It has passed the Ga. House

[Atlsooner]

Breaking news from the State Capitol
Wednesday, February 16, 2005, 01:09 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The Georgia Senate voted 44-4 Wednesday in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment to preserve the tradition of hunting and fishing in the state.

The amendment would ensure Georgia’s laws protecting hunting and fishing could not be overturned, said Senate President Pro Tempore Eric Johnson (R-Savannah).

“There are activists judges and future Legislatures … that could restrict further our heritage and our historic right to hunting and fishing,” said Johnson, the resolution’s sponsor.

The measure now moves to the House. If it is approved there, voters will have the final say at the polls.

Johnson said there are about 400,000 hunters in Georgia. He said that eight other states have similar constitutional amendments, and that 10 states are considering the change

 

[Atlsooner]

Sorry about that....

It has passed the Senate and now goes to the House.

 

[Randy]

I agree. What a sad day!

 

[Jorge]

Anyone got a link to the exact language in the bill?

 

[GeauxLSU]

Yeah. It smells bad.......
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil

 

[Kansashunter]

Now comes the day you all have talked into Existence.

You all have been speaking this for a long time. NOW is when we have to fear the power of the non-hunting public. I am a firm believer that you can speak life into anything. That is why I would never jump on you all's scared of non-hunting public wagon. But now once it passes the next hurdle our future will be up for grabs. So if this ends the wrong way. DO NOT START BLAMING OTHER HUNTERS. Blame yourself. You spoke life into it.

The above post is the way I personally feel. No hype on this one.
I support the above message.
Chris Timms AKA:kansashunter

 

[Toffy]

apples and oranges

The truth of the non-hunting public is a fact, and it is a fact whether or not it is spoken about. I don't think I buy the notion that any objection to hunting from those who do not hunt arose in the hunting community because we talked about them.

The existance of a constitutional amendment is not a direct result of the non-hunting public (IMHO).

It is more likely the result of a shrewd poltical mind at work attempting to "be like us" to draw conservative voters to a philosopy of traditional values.

If a legislator decided to author an amendment to the constitution, it would at least be prudent for us to consider what benefit there might be to either the legislator or to his or her party.

I think that thought process is more likely to find the cause for such an amendment.

 

[Dustin Pate]

Sounds like people need to contact their elected officials to let them know how they feel.

 

[Mechanicaldawg]

This is a smoke screen. it is covering up a thing that "they" did in the past that they want "us" to forget.

We do not need an ammendment to give us a right we already have.

Warning! Warning! Danger Will Robinson!!!

 

[FootLongDawg]

Does anybody know the four that voted against it?

 

[mpowell]

Warning! Warning! Danger Will Robinson!!!

had to add this to your thoughts for the full effect!!!

 

[Kansashunter]

I never had denied the non-hunting public is not real. But them getting to vote on the hunting future has been spoken in existence. I have heard comments made on this hundreds of times, right here on woddys. I'm pretty sure I haven't heard or seen them all. So maybe thousands of times. If this passes it will be pushed in their face to make a decision. Now they will be forced to take a side. So maybe even if the bill has good intentions it could blow up in our face. So what if it passes? The next group can could come along and amend the constitution again. It is a never ending process.
Do I worry about issues like this? Nope it's out of my control. When hunters can't even get along because of differences why should I? We lable who are and who is not hunters because of their actions. Do you not think the non-hunter and the anties don't see this. It's posted right here for the whole world to see. We hunters are our own worse enemy. Not the Non-hunters. IMO

 

[Jorge]

...When hunters can't even get along because of differences why should I? We lable who are and who is not hunters because of their actions. Do you not think the non-hunter and the anties don't see this. It's posted right here for the whole world to see. We hunters are our own worse enemy. Not the Non-hunters. IMO

You make a good point here, especially the first sentence quoted. I don't agree that we are our own worst eneny because too many hunters and hunting organizations are protecting and improving the resouces as well as the right to hunt; however, there are many hunters and those often perceived as hunters who certainly don't help the cause.

