constitutional right to hunt and fish

[WoodieSC]

I agree, I think it is a bad idea. Sounds good on the surface, but we, the sportsman of SC have nothing to gain from this.

I'll admit I'm not a fan of the NRA either.

I will NOT allow any government to tell me I have the right to hunt and fish... God gave me that right when I was born in this world and NO one will EVER take it away, no matter what

This is just more wasted time by our stupid fucking government, is there really nothing better for them to do?

While I understand and agree with the overall sentiment here, you guys are being shortsighted and forgetting about all the anti-hunters/anti-gunners who are slowly but surely taking over a lot of the boards and legislative bodies.

We may believe we "have a right to hunt, fish and take game", but those "rights" could very easily be legislated out of existence in a short period of time. It's happening in many states where anti-hunters have taken over the appointments to the DNR/Wildlife boards. Hell, just in this state we have DNR making the rules for the upstate and the legislation making the rules for the lowcountry. Either half could be taken over in a matter of years such as to eliminate/greatly restrict seasons and access rights... period.

Think about who the enemy is... and deal with them, without letting your damn egos get in the way.

Right now it only requires a majority vote of house and senate with gov approval to change a law. NOW lets see how much of the Obama administration you need to realize how far the political pendulum swings.

An amendment requires 2/3 of house and senate along with a majority of the public. That secures it much better.

Ask the brits how well fox hunting is going.

This is why quite a number of states have gone this route (i.e., Constitutional Amendments), using recommended language supplied/offered by the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. Their attorneys study each bill that gets proposed/passed throughout the country to assess the ability to stand up to legal attacks, etc, to help ensure that the intent(s) of the legislation are what comes out in the end.

I'm not sure if the present SC language has come from them or not. I worked for a number of years with Rep. Brian White and former Rep. Gresham Barrett to try to get proper language written (with USSA's assistance) so that we wouldn't end up with a mess on our hands, since many people wanted to get this passed and we didn't want someone to slip something in that became 'Trojan Horse' legislation.

A couple of things to consider, IMO:

1. It's been Jake Knotts who has actually proven to be one of the "anti-gun" forces in the SC Legislature in recent years. He'd toss all of us down a rat hole if it meant any language would negatively affect his CWP training revenue. He's submarined us a number of times in recent years;

2. Same with the NRA. If we counted on the friggin' NRA here in SC, we wouldn't have half of the CWP access rights we have. They're more dangerous than helpful in this state... same with NC.

3. As more and more people relocate to SC... either from the North... or back from Florida... the trend is 'Liberal'... which means a smaller percentage who really give a damn about whether you think you have a right to hunt and fish or not.

IMHO, think real hard about not wanting a Constitutional Amendment to preserve the Right to Hunt, Fish & Take Game. Done wrong, it would be bad. Done right, it could help stem the tide we'll be fighting for the next century or two.

[Stripa Swipa]

I grew up "deer doggin." My family, long before I was born grew up "deer doggin" in MS. This was long before such sophisticated asses like yourself came along and decided that "deer doggin" was trampling on your precious rights. Some hunt right; some hunt wrong. Some still hunting clubs take 60 to 70 bucks a year with less than 10% being 3+ years of age. Is that wrong? Who gives you the right to say? Maybe I prefer the taste of a young deer to an old one, and if I only kill young ones, the the trophies are still out there producing offspring for trophy hunters like yourself, right? So, what are your going complain about next? Just so you know, I haven't been on a dog drive in fifteen years, and I have bowhunted primarily with a recurve for the last twelve years; I still support the wonderful tradition of dog driving because it is a method of hunting that has been around since long before I was born and who the heck am I to try to say it is bad. Who are you to make that claim? All I know is that twenty years ago, we, Americans who wanted to hunt, were a lot better off than we are now. Now we are overrun with pompous wankers who think that just because they have an opinion, that opinion is correct. There are a lot of hunters out there who use a lot of various means to hunt; as long as they are within the law's written word, chill. There are enough antis out there without you helping their cause. And before you give me this "lets not give the antis any ammunition" crap, let me preemptively say, grow a spine.

Pompous wanker....I like that.

I guess you are going to want a constitutional right to paddle your boat down a river next, right? Is there a difference? If there is, please explain it. Don't get so worked up over pompous wankers like me that you can't see the forest for the trees.

[JABIII]

Why does this silly shit even keep coming up? Doesn't the Legislature have enough to do to keep this captainless ship that is South Carolina afloat without introducing this kind of nonsense?