Could “right to hunt, trap, fish” initiative in Idaho be used to harm habitat?

An article in the Idaho Statesman today says some opponents of the the proposed Idaho constitutional amendment to make trapping, fishing and hunting protected rights in Idaho could be used to harm wildlife habitat in Idaho, especially water.

Ned Horner, who is the retired Idaho Fish and Game fish manager for northern Idaho, told reporter Rocky Barker “that language added at the request of the Idaho Water User’s Association — it says the amendment shall not “establish any minimum amount of water in any water body” — may prevent the state from keeping water in rivers and lakes for fish.” See the Statesman article.

The relevant part of the measure is this:  “that public hunting, fishing and trapping of wildlife shall be a preferred means of managing wildlife; and to provide that the rights set forth do not create a right to trespass on private property, shall not affect rights to divert, appropriate and use water, or establish any minimum amount of water in any water body, shall not lead to a diminution of other private rights . . .” [boldface ours].

Idaho’s Deputy Attorney-General Steve Strack says this doesn’t prevent Idaho legislature from passing a law preserving streamflow, only that the amendment does not itself change any water laws or regulations.

Regarding the part that makes hunting, fishing and trapping a preferred way of managing wildlife, we see it is possible a lawsuit could be brought against any Fish and Game rules that close seasons or prohibit hunting, etc. of any species of wildlife.

Many assume that Idaho will pass this measure given the relative popularity of hunting and fishing. In addition since 1996, 12 states have passed similar measures, but they did not include trapping, which is less popular. Most recently Arizona, a state noted for its conservatism, rejected a constitutional amendment to give rights to hunting and fishing (not trapping).  In 2010, 56.5% voted against the Arizona measure for which about half the funding came from the National Rifle Association.

In addition to Idaho, this year voters in Kentucky, Nebraska, and Wyoming are facing amendments like Idaho. Nebraska and Kentucky’s measure does not including trapping. The Nebraska and Kentucky measures are shorter than Idaho’s. Nebraska’s reads: “A vote FOR this constitutional amendment would set forth a constitutional right to hunt, to fish, and to harvest wildlife and would designate public hunting, fishing, and harvesting of wildlife as a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. The right set forth by this constitutional amendment would be subject to certain laws, rules, and regulations, and this constitutional amendment would not be construed to modify current laws relating to trespass or property right laws or constitutional provisions pertaining to water.”

All four measures have many of the same phrases, showing the measures were written from a template outside the states.

Trapping is an activity of far few people than hunting and fishing, and probably has less support among the public. Some think the inclusion of trapping could drag the measures down. The photo of the northern Idaho man grinning in front of the wolf in the blood stained snow went viral on the web in a negative way last winter.

Print Friendly