The Kansas Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment, also known as Constitutional Amendment 1, is on the Nov. 8 ballot in Kansas as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment.
This summary appears on the ballot:
“This amendment is to preserve constitutionally the right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife subject to reasonable laws and regulations. (That right) shall not modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain or any other private property rights.
“A vote for this proposition would constitutionally preserve the right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife that has traditionally been taken by hunters, trappers and anglers. This public right is subject to state laws and rules and regulations regarding the management of wildlife and does not change or diminish common law or statutory rights relating to trespass, eminent domain or private property.
“A vote against this proposition would provide for no constitutional right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife. It would maintain existing state laws and rules and regulations ...”
Locally, we found no strong opposition to this amendment, which the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism supports. Nationally, it is supported by the National Rifle Association and opposed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Humane Society of the United States and the Kansas Sierra Club.
Similar amendments have already passed in other states.
Proponents describe this as a safeguard for the future. Former Rep. Travis Couture-Lovelady (R-Hays), a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association in 2016, said: “we may not need it in five, 10 or 15 years, but at some point as the population trends shift more urban, and we become more disconnected from that hunting heritage, it’s important to ingrain that in the constitution.”
We hope there are no unintended consequences or unspoken reasons for this amendment. Remember when lawmakers rushed to pass bills that would allow individuals and businesses to use religious beliefs to refuse services to same-sex couples?
Indeed, Ron Klataske, executive director of Audubon of Kansas, said, “It could conceivably be used as an argument against more moderate restrictions or regulations. ... It’s ridiculous to put something like that in the state constitution.”
Hunters deserve respect for many reasons. That being said, the Constitution shouldn’t be amended without good reason.