SC Amendment Proposal #1 (Hunting and Fishing)

[melloyello]

What are your opinions on this Amendment proposal - pros and cons

Must Article I of the Constitution of this State, relating to the declaration of rights under the state's constitution, be amended by adding Section 25 so as to provide that hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife; to provide that the citizens of South Carolina shall have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly; and to specify that this section must not be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources?

What it will read....

"The traditions of hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife. The citizens of this State have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly. Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources."

I don't like the verbiage of "subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly"...

I understand the need for this Amendment for maintain State's right sovereignty so as not to let the US Congress decide what hunt and fishing laws they can pass, but I have some questions.....

- Will this mean that the General Assembly decides when we can hunt and fish and not the DNR?
- What the heck does "promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly" mean?
- Will this be strong enough to stop anti-gunners/hunters(PETA) from outlawing lead core bullets and fishing weights?
- What is considered conservation and managing non threatened wildlife?
- Does it mean an increase in taxes and government to manage wildlife and conservation?

Right now, even though I don't like some of the issues I stated above I plan to vote yes so that we may claim the right before the FED takes it.....

 

[FN1910]

What are your opinions on this Amendment proposal - pros and cons

I understand the need for this Amendment for maintain State's right sovereignty so as not to let the US Congress decide what hunt and fishing laws they can pass, but I have some questions.....

- Will this mean that the General Assembly decides when we can hunt and fish and not the DNR?
No because the General Assembley sets those dates and limits in State code of Laws every year already and they are passed on the recommendations of DNR. I don't see any thing that would change that.
- What the heck does "promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly" mean?
Feel good words that have no real meaning.
- Will this be strong enough to stop anti-gunners/hunters(PETA) from outlawing lead core bullets and fishing weights? Nope, again all these laws are set by the General Asembly
- What is considered conservation and managing non threatened wildlife? More BS
- Does it mean an increase in taxes and government to manage wildlife and conservation? Probably since every law or change passed usually does.

Right now, even though I don't like some of the issues I stated above I plan to vote yes so that we may claim the right before the FED takes it.....

I have had some discussions with others about this and have asked for a reason to vote for it and haven't gotten one yet. I also haven't gotted a good reason to vote against it either. This is nothing more than feel good legislation that does nothing but but as far as I can tell does nothing either. Someone did point out that by making it part of the Constitution then it will be harder to change it later so for that reason I plan to vote for it. Otherwise it doesn't do anything that I can find.

 

[mappow]

What are your opinions on this Amendment proposal - pros and cons

Must Article I of the Constitution of this State, relating to the declaration of rights under the state's constitution, be amended by adding Section 25 so as to provide that hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife; to provide that the citizens of South Carolina shall have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly; and to specify that this section must not be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources?

What it will read....

"The traditions of hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife. The citizens of this State have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly. Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources."

I don't like the verbiage of "subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly"...

I understand the need for this Amendment for maintain State's right sovereignty so as not to let the US Congress decide what hunt and fishing laws they can pass, but I have some questions.....

- Will this mean that the General Assembly decides when we can hunt and fish and not the DNR?
- What the heck does "promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly" mean?
- Will this be strong enough to stop anti-gunners/hunters(PETA) from outlawing lead core bullets and fishing weights?
- What is considered conservation and managing non threatened wildlife?
- Does it mean an increase in taxes and government to manage wildlife and conservation?

Right now, even though I don't like some of the issues I stated above I plan to vote yes so that we may claim the right before the FED takes it.....

You just answered you own question. A bigger DNR, a larger grab of our tax dollars to fund this DNR as well as THOSE with property that will benefit from our General Assembly decisions. It's all about those with property and those with the power to give our tax dollars to those with property. It's South Carolina, would you really expect anything else? .

 

[blume357@]

Personally I think it's stupid...

first changing a constitution, state or federal is serious business.

Hunting and fishing is only a basic human right when it comes to being able to survive, not when it is just for sport... what would be next... a declaration that a state's citizen has the right to go to football games or play golf?

this is just a feel good political statement during an election year that does nothing but keep folks from looking behind the curtain and seeing the real issues.

 

[blume357@]

I agree with you totally

The government needs to stay out of my house, specifically bedroom and gun room....

they can come in my front yard but they better be prepared to be asked to leave.