Marty Trillhaase/Lewiston Tribune cautions voters about the constitutional amendment guaranteeing Idahoans the right to hunt, fish & trap:
Sure, the proposed amendment marks all the appropriate boxes. The right to hunt, fish or trap does not trump private property rights. No trespassing is allowed. Water rights are preserved. The Legislature retains control over fish and game laws. And Idaho Fish and Game can suspend or revoke the hunting, fishing or trapping license of anyone who violates its rules.But how do you license a constitutional right? Who's to say when a state regulation or law infringes on somebody's constitutional right to hunt, fish or trap? Do you have a right to hunt, fish or trap if you can't afford the license and tags? What's the point of a constitutional right to hunt if seasons and zones are tightened down to the point that you're frozen out? Presumably the courts would resolve these questions as the amendment's authors anticipate - but maybe they won't. For every 10,000 Idahoans who respect a balance among competing rights and interests, there's a (Rex) Rammell looking for every advantage. So, why even raise this uncertainty? More here.
Question: Do you plan to vote for/against this constitutional amendment?