Saturday, November 5, 2016

RIGHT TO HUNT & FISH AMENDMENT AKA QUESTION ONE

X
X
https://www.facebook.com/GinaMBurgess/posts/10210785475697811
X

X
HARVEST= CAFO FACTORY FARMS OR  ENCLOSED ANIMAL SHOOTING GALLERIES; ENCLOSED TROPHY HUNTING IN INDIANA
X
AKA CANNED HUNTING- CANNED HUNTS- of any animals- want to pay 100K to kill a lion- we will have one shipped from africa; placed in out enclosed safari enterprise- and you can go shoot it with your howitzer.
mount leos head on the wall; tan his hide; and make a rug; for your man cave
this is the worst case scenario-and the absurdist conclusion
X


XX
X
THAT BEING NOTED
ANALISYS AND COMMENTARY BY GINA BURGESS LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST
X

Gina Burgess with Jeff Bacon.
Yesterday at 12:50am
WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE NO TO PUBLIC QUESTION #1? Public Question #1 wants to add the right to hunt and fish to the Indiana Constitution. (See image for language.) This is the oh-so-brilliant brainchild---please note the sarcasm---of Republican State Senator Jim Tomes with the support of fellow Republicans Brent Steele, State Senator, and Sean Eberhart, State Representative, with the approval of former Governor Mike Pence, and with the full backing of the National Rifle Association (NRA).
There’s a number of reasons this Constitutional amendment is not needed. For example, there are already laws on the books that deal with hunting and fishing. Twice?!! Indiana Code Title 14 and Indiana Administrative Code Title 3120 Article 9 both address fishing and hunting. The later, IAC, contains 157 pages of rules, regulations, definitions, parameters and specs: http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T03120/A00090.PDF
And these two legislative documents bring something to light---the proposed amendment is so vague that it actually presents a public safety hazard. For example, currently when you fish---you’re not allowed to poison fish. Why? Because you could contaminate water ways and accidentally poison people and pets. Also, when you fish, you are not allowed to blow ‘em up with dynamite. And you know that rule is on the books precisely because there’s always that oooooone person in the crowd that’s just crazy enough (or stupid enough) to pull a stunt like that.
Let’s turn to hunting---this Constitutional amendment doesn’t define hunting. Does it include the use of a firearm? And if so, is shooting a rat Downtown late at night as its coming out of one of the grease traps behind a restaurant consider hunting? Think not? Where in this Constitutional amendment does it say that? For that matter, does whatever I am shooting at even have to be alive. What if I want to go hunt those pink flamingo lawn ornaments? To which some of you are likely saying “hey now, come on—THAT really isn’t hunting.” And that is fair, but it’s also inaccurate. What makes hunting “hunting” and not simply shooting with style? Is it what you are hunting? Live animal? Plastic animal? An apple off Johnny TinCap’s head? What you are hunting with? A gun? A bow and arrow? A knife? A slingshot? A flamethrower? A fly-swatter? A remote-controlled droned programmed to drop a net under certain conditions? When you are hunting? Daytime? Nightime? During school? After school? Before a baseball game at Parkview Field? See---that’s the problem. This proposed Constitutional amendment doesn’t spell any of that out. What is prohibited? What is acceptable?
Putting the legal aside for a moment---there’s another reason we should all be voting NO to Public Question #1. It diminishes, degrades and cheapens the existing rights and freedoms currently found within the Indiana State Constitution. What if some legislator decided that Pepsi was the official soft drink for the State of Indiana and wanted to create a Constitutional amendment declaring that all liquid consumables from this point on be called Pepsi? Seems silly? Outrageous? Unnecessary? As in never going to happen?
Uhm, folks—what do you think we are doing here? We have two sets of hunting and fishing laws already on the books and now we’re trying to reinvent the wheel by adding a third set of laws to fishing and hunting by way of a Constitutional amendment? Doesn’t that seem silly? A bit outrageous? Redundantly unnecessary?
X
X
COMMENTS
X
James A Jim McCoy Jr. It's a backdoor to allow "hunting camps", where animals are fenced in and shot without having the freedom to run away. That's not hunting. It's sick and twisted. These people just like to shoot and kill things.
Like3Yesterday at 3:01am
Jeff Bacon That is horrible, thank you jim!
Like1Yesterday at 4:22am
Mary Protsman Davis I hate hate hunting camps.
Like1Yesterday at 7:51am
Jeff Bacon Shocking anyone would find pleasure in this and call it a sport
LikeYesterday at 9:25am
Audrey Miller-Queckboerner The right to hunt already exists. This amendment just gives more authority where none is needed.
LikeYesterday at 11:52am
Curtis J. Nash I didn't like this for many of the same reasons, particularly the vague language.
Like1Yesterday at 12:25pm
Jeff Frye So everyone knows. The right to hunt DOES NOT exist in Indiana's Bill of Rights. Look for yourself, I did and so no reference to the Right to Hunt. http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst/art-1.html Someone please show me where it specifically states I have the right to hunt.
LikeYesterday at 2:04pmEdited
Gina Burgess Jeff -- Please re-read the first sentence of the proposed amendment: "The right to hunt, fish, and HARVEST wildlife..." HARVEST wildlife? We aren't protecting the right to hunt or fish. Those rights are already protected. A new level of rights are being created for factory farms. What other industry HARVEST animals??
Like22 hrs
Audrey Miller-Queckboerner The Constitution doesn't give us our rights. If it did, the Constitution could be amended to take away our rights and it can't do that. The Constitution simply exists to remind government not to infringe on our rights.
Like2Yesterday at 2:08pm
Jeff Frye Alright then I want to remind the Government that I have the Right to Hunt and Fish and Harvest the Land. It's a yes for me.
LikeYesterday at 2:12pm
Gina Burgess Jeff -- Its not about HARVESTING the land. Its about HARVESTING ANIMALS.
Like22 hrs
Linda Esterline People do not understand the magnitude of the constitution and you don't just go changing it on a whim. You can however pass laws to people can fish without getting arrested!
LikeYesterday at 2:26pm
Jeff Frye Isn't that exactly what this proposed bill of right is trying to do?
LikeYesterday at 2:45pm
Audrey Miller-Queckboerner The Indiana State Constitution already protect your right to hunt and fish Jeff. This amendment is not necessary. Read this for more information:http://wearelibertarians.com/hoosiers-constitutional.../
Like3Yesterday at 2:48pm
Stephanie Kiger O'Rourke Polk I voted yes because I thought it sounded like they were trying to conserve wildlife. That the way it seemed to me but I had to read it 4 times to come to that conclusion.
LikeYesterday at 6:35pm
Gina Burgess Stephanie -- The language starts out "The right to hunt, fish and HARVEST wildlife...." This is waaaaay more than merely hunting or fishing.

