Misguided solution
Say no to abusing the Constitution.
HJR 2 is a misguided solution looking for a problem. There are no threats to Idahoans’ rights to hunt or fish, and no out-of-state animal rights organization can come here and take those rights away — only Idahoans can decide how to use our wildlife.
The Constitution should be reserved for protecting basic human rights that affect all citizens. Passage of this amendment would set a bad precedent for changing the Constitution to benefit particular interest groups. The amendment would take decisions on wildlife issues out of the Legislature and the initiative process and put them in the courts when state laws pertaining to wildlife are challenged as unconstitutional. Idaho taxpayers would spend money litigating these issues.
By making hunting, fishing and trapping a “preferred means of managing wildlife,” HJR 2 would hinder the Department of Fish and Game in its use of other management tools.
If HJR 2 is defeated, existing rights to hunt, fish and trap will remain in effect.
HJR 2 is a misguided use of the Idaho Constitution, an infringement on our democratic rights and a threat to scientific wildlife management. It should be defeated.
GREG MOORE, chairman, No on HJR 2, Hailey
Amendment would keep extremists at bay
A great deal of misinformation and outright lies have been circulated lately concerning the proposed constitutional amendment HJR 2. Kathy Richmond, Greg Moore, and other like- minded animal rights extremists would lure you into a false sense of security saying, “There is no threat to hunting, fishing, and trapping in Idaho.” Yet, these same people are at the head of organizations such as the Sierra Club and Idahoans Against Trapping, that are desperately trying to bring these outdoor activities to an end.
Fish and game agencies, from states that have historically adopted constitutional amendments to ensure their rights to hunt, fish, and trap, do not feel the outside, emotionally driven influence of animal-rights extremists in making scientifically sound decisions regarding wildlife resources. The result is optimized, healthy wildlife populations for all to enjoy.
Voting yes on HJR 2 will make it a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap using traditional methods here in Idaho. What’s more, it will curtail the animal rights extremists’ agenda and stop their influence on how wildlife is managed within our state. Vote yes on HJR 2!
PAUL JENSEN, Parma
Amendment is unnecessary
All persons concerned for wildlife welfare, protection of options for future wildlife management and protection of domestic pets should vote no on HJR 2 in the upcoming election.
HJR 2 is a proposed amendment to the Idaho state Constitution that would perpetuate fishing, hunting, and trapping in Idaho in perpetuity.
A no vote on HJR 2 would not affect existing rights to hunt, fish and trap.
Hunting and fishing are long-held traditions and valued forms of Idaho recreation. Trapping, however, is a cruel endeavor that is valued by persons seeking to profit from capturing fur-bearing wildlife. It utilizes a leghold trap that breaks animals' limbs and causes bleeding and mutilation as the animal struggles to escape. A slow, excruciating death then ensues. Trapped pets suffer the same fate.
Idaho’s constitution should not be amended to protect trapping forever. Decisions about wildlife management should be subject to change as future generations of hunters, fishermen and professional scientists at Idaho Fish and Game see fit.
Please visit this website for more information, including the text of the amendment: www.HJR2no.org HJR 2 is unneeded and if passed would reduce options for wildlife management. Please oppose it and ask your friends to do the same.
LINDA KENNEDY, Eagle
Amendment is dangerous overkill
Hunters, anglers and trappers beware of HJR 2. This proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution appears to do more harm than good. The rights to hunt, fish or trap are already protected by Idaho laws. Amending the Idaho Constitution is dangerous overkill. HJR 2 specifies that hunting, fishing and trapping be a preferred means of managing wildlife. Constitutional direction subordinates current laws that protect the overall health and abundance of wildlife, especially measures that maintain or improve game and non-game wildlife habitats. As written, the proposal favors reducing wildlife populations if human vs. wildlife conflicts occur. Also, constitutionally mandating any preferred management technique limits the flexibility of future managers to respond to changed conditions or gained information. The language in HJR 2 regarding minimum amounts of water in any water body appears to conflict with the existing statute which considers recreation and wildlife habitat as beneficial uses to be protected by minimum flows and lake levels.
My larger concern is not that some extreme group will prevent me from hunting or fishing, but rather there won’t be enough animals to pursue, or waters to fish, or access to either. After reading HJR 2, I am voting no.
DON ANDERON, Weiser
Trapping does not deserve protection
Please vote no on HJR 2 when you go to the polls in November. While there is no need for this legislation, hunting, fishing and trapping are already legal in Idaho, it is important to note that trapping can kill your dog, your cat or even your child. There will be a time when a child is finally severely injured by a trap placed on public land in Idaho. Many of us use the public land in this state. We hike, we run, we play in the Foothills and beyond, and we take our pets and children. Trapping is a cruel practice that has no discretion on what or who it injures and kills. Trappers are supposed to check their traps every three days, but who checks on them? Please do not vote for this legislation, it is not necessary, and the trapping aspect is dangerous and cruel. Vote no on HJR 2.
WENDY STEVENS, Boise
A special-interest amendment
HJR 2 seeks to amend the state Constitution to further benefit the special interests of trappers. While both hunters and fishermen kill their catches quickly, trapping is a cruel way to kill animals. Even the sponsor of this effort agrees trapping is controversial. The rights to hunt and fish are not being threatened. No out-of-state organization can take these rights away.
Wildlife rehabilitator Mady Rothchild has horrific pictures of many animals killed or mangled in traps. My vet’s dog has been caught in a trap. In the past year a cat in Boise city limits suffered serious leg and foot injuries after dragging home a leg hold trap. On Jan. 9, Channel 7 ran a story warning people of dogs caught in traps in the Foothills. According to the Idaho Department of Fish and Game traps can be placed anywhere on public land where there is not an ordinance prohibiting it. Trappers are allowed to operate without regard to the welfare of animals.
If HJR 2 is passed any efforts to further regulate trapping will be challenged as unconstitutional.
Please vote no on HJR 2.
JEANNIE SWENSON, Boise
Don’t let politicians take away rights
Idahoans love and respect their rights: Free speech, gun ownership, and private property, for example. Idahoans don’t like politicians messing with their rights. Politicians often have axes to grind, catering to special-interest groups that have given them campaign money.
Politicians in Idaho have proposed a new Idaho constitutional amendment. It would take away the right that Idahoans have: The right to pass a citizens’ initiative, if needed when politicians have failed to act. This proposed amendment, called HJR 2, is a power grab by politicians in the Statehouse. It takes away the rights of Idahoans to initiative and referendum, with regard to hunting, fishing, and trapping. Idaho has a long-standing reputation of promoting ethical hunting and fishing. Our Idaho Fish and Game biologists do a very good job protecting our rights, and our wildlife.
Don’t let the politicians in Boise take away your rights.
Vote no on HJR 2 on Nov. 6.
DAVID RICHMOND, Clayton
Don’t sacrifice rights
HJR 2 just doesn’t make sense. In fact, it smells fishy. It smells like a backroom political deal and it feels like we are being “played.” There is no threat, or any potential threat, to our ability to hunt, fish, or trap. If HJR 2 is defeated, nothing will change. But the Legislature says we need a new civil right that’s on the same level as our right of free speech and religion! Idaho’s wildlife belongs to all of us but less than 0.1 percent of Idahoans engage in trapping. If HJR 2 is approved, the 99.9-plus percent of the rest of us won’t be allowed to have changes made to trapping regulations because it will be a constitutionally protected right! Is that democracy? Where’s the public debate and media discussion about this amendment to help us make an informed decision? Citing a “case of urgency,” HJR 2 wasn’t even read in the Legislature over a period of days, as required by our Constitution. What urgency? Is this any way to create a new civil right? HJR 2 is not about a human right needed by every Idahoan. It’s special-interest legislation designed just for “sportsmen.” HJR 2 doesn’t pass the smell test. Vote no on HJR 2.
BILL HOWELL, Bonners Ferry
Don’t be dazzled by the language
The ballot on Nov. 6 will include the proposed constitutional amendment HJR 2 which states, in part, that the “rights to hunt, fish, and trap … are a valued part of the heritage of the State of Idaho.” What could be more laudable? However, the amendment also states that “hunting, fishing and trapping shall be a preferred means of managing wildlife.” This amendment would tie managers’ hands as to management options and requires that human harvest is a priority, regardless of other factors identified through scientific analysis.
The amendment would place the management of Idaho’s fisheries and wildlife resources in the hands of politicians and at the mercy of the political process, rather than under the management of resource professionals. Resource managers, guided by scientific data and analysis, need to be able to manage the harvest of Idaho’s resources in a manner that assures sustained yield for future generations; when their actions face being overturned through legislation and political machinations, Idaho’s resources are at risk.
Do not be dazzled by the “Mom-and-apple-pie” language of this proposal. To protect the future hunting, fishing and trapping of Idaho’s fish and wildlife, vote no to HJR 2.
DAVE ACKLEY AND LYNN ATE, Moscow
