  |
|
|
As the centennial of the National Wildlife Refuge System approaches, The Fund for Animals is asking the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to restore the National Wildlife Refuges to their original mission -- to protect wildlife from hunting and trapping. In letters sent today to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Craig Manson, and, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service Steven Williams. President of The Fund for Animals, Michael Markarian wrote, "Theodore Roosevelt, perhaps the most famous hunter of his day, recognized the need for places where hunted animals could find sanctuary, and during his presidency created a network of Refuges where the gun and the trap were forbidden, beginning with Pelican Island, Florida, in 1903." Markarian noted that the Refuge System prohibited hunting and trapping for its first 60 years, and that on this centennial, there could be no more fitting homage to the vision of President Roosevelt "than to restore to all of our National Wildlife Refuges the role for which they were created." Most people would be astonished to learn that hunting and trapping are allowed, even encouraged, in places set aside for the protection of wildlife," wrote Markarian. " They would be even more astounded to know that additional Refuges are being opened to recreational killing at an accelerating pace." Since 1997, approximately 40 new Refuges have been opened to hunting. Now 311 of the 540 Refuges -- nearly 60% -- are open to hunting and/or trapping. Markarian added that "allowing the killing of animals for sport in an area designated as a 'wildlife refuge' debases our language, deceives the public, and violates the American spirit of honesty and fair play." A Decision Research opinion poll conducted in 1999 revealed that 78% of Americans oppose hunting and trapping on National Wildlife Refuges. Moreover, the Refuge System represents only 5% of the public land that is available to hunters and trappers. Markarian wrote, "Surely, it is not too much to ask that this miniscule percentage be set aside for the peaceful enjoyment of the overwhelming majority of those who visit the Refuges." Please also see an article related to this on GreenConsciousness.org Whose rights should be Primary, Hunters or Non Hunters? YOU DECIDE ON APRIL FOOLS DAY Judi Kneece ( Station Manager, Phone: 608-758-822, e-mail: kneece.judi@als.lib.wi.us ) JATV-Ch. 12 assembled a panel of lawyers to discuss the impact of the proposed Trapping/Hunting/Fishing Rights amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution. The amendment, if ratified by voters on April 1, 2003, will give everyone a state constitutional right to take Wisconsin wild animals and fish for their commercial or private use by means of hunting fishing and trapping. A copy of the tape, The Wisconsin Constitution
The Trapping/Hunting/Fishing RIGHTS Amendment is available from the
station for $12.00 which includes postage. The address is: Proposed Amendment Shall section 26 of Article I of the constitution be created to provide that the people have the right to fish. hunt. trap. and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law Questions Presented 1) What are the consequence of creating a constitutional amendment protecting an activity or class of individuals? 2) Has reporting of the consequences been accurate in terms of the April election? The Media and the Law Throughout the show the moderator will read quotes from three newspaper articles written about the proposed hunting/trapping amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution, to invoke a response from the panel members and to determine if the reporting is accurate as well as providing the needed information. All these articles appeared on the same day, Jan. 29, 2003, in the Capital Times, Wisc. State Journal, and the Mil Journal Sentinel. All convey the assumption that this amendment will harm no one, and is inconsequential and unopposed. Did the animal right group quoted need more legal information? The truth is most amendments have relevance to only the targeted group and those individuals and organizations who must adjust to the fact that a class of people have been given primacy over them. Usually constitutional rights are extended to everyone but sometimes only to a special class which has been denied equal opportunity or other civil rights because of discrimination against them as a class. Here with the trapping/hunting/fishing amendment, there is no claim of need as there are by other groups forced to document discrimination and its damages, in order to get constitutional protection. This amendment gives hunters PRIMARY rights over others who share the environment and whose activities clash with those of hunters in the struggle to reconcile opposing uses of public and private lands The amendment will have effect only on those people who
This amendment is simply a thinly disguised attempt from hunters to gain legal advantage over their cultural adversaries in the courtroom and an attempt from gun advocates to strengthen the right to bear arms. SEE Hunter Harassment Brief The reason opponents say the newspaper reports are inaccurate 1. This amendment gives hunters PRIMARY rights over others who share the environment and whose activities clash with those of hunters. 2. A cause of action would exist to challenge a refusal to allow hunting/trapping/fishing under specific circumstances, where no cause of action existed before the constitutional guarantee. Now extra state and organizational litigation funds will be necessary to defend restrictive legislation. 3. Will the elevation of hunting to a constitutional right, tip the balance in hunter harassment cases? Now the right of the hunters is being made constitutional as compared to the rights of non-hunting park users and animal watchers. Although Hunter Harassment statutes have been passed all over the U S; hunter lose in court because the people they claim are harassing them are legally in their space and have an equal legal right to be there. Hunters complain of talk from these individuals scaring the animals into hiding thereby harassing the hunters; of noise from the adjacent landowner's equipment scaring the animals away as harassment; this is defended by the first amendment's grant of freedom of speech Hunters claim they have the right to shoot over the boundary of the land where they are hunting and chase an animal into private property. This matter is unsettled. 4. Will making hunting/trapping/fishing a state constitutional right give an advantage to those who wish to challenge Indian treaty rights? Usually state residents litigate for the same seasons and methods of killing as the Indians are guaranteed under the treaty; or they object to the amounts of fish Indians are allowed to take as compared to what non-Indians are allowed to take. 5. An outright ban on all trapping would not be possible under this amendment. Is the prevention of cruelty (a reason used to ask for specific method bans) a reasonable limitation on the constitutional right? What factors will the court use to determine the outcome? 6. Another concern about the trapping/hunt/ fish amendment, is private property rights vs a constitutional right to take game.There are landowners in the deer kill zone who shut their land to the DNR deer kill teams. Now with a constitutional right to hunt (and presumably a State related duty to protect the health of the herd) could this hunting amendment help the DNR force landowners to open their land to kill teams, or allow the DNR to shoot from airplanes into their land? And now protecting a constitutional right, does the DNR become like the EEOC; taking complaints and hiring investigators to determine if someone has violated a hunter's constitutional right to hunt? Do DNR lawyers take these cases to court? The point being, that a characteristic or activity elevated to the level of a constitutional right is not a small or irrelevant thing. It effects all the game rules of the legal system. When you enter a courtroom, it is in your interests that your rights are equal or superior to your opponents; it is to your disadvantage if they have more rights than you do in the matter. Those who objected to restrictions on hunting had no real legal challenge to present to a court previously. Now that hunting is a constitutional right, they can challenge restrictions as unreasonable and put their constitutional right against all other taxpayers for primacy in the use of public lands. Whether this is good or bad depends on your cultural choices and lifestyle. But the public has a right, under the principle of informed consent, to understand the implications of their decisions; not be mislead into thinking the constitution means nothing in their everyday lives - mislead into thinking that a constitutional right means nothing. JATV - Ch. 12's videotape of The Wisconsin Constitution The Trapping/Hunting/Fishing RIGHTS Amendment seeks to convey information about what a constitutional right means and how a constitutional right is used in the legal system. |
