Bill Seeks To Restrict Initiatives Hunter’s Rights Amendment Rekindles Battle Over Wildlife

(For the record, Wednesday, February 15, 1995): Greg Brown is leading the effort to pass the Idaho Black Bear Initiative. His last name was incorrect in a story on Page B3 in Tuesday’s Idaho Spokesman-Review.

A proposed “Hunter’s Rights Amendment” to the state constitution is rekindling a fight between Idaho hunters and animal protectionists.

Conservationists fear people’s rights will be caught in the crossfire.

The Idaho Wildlife Council wants the constitutional amendment. It would prevent the use of initiatives to “regulate access to, or any use of, wildlife and other natural resources” on land and water controlled by the state or federal governments.

The amendment’s purpose: Stop the Idaho Black Bear Initiative. The initiative would ban the use of bait and dogs to hunt bears, and would eliminate the spring bear-hunting season.

The Idaho Conservation League isn’t pushing the bear initiative. But members worry that the amendment is too broad. They fear it would take away the chance for popular votes on a variety of environmental issues.

“It’s sort of like using Lake Pend Oreille to drown a cat,” said ICL state affairs director Melinda Harm. “We hope that common sense will prevail, and legislators will recognize that if anything citizens want more control, not less control.”

Harm noted that sportsmen pushed for the 1938 initiative that created the Idaho Fish and Game Commission. Their goal was to shield state game management from political pressure.

Keeping game management in the hands of professionals is exactly what the amendment’s supporters say they have in mind.

“To manage wildlife by popular vote is a very, very poor plan,” said Don Clower, president of the Idaho Wildlife Council.

He said the amendment wouldn’t have any far-reaching limitation on people’s rights. “People read too much into this.”

While sportsmen don’t all agree on the use of bait and hounds, they’ve watched nervously as initiatives to limit hunting have passed in four Western states.

Idaho’s Fish and Game commission proposed eliminating bear baiting in 1990, but backed off under pressure from some hunters.

Greg Bower of Moscow started the ball rolling on the Idaho Black Bear Initiative. To get it on the 1996 general election ballot, the Idaho Coalition United for Bears needs 42,000 signatures.

Bower expects an uphill battle. But he points optimistically to a 1992 survey finding that 74 percent of Idaho residents and 65 percent of Idaho hunters oppose the use of bait to lure bears.

Even if it passes, the initiative could be overturned by the Legislature.

A constitutional amendment faces hurdles, too. It will need a two-thirds vote of both House and Senate, plus approval by popular vote. The measure will be the subject of a committee hearing Wednesday.

A lot of people will be watching the battle from the sidelines. The Idaho Wildlife Federation dislikes game regulation by initiative, but board members were trying to figure out Monday if the amendment proposal was even legal.

“We certainly have no desire to get in a battle with the Wildlife Council,” said board president Fred Christensen. “A lot of their members are our members.”

Idaho Rivers United dislikes the amendment proposal, but hasn’t taken a stand against it. The conservation group, which is working to recover endangered salmon, doesn’t want to do battle with sportsmen.

“We don’t think it’s fair to whittle down the rights of people to petition the government based on what they’re petitioning about,” said staff member Wendy Wilson. “But this is a steamroller. I’m not going to throw myself in front of it.”