Long one of the most powerful voting blocs in the state, hunters in Pennsylvania are moving forward with a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would guarantee the "right of the people to hunt and fish."
Hunters say the amendment, similar to laws and constitutional amendments enacted in 11 states in recent years, would protect their sport from what they say are attacks by animal-rights advocates and other groups that advocate hunting restrictions.
"The fact that it's standing there as a constitutional 'right' means something," said Bob Ging, a lawyer and hunter in Confluence, southeast of Pittsburgh, who sits on a gubernatorial sportsmen's advisory panel.
The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Matt Baker, R-Tioga, was passed by the House yesterday and sent to the Senate. It would have to be passed by the General Assembly in two successive legislative sessions before it could be put on the ballot to be decided on by voters.
Alabama, California, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana already recognize the right to hunt, fish or trap.
While it is unclear exactly what the Pennsylvania amendment would do in practice, one legal expert said it could have unintended consequences and possibly end up conflicting with federal endangered-species laws.
"It could get into sprawl, into environment," said David Kairys, a constitutional law professor at Temple University Law School.
Animal-rights groups say they just want to stop what they consider the most inhumane practices, such as the use of steel-jawed traps and the organized hunting of exotic animals for a fee.
"But are we trying to stop deer hunting?" said Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president for the Humane Society of the United States. "No. We're trying to curb the more inhumane and unsportsmanlike practices."
The amendment could go before voters as early as 2005.
Source: http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/sports/7970208.htm