Idahoans Against Trapping

04/13/2015

“There are a lot of people who should be angry about this lion caught in a wolf trap . . . Trappers should be mad because it makes them look bad. Outfitters should be thoroughly angry because they get $5,000 a pop from their clients to kill one and now there’s one less to hunt. The fact that it’s not counted toward the quota should make local houndsmen angry, too. Everyone involved should be upset."

HAMILTON – A mountain lion paw found torn off in a wolf trap has a former houndsman from Darby asking for change in the way the state manages the predator.

12/11/2012

Good news.

Montana wildlife commissioners have closed some areas outside Yellowstone National Park to wolf hunting and trapping after several collared animals used for scientific research were shot in recent weeks.

11/02/2012

Idaho Falls Post Register
November 1, 2012

HJR 2: A solution in search of a problem

Advocates of House Joint Resolution 2, which would provide hunting, fishing and trapping the same constitutional protections enjoyed by speech, religion and gun ownership, want Idahoans to believe the bogeyman is lurking around the corner: animal rights activists with extreme agendas. Before long, they warn, your right to harvest a buck or pull a trout from the river could disappear in a haze of litigation and regulations.

If that sounds incredible that's because, well, it is. There is no threat to hunting or fishing in Idaho. None. Sportsmen have been protected by Idaho law for more than 70 years. Public support is almost absolute. A Fish & Game survey last year indicated 90 percent of Idahoans support hunting and 97 percent support fishing. Trapping is less popular but nobody in Idaho is talking about a ban. The only thing to fear here are the unintended consequences of signing off on cookie-cutter, special-interest legislation that is more deserving of indignation than enshrinement in our state's guiding document.

Why should Idahoans vote no on HJR 2 Tuesday?

Let us count the ways:

(1) Idaho is one of four states with a hunting and fishing constitutional amendment on the ballot this year. Thirteen states have enacted something similar, the vast majority after the National Rifle Association began ratcheting up the fear. These debates are good for the NRA. They drive membership, raise money and provide a litmus test for lawmakers. As we saw in Idaho, legislators in an election year will inevitably choose the path of least resistance rather than butt heads with the NRA.

(2) The amendment on our ballot declares hunting, fishing and trapping to be "the preferred means of managing wildlife." The Legislature retrains control over fish and game laws. And Fish and Game retains the right to revoke licenses. But what happens when a Rex Rammell is ticketed for illegally shooting an elk? Can you license a constitutional right? If one judge says "no," wildlife management could be threatened.

(3) Amending the constitution is serious business. What is being proposed in HJR 2 is the alteration of a document that guarantees basic rights that affect all citizens to benefit a special-interest group. Hunting, fishing and trapping are activities that should be regulated based on science and public opinion. That requires the kind of flexibility HJR 2 threatens.

Idahoans overwhelmingly support the right to hunt, fish and trap. That's not going to change no matter what happens with HJR 2.

By voting no on HJR 2, however, Idahoans would be doing the best kind of public service, by rejecting a powerful and influential special interest group's decision to play upon our worst fears to suit its own selfish purposes.

11/02/2012

Idaho Statesman, Our View
November 2, 2012

Constitutional amendments: A feel-good proposal fraught with peril

Hunting, fishing and trapping are not under serious threat in Idaho — certainly not a threat that rises to a constitutional crisis.

For that reason alone, voters can comfortably reject House Joint Resolution 2, or HJR 2. There’s no need to clutter the Idaho Constitution with an all-new and unneeded amendment, even one that has a seemingly noncontroversial aim: to uphold the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers.

And here’s another compelling reason to vote no on Nov. 6. Beyond the frilly verbiage about preserving “a valued part of the heritage of the state of Idaho,” this new section opens up test cases in waiting:

• The amendment says hunting, fishing and trapping rights “shall forever be preserved.” Meaning what? Preserved, to the exclusion of any restrictions imposed by the Legislature (which approved this language on a bipartisan basis, with only seven dissenting votes) or the Fish and Game Commission (which endorses the amendment)?

• The amendment says hunting, fishing and trapping “shall be a preferred means” of wildlife management. Preferred, as to what? Does one constitutional preference affect the use of other management approaches?

• According to a clause that carries water for the Idaho Water Users Association, this amendment “shall not affect rights to divert, appropriate and use water, or establish any minimum amount of water in any water body.” Attorney General Lawrence Wasden’s office says this language would not prevent the Legislature from establishing a minimum streamflow for wildlife. Maybe. Then again, this language would provide fodder for a group seeking to overturn a minimum streamflow designation.

This could just as easily be called a “right to litigate” amendment. Speaking of durable rights needing no protection from the Constitution.

11/02/2012

One last article. And there have been a lot of great letters to the editor lately - a few posted in the comments below.

BOISE – Idaho has a measure on the November ballot to enshrine a right to hunt, fish and trap in the state constitution – a proposal that likely would generate virtually no opposition in the outdoorsy state but for the inclusion of trapping. Thirteen other states have passed right-to-hunt-and-fish a...

10/29/2012

Front page coverage in yesterday's Statesman. "[Trapping's] future ought to be open for debate, not placed off-limits from scrutiny, Moore argued."

Twin Falls Republican Sen. Lee Heider led a successful effort to place the right to hunt, fish and trap on the ballot in November. And the Fish and Game Commission is endorsing it.

10/28/2012

“There’s a heck of a lot of daylight between existing stream flow policy or legislation and a constitutional prohibition,” said Huffaker. “I see no valid reason to amend the constitution. We opposed similar attempts for 10 years and now they have inserted the water language which is certainly not good news for fish.”

The Boise Guardian reports today that retired Idaho Fish & Game Director Steve Huffaker has come out against HJR2aa, the right to hunt, fish and trap constitutional amendment on the November ballot, and raised questions about the inclusion of a clause about water rights, which was among various ...

10/26/2012

Keep trapping out of our Constitution! Check out and share the No on HJR 2 ad.

Vimeo is the home for high-quality videos and the people who love them.

10/26/2012

Here is the Times-News's great editorial against HJR 2 from this summer.

We have to wonder about the need for a constitutional amendment protecting hunting, fishing and trapping. By the amendment author’s own admission, Idahoans have been practicing these sports for a very long time.

10/25/2012

Here's another video- a constitutional law professor explains why it's a bad idea to amend the constitution for special interests like trapping.

Vimeo is the home for high-quality videos and the people who love them.

09/30/2012

Vote NO on HJR 2 in November to keep your pets safe from cruel traps!

09/30/2012