 

[GeauxLSU]

1) So maybe even if the bill has good intentions it could blow up in our face.
2) Do I worry about issues like this? Nope it's out of my control.
3) We hunters are our own worse enemy. Not the Non-hunters. IMO

Kansas,
1) The bill most assuredly does NOT have good intentions. Unless sugar coating a poison pill is good intentions.
2) Do what?!?! It most certainly is not!!
3) That is incorrect. APATHY is our own worst enemy and it runs rampant amongst hunters! We can bicker about whatever we want WITHIN our midsts but when confronted from the outside if we sit back and do nothing (see point #2), then and ONLY then are we doomed!
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil

 

[reylamb]

Now, if this is passed, and the amendment becomes a ballet measure, just wait for the storm of anti-hunting money to flood into GA if the amendment gets voted down.

A constitutional amendment is a bad, very bad thing. As Jeff Young said, we already have a right to hunt........

 

[Kansashunter]

PHIL point 2 is a choice. As long as hunters refuse to understand there are no concrete rules to the way you persue the game we hunt. Then we will never come together as one. I choose not to waste my time as long as we are too closed minded.
Explain my opinion towards point 2.
"The follwing is not directed at Phill"
I am not talking about saying monkey. Like issues like baiting or high fences. I say this is a battle worth fighting in Georgia. But I will not sit here and call someone from Texas or anywhere they are unethical when it is legal and excepted there. We have no right to try and dictate our preference of hunting on other states. Thus when statements about baiting is used in reference to unethical behavior. How they choose to hunt in Texas is none of our business. But we must except those that do, as hunters even though we may not choose to participate. That type of hunting has been going on in Texas longer than most here have even hunted.
We must not forget we are not in a meeting in some Goergia town. If we were then we could use such broad statements. We are on the world news paper where every statement made here is taken personal by some. Yes we do have a few members from other states that feel the same way as some. But they are a minority. If you ran a poll and also gave options about their home state you might understand where I'm coming from. And No I'm not starting another baiting poll or anything of that nature.
Not yet anyway.



reylamb .I agree100%

 

[Randy]

We have no right to try and dictate our preference of hunting on other states.....
We must not forget we are not in a meeting in some Goergia town. If we were then we could use such broad statements. We are on the world news paper where every statement made here is taken personal by some.

That is the very reason we should state our feelings about what is ethical and what is not. It begins in other states and becomes acceptable to other "hunters" then it rears it's ugly head in this state becaue it is accepted elswhere. What affects hunters in other states eventually affects all hunters!

I am in the building design business. Every code that I feel is "way off the mark" begins in liberal states like California and sweeps across the country gaining momentum as it becomes more accepted. This applies to gun laws, hunting regulations, and laws reguardig our society in general. We have to stand up and stop it no matter where in this country some crazy law or regulation begins.

 

[GeauxLSU]

PHIL point 2 is a choice.

Kansas,
I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were saying in #2 we had "no choice" when you said it is "out of my control" and I thought you were referencing this bill. NO PROPOSED LEGISLATION is "out of our control"!! That is a defeatist and dangerous attitude. Obviously we're talking about two different things so I'll quit editorializing now.
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil

 

[GeauxLSU]

That is the very reason we should state our feelings about what is ethical and what is not. It begins in other states and becomes acceptable to other "hunters" then it rears it's ugly head in this state becaue it is accepted elswhere. What affects hunters in other states eventually affects all hunters!

And you know what else? Note that hunters are VERY colloquial about their rights. As long as I can or can not do it here then that's what I'm "most" concerned about (human nature - the old "what's in it for me" thing). But you may also note that anti-hunters do NOT organize by state. PETA and their misguided masses attack ALL fronts. NOT paying attention to what's going on other states is like not paying attention to other divisions in a war. Next thing you know, your company is the last one standing and way out numbered!
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil

 

[GeauxLSU]

1) It could be, if the good intention is to minimize the bitter taste of the pill! Depends on one's perspective of good intentions!

2) Not just apathy, but also lack of empathy.

3) There are concrete rules. Better known as Laws and Regulations. Although, I recognize your point as probably being no concrete ethics to the way we pursue the game we hunt. With that I agree. Although, there is a generally accepted standard to which we can choose to recognize and practice or choose to ignore and forget.

1) Exactly.
2) Yep.
3) and the 'rules' of Fair Chase.

Hunt/fish safely,
Phil