socialists trying to ban hunting throughout the country. Its a back door attack on the 2nd ammendment. The goal is to demonize hunting,fishing,trapping ect. until the point people are willing to outlaw these activities or they are just too much of a hassle to participate in.

Once there is no hunting allowed,a lot of gun owners would have no use for their guns(the fudds) After a while they would just sit around collecting dust and serve no pupose. Many of these people would probably sell them off over time or stash them away in the basement and forget about them. At that point it will be easy to get those people to get rid of all there guns.

Eventually the only people left with guns would be the hardcore 2a people who beleive guns are for more than just hunting,you know the real purpose of the 2a. Then the labeling will start. Terms such as extremists,terrorist,crazies,whacko's,people who want to overthrow the government ect. At that point the general public would have no problen rolling back the 2a and its good bye forever.

Like it or not hunting does more to protect the 2a than people realize. Once the two weeks a year fudds have no use for their shotguns,they won't care much at all about guns anymore. A lot of people ony touch their gun during deer season and then stow it away till next year.

This ground work has been in the works for a long time now,many people don't relize whats going on. Ever wonder why the reintroduction of the wolf has become such a hot button issue,or the fact that cougars are popping up all across the country. The goal there is to replace man as the predator that keeps the wild game populations in check after the hunters are gone.

[luckless]

Will this force the state to equalize the access to fish and game? I believe Alaska has a similar amendment that forces the state to apply their game laws equally, regardless of race. I think the indians still get extra privileges on federal land, though. That would be some welcome relief up in northern Michigan.