This is using people's fear of losing rights (hunting and fishing) to illicit an emotional response to get people to vote and then later usings conflicting language to make it easier for folks who voted YES to swallow what they actually did.

As I said, the language starts out "The right to hunt, fish and HARVEST wildlife (factory farms)...." and then later says "....(1) promote wildlife conservation and management and (2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing..." You see--By offering contradictions in the language, it helps to create two inferences---that this amendment is either to conserve wildlife or its to harvest wildlife---and that helps to divide people, pit them against each other, and cause conflict for the sole purpose of distracting people from what is really going on....and that is the HARVESTING of wildlife (factory farms).
Like22 hrs
Stephanie Kiger O'Rourke Polk I so wish I had read this before I voted
Like114 hrs
Gina Burgess Stephanie Kiger O'Rourke Polk -- It's ok. There are a lot of good-hearted people out there that are going to make the same mistake you made because of how the amendment was written. And it was written that way purposefully to mislead people. 

Your vote has been cast and there's no way to take your vote back, but if you could--Please share this info with family, friends, neighbors, co-workers and anyone else who may not have already voted. That would help to cancel out your vote and the votes of others who were duped. 
Like13 hrs
Jeff Bacon You got played
Like1Yesterday at 6:54pm
Joe Renner I voted no. We don't want any government agencies to be able to infringe on the natural rights of humanity to hunt, fish, or forage for food as needed for survival purposes.
Like2Yesterday at 7:13pm
Stephanie Kiger O'Rourke Polk Gina Burgess I have a totally different question from this. I don't mean to derail the subject. I just Read on 21alive news site that Roy Buskirk passed away today. My condolences to his family if you know any of them. The question is, I voted today and he was on the ballot. If he wins will a different republican be selected for his spot and if so, how do they pick who it would be?
Like2Yesterday at 7:33pm
Tyler Cooley If Buskirk is elected, the republicans will be able to appoint someone to that seat.
Like1Yesterday at 10:06pm
Gina Burgess Thats a good question Stephanie---and one a lot of people are asking. I haven't had a chance to look into this more closely, but Tyler is likely correct.

Generally when someone is elected to office and they are removed or are unable to serve the re...See More
Like122 hrs
Audrey Miller-Queckboerner I hadn't heard that news yet. Sad day. 
Like115 hrs
Stephanie Kiger O'Rourke Polk Thanks to you both and yes it is sad news. My heart goes out to his family
Like14 hrs
Kyle Jon Stevenson Gina Burgess, I appreciate you informing people but why do you only give one side? Are you vegetarian or have you ever been a member of or supported PETA?
Like16 hrs
Jeff Bacon I am a vegetarian, support PETA and the ASPCA, my problem with meat is the ill treatment of animals and yes we absolutely oppose "shooting fish in a barrel" if you are a true sportsman and hunt one on one with skill and eat what you kill. Hey! It's a free world. If you shoot animals that are caged for your protection...thats not helping the "animal conservation" efforts that hunters claim to be exersicing by thinning herds and being a part of the "balance" of nature. To each his own, but I slept better knowing I did not support animal abuse, pain and suffering.
Like15 hrs
Jeff Bacon My Heart felt thanks to Gina for taking the time to answer this complicated issues. Thus making voting an intelligent exersice of my right to choose how I am governed.
Like15 hrs
Kyle Jon Stevenson But she only answered why she feels it's unnecessary. That's only half of the issue. There are similar amendments in a dozen other states. We need more info.
Like14 hrs
Greg Dickman It just maintains state control of hunting and fishing regulations, so local boards do not try to use Home Rule to license, interpret and enforce the regulations however they feel against whomever they feel.
Like12 hrs
Jean Uhrick Our state constitution should not be riddled up with such trivial matters
Like11 hrs
Jeff Bacon Trivial?
X


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)