NRA's ready to "take it to the mat"
by Richard Simms
posted May 8, 2007
Should hunting and fishing be a right guaranteed by Tennessee's constitution?
It is a question that is scheduled to make it's way to the Tennessee House Conservation Committee Wednesday.
Sportsmen want to amend Tennessee's constitution to guarantee the "right" to hunt and fish. Some sportsmen say it is necessary to protect their institution from animal-rights activists.
At least ten other states have already passed similar measures. Butler has worked for more than two years toward such a measure and says it is time to add Tennessee to that list.
Parting Ways
However that is where LaSorte and Butler part ways.
"Today the question is no longer should we pass a constitutional amendment establishing a right to hunt and fish," said Butler. "But rather, constructing the amendment wisely and in a manner that doesn't weaken our sporting heritage."
That's why the debate over a constitutional amendment to protect hunting & fishing is expected to get messy. Butler and LaSorte disagree on how such an amendment should be worded. That disagreement actually halted the bill's probable passage in the last legislative session.
LaSorte said, " The language that (TWF) is advocating, in my opinion, accomplishes very little."
Opponents of the NRA-backed proposal however said their language unfairly places the burden of proof on the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency to justify hunting and fishing regulations, potentially transferring the management of Tennessee's wildlife from the legislative arena to the judicial arena.
Right now if someone, hunter or anti-hunter, sues TWRA over a hunting regulation, the person or group suing has the burden to prove why the regulation is inappropriate. Butler says that under the previous NRA version of the constitutional amendment, the roles would be reversed and TWRA would have the burden of proving why the regulation is acceptable. He says such a posture would invite lawsuits, especially from the anti-hunting community, that could cost millions of sportsmen dollars.
Nat Johnson, newly-appointed Assistant Director for TWRA said, "we would have to defend our ability to do everything we do. Why should TWRA be held to a different standard of proof than any other agency in state government?"
LaSorte however insists that the NRA's motives are sound.
"What we want is language that says you have a right pursuant to state law, but specifically, traditional means, methods and species are protected. That way they can't, as an Agency, simply ban hunting with dogs for instance, because it is politically unpopular," said LaSorte. "They would have to have a biological reason to do that. I don't want them to have that ability for political reasons."
TWRA Officially "Neutral"
TWRA is officially "neutral" on the issue but Agency personnel make it very clear they are not happy with the NRA's version. They got support during the last debate from Tennessee Attorney General Paul Summers who wrote, "It is the Opinion of this office that the proposed language offered by the NRA presents a number of potential concerns, among them the conflict with federal law governing the taking of endangered species. The proposed language could also impact the continued ability of (TWRA) to regulate hunting and fishing effectively."
The NRA isn't concerned
LaSorte said that South Carolina and Arkansas are also expected to take up the issue this year and the NRA has adopted similar positions in those states. He says the NRA is prepared to take it to the mat.
"Absolutely, I think we have to for the best interest of hunters," he said.
Hunters Apathetic
Many hunters however are apathetic on the issue. Charles Davis, an avid Chattanooga hunter said, "it probably wouldn't hurt anything but I'm not sure it's necessary."
The power of the NRA in the political arena is no secret. In lobbying circles the group is often referred to as "the 500-pound gorilla."
"I think it's a positive reference," said LaSorte. "It means that we are a very, very significant player in the political world and I think what we do is right."
Any constitutional amendment must pass in two consecutive legislative sessions and then go to a public vote, a very lengthy process.
That's why people on both sides of the debate say, "we've only got one shot at this so it needs to be done right."
It just seems that so far, neither side can agree on the definition of "right."
Editor's Note: The interview with Darren LaSorte was conducted last October at a Southeastern Outdoor Writers' Conference. More recently NRA representatives have not returned calls from Chattanoogan.com Outdoors
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |