Contributors to this thread:
Hoosiers, please vote, it is important.
This may have been posted already but I didn't see it and it is very important. We need this to pass.
Is there any doubt this will pass? I guess in this day and age, you never know. I thought the proposed wording should make some kind of reference to IDNR involvement in setting the rules for wildlife management. Only the "General Assembly" is mentioned. But I'll still vote for it either way.
The general assembly is the legislative branch so I do think it should stem from them. I think they create the DNR and grant certain authority to them to set certain rules.
Besides, the general assembly is elected, DNR is not. We need to be able to hold people accountable. We can only do that when they are elected officials.
As far as passing, take nothing for granted. The size and power of the anti-hunting lobby should not be under estimated.
So, let me get this straight....
Are you saying politicians should be setting the rules for wildlife management rather than professional biologists...because the politicians can be held "accountable" at the polls?
If so, no thanks.
Politicians should get the information and recommendations from said biologist. Hired DNR biologists are not lawmakers, thankfully. If they made a stupid law, we, as hunters, would have no recourse. We as voters however, have all the power over the legislators. It is just how a representative republic works.
A general on the ground probably knows when a war should be declared better than anyone. Is he the one declaring war? No. It is the legislative branch (with the input and help of the general)that does that.
You can bet it will be the legislative branch (with money and pressure from anti hunting groups) that will take away or current PRIVILEGE to hunt if we do not make it our RIGHT to hunt at the polls in Nov.
Don't get me wrong, I will support right to hunt at the polls.
That said, I'm a firm believer that your theory of involving politicians in game management issues being a positive...is one BIG mistake.
For the most part, I am in favor of reducing the scope of government whenever and where ever possible.
It isn't really a theory. Laws, whether they are hunting related or not, deserve debate and votes and governor signatures. I am not a government fan either. But at least I can vote against ones that vote contrary to what I want. What can I do about a DNR manager that sets a rule I don't like? Nothing. Much of the Indiana Hunting rules and regulations can be found in Indiana Code 14. See link
The DNR professional is hired to do the job he/she was trained for. Unlike our electoral process, it is not a popularity contest. The best decisions for our natural resources are not always popular...but I sure as hell would trust a trained professional to make that call versus the 150 member general assembly (of which you get to vote for or against TWO).
Unfortunately, there has always been WAY too much political influence within the DNR. But I would still trust that model more than handing the reigns over to a 150 member free for all....most of which vote how they are told by their party...not their constituents.
For as much as I read, it dosnt really do anything, gives you the "right" to hunt under the laws they make, what's different? So they can still make laws saying you can't hunt right?
Sounds like a "feel good" amendment to me. What's next, the right to golf, the right pick mushrooms?
Every law restricts freedom. Making something a "right" does not make it immune to being restricted by laws. So what is the point of the amendment ?