JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
488
Reactions
611
Currently 17 other states have some form of a constitutional amendment that makes it a right to Hunt, Fish & Trap.

Please plan on attending or email the committee members if you cannot attend.
<broken link removed>

Rep. Brad Witt, Chair &#8211; [email protected]
Rep. Sal Esquivel, Vice Chair - [email protected]
Rep. Caddy McKeown, Vice Chair &#8211; [email protected]
Rep. Brian Clem &#8211; [email protected]
Rep. Wayne Krieger - [email protected]
Rep. Jeff Reardon &#8211; [email protected]
Rep. Jim Thompson &#8211; [email protected]
Rep. Ben Unger &#8211; [email protected]
Rep. Gail Whitsett &#8211; [email protected]


UPDATE:
This bill DOES NOT eliminate ODFW, ORS statues regarding wildlife law, it does not override the ESA or in any other way limit ODFW's ability to manage wildlife in the manner they currently do. It DOES NOT allow people to harvest fish or wildlife at will and like with any other "right" it can be taken away for violating the law. Please see below for confirmation.

<broken link removed>
{ + SECTION 12. + } { + Individuals in this state have the right to hunt, to fish, to trap and to harvest wildlife, subject to laws enacted by the Legislative Assembly and rules adopted by state agencies that promote sound wildlife conservation and management. This section may not be construed to abrogate any public or private property rights or the sovereignty of this state over its natural resources. + }
4/9 - Today's first hearing went well.

Groups Testifying in Favor;
-Oregon Hunters Association
-Oregon Outdoor Council
-Coastal Conservation Alliance

Groups Testifying Opposed;
-Humane Society of the United States (Considering they introduced a trapping ban this year, big surprise here)
-Portland Audubon Society
-Native Fish Society (Speaker claimed to be a hunter)
-Trout Unlimited (Speaker claimed to be a hunter)

Here is the audio for the entire committee hearing;
<broken link removed>

HJR 16 starts at 1 hour 5 minutes of the audio file.
 
This is much needed. It will make it much more difficult for HSUS and PETA to outlaw hunting. I'd further like to see language included that takes game management decisions out of the realm of the ballot initiative. Specifying that such decisions are to be made only on the basis of sound scientific game management principles by ODFW or the state legislature would be something I would support.
 
This is much needed. It will make it much more difficult for HSUS and PETA to outlaw hunting. I'd further like to see language included that takes game management decisions out of the realm of the ballot initiative. Specifying that such decisions are to be made only on the basis if sound scientific game management principles by ODFW or the state legislature would be something I would support.

If only we could outlaw HSUS and PETA.

This is a great idea and I hope it advances.
 
Reply from Reardon's office:

Thank you for your email. Rep. Reardon will be hearing HJR 16 in the Agriculture committee this morning. I'll put this note in his bill file for him to review before the vote.

We appreciate your comment and enthusiasm for all things Oregon.

Please feel free to send back a quick message if you'd like to learn more about the Representative's views and we will add you to our e-mail list!


Leanna J. Pohevitz
Legislative Aide
Representative Jeff Reardon &#8211; HD 48
p: (503) 986-1448
e: [email protected]
 
This deserves a bump.

I haven't posted in a while, been working :). Met a new co-worker-biker-hunter yesterday who's a member of a research organization named the Equal Protection Institute and he informed me of this pending legislation. His group turns the tables on other special interest groups by adopting their tactics mainly the Equal Protection Clause. IIRC they are helping to push this bill though making hunting in Oregon a RIGHT which would make it much more difficult for the antis in government, always a good thing.

He linked this letter written by one of his partners in an email.

EDITORIAL: HUNTING AND FISHING SHOULD BE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Written by: David Devereaux, Political Activist, Founder of the Equal Protection Institute,
and avid &#64257;shing enthusiast.

Hunting, &#64257;shing and trapping should be constitutionally protected rights in America. It is irrefutable that they are intricately tied to human culture and are crucial elements of America's history and economy. Critics of hunting and &#64257;shing would have us believe that these activities are unnecessary and even cruel. These misconceptions are neither true
or constitutional. Despite this undeniable history, hunters only comprise a small percentage of America's population. It is precisely these types ofminority classes that the constitution, particularly the 14th amendment, were intended to protect.

There is an alarming trend in America. There has always been a divide between urban and rural cultures, but the divide is widening and threatening to consume less represented, but no less important, rural traditions and activities. Nowhere is this divide more evident than efforts to restrict hunting and &#64257;shing in The United States. These
relentless attacks are being organized and funded by urban political organizations intent on extinguishing critical elements of rural America. One step. One restriction at a time. This is the opposition's explicitly stated strategy. If these organizations could end all hunting and &#64257;shing at once, they would. Indeed, Wayne Pacelle, the current CEO of the
Humane Society of the United States, clearly stated in the Associated Press on December 30, 1991, "If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would."

In addition to threatening the inherent values and traditions of rural culture in America, laws targeting hunting and &#64257;shing also violate the Equal Protection guarantees of the 14th amendment. The 14th Amendment requires that all individuals and classes in society be afforded equal access to the protections of the laws of the land. Speci&#64257;cally, it was directed at state governments and legislators to ensure that no state would arbitrarily discriminate or deny equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has said that the Equal Protection Clause "is essentially a direction that all persons similarly
situated should be treated alike."

In terms of hunting and &#64257;shing, the decision-making calculus is simple. If other (arguably egregious) forms of animal harvest are legally protected based on tradition and economic value, then laws targeting hunting and &#64257;shing are unreasonable violations of the Equal Protection Clause. Importantly, this is true even when applying a rational basis test, the least restrictive form of judicial scrutiny, because the
governments action is considered overtly unfair and arbitrary.

Commercial animal slaughter, legally protected in America, demands the same protections be extended to hunting and &#64257;shing. Billions of animals are commercially harvested and consumed every year in the United States. Animal harvest, although regulated, is legally protected and accepted by the legislature and the courts. For example, The Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 de&#64257;nes the legally protected methods of
commercial slaughter. As long as the methods are humane then slaughter is legally protected. Utilizing this same criteria, hunting and &#64257;shing should, without question, receive these same protections. The well documented living conditions of commercially slaughtered animals reveals an undeniable and undebatable truth: animals that are hunted have a comparatively higher quality of life.

Moreover, "right-to-farm" laws found in most states also extend protection to the commercial animal slaughter industry. The Legislative policies set out in statute &#64257;nd that farming practices are critical to the economic welfare of the state, and that it is in the interest of the continued welfare of the state for farming practices to be protected from legal actions that may be intended to limit such practices. It is irrefutable that hunting and &#64257;shing are also substantial contributors to America's economy. The total economic impact of hunting in America amounts to tens of billions of dollars annually. According to the The Economic Importance of Hunting in America, a report provided by the Animal Use Issues Committee of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, "Together, hunters and anglers may very well be the most important source of conservation funding in the United States."

The 14th Amendment requires that hunting and &#64257;shing be given the same protections commercial animal slaughter receives because there is no meaningful legal distinction between the the two similarly situated methods of animal use and harvest. In fact, the only meaningful differences between the two are stereotype and method, which are not justi&#64257;cations to deny equal access and protection of the law.

A constitutional amendment is the best mechanism available to protect hunting and &#64257;shing in America. According to the National Conference of State Legislators, many policymakers in America are beginning to recognize and understand that the divide between urban and rural societies requires constitutional action. In fact, 17 states have taken the steps to provide constitutional protections for hunting, &#64257;shing and trapping as an explicit response to urban political misconceptions and misrepresentations that threaten an industry and culture engrained in human society since its inception. Constitutional protection would ensure that these activities would be guaranteed.

The speci&#64257;cally articulated constitutional protections at issue would create a legal bright line clearly de&#64257;ning the powers of the government relating to hunting and &#64257;shing into the future. Issues involving hunting and &#64257;shing would receive strict scrutiny review because hunting and &#64257;shing would be considered fundamental rights requiring much more stringent analysis. The burden of proof legally shifts requiring the state to demonstrate more than just a rational basis for its action. The state would have to demonstrate a clearly articulated legitimate state interest and prove that the proposed policy was the least restrictive means to achieve its legitimate purpose.

Any restraints on the fundamental right to hunt and &#64257;sh would be limited to policies that, in form and substance, are truly intended to promote sound wildlife conservation and management. Constitutional protection elevates hunting and &#64257;shing to the status of enumerated and fundamental liberty. Any policy motivated by something other than sound wildlife management and conservation would be considered a violation of the substantive due process guarantees of the 14th Amendment in addition to directly violating any amendment explicitly protecting hunting and &#64257;shing. The state's right to govern hunting and &#64257;shing standards and its natural resources would still be intact, so the oppositions fears of unsound hunting and &#64257;shing practices are completely unfounded. Constitutional protection would merely take any policy motivated by baseline moral and/or ethical objections to hunting and &#64257;shing off the table.
 
i wonder if those people who oppose hunting, realize hunters are the ones who make it possible to keep forested areas healthy? where do they think the money comes from? not to mention the hunter groups that donate even more money into wildlife conservation and study.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top