NC constitutional amendment: Are the rights of North Carolina hunters and anglers at risk?

Karen Chávez | The Citizen-Times

ASHEVILLE – Is it all a lure, a trap?

To use fishing and hunting terms, some suggest that one of the six North Carolina constitutional amendments on the ballot this fall, the “Right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife,” is simply meant to reel in a certain voting demographic, while supporters of the amendment say it’s needed to protect a vital piece of mountain heritage.

The proposed amendment would upgrade the centuries-old tradition from a privilege, such as driving a car, to a constitutional right, such as free speech.

It would prohibit restrictions on hunting and fishing except for laws or rules to "promote wildlife conservation and management ... and preserve the future of hunting and fishing," according to the text of the amendment.

But for Rep. Susan Fisher, D-Buncombe, who voted against placing the amendment on the ballot, the idea doesn’t hold water.

“It is really a blatant partisan use of the constitution to draw out a particular voting populace. When you give people the idea that something is threatened, like hunting and fishing, and if we don’t make it an amendment, it’s going to go away, that’s just foolishness. It’s not true,” Fisher said.

“Why are we using the state constitution to tack on all of these things out of a sense of fear that they might be threatened?” she said. “When has hunting and fishing ever been threatened? When have women’s rights been threatened lately? How about every day. But we still don’t have an equal rights amendment.”

RELATED: What is the leading cause of NC hunting accidents?

Rep. Chuck McGrady, R-Henderson, said although he voted to place the right to hunt and fish on the ballot, he’s ambivalent about actually seeing the amendment pass.

“The last time I looked around, I don’t believe hunting and fishing were really being threatened by anything, so why do you need it in the constitution?” he said.

“My advice is if hunting and fishing are really important to you, so important that you feel it should be in the state constitution, then you ought to vote for it. I’ve indicated I’m still undecided whether I’ll vote for it or not.”

Hunting and fishing a right or a privilege?

Rep. Brian Turner, D-Buncombe, disagrees with his colleagues that the amendment is politically motivated. He voted to place the question on the ballot.

“I’m a Democrat. I hunt, I fish and I have lifetime hunting and fishing licenses,” Turner said. “This would get me to come out and vote.”

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, which oversees all hunting, fishing and trapping rules on more than 2 million acres across the state, has not taken an official position on the amendment.

However, said Fairley W. Mahlum, commission communications director, “The language in the amendment aligns with our strategic plan and the N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission’s mission. It would secure and protect the opportunities that allow hunters, anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts to enjoy wildlife-associated recreation in perpetuity.”

If passed, the amendment wouldn’t change or prevent local ordinances that are more restrictive than state ones, she said.

Sportsmans’ groups say the amendment is needed to protect hunting and fishing as an enshrined right, and to reverse a downward trend in hunting and fishing.

David Whitmire, president of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council, a hunting and fishing advocacy organization based in Transylvania County, said he supports the amendment, even though he doesn’t see any imminent threats to hunting and fishing access.

“My hunting license is a privilege, it’s not a right. There’s a distinct difference,” said Whitmire, who also owns Headwaters Outfitters in Rosman. “When you take it to a right, it has a lot more teeth. It takes a constitutional amendment to change that. I don’t see a downfall to it. I see it as another layer of protection to hunting.”

He also said he doesn’t believe the amendment is being used to drive out more of a Republican base or to get people to vote for other amendments, which include crime victims’ rights, a cap on income tax, the filling of judicial vacancies, voter ID requirements and elections board changes.

“I hope people think that sportsmen and other voters are smarter than that. I hope voters are looking at each individual amendment and not as a whole,” Whitmire said.

Hunting and fishing truly threatened?

Among legislators who voted for and against placing the amendment on the ballot, consensus seems to find no imminent threat to the sports.

“I don’t see any direct threats at this time,” Turner said.” It provides an opportunity to elevate the profile and the importance of these traditional outdoor activities in a way we haven’t seen before.”

Rep. John Ager, D-Buncombe, a farmer from Fairview, also voted to put the amendment on the ballot, but acknowledged it’s a possible “ploy.”

“We’re a farm family that hunts and fishes as are many of my constituents and I want to support them,” Ager said.

“I support the concept. I’m not sure it belongs in the constitution, but I think its basic intent is to get voters out. I’m probably going to vote for it, with reservations,” he said.

While overall numbers of people who hunt across the country has declined over the past decade, fishing is on the rise nationwide, and fishing and hunting license sales have been steadily increasing in North Carolina.

The cumulative lifetime license and annual sales numbers for inland fishing increased about 37 percent from the 2007-08 season from 839,139 licenses to 1.1 million in the 2016-17 season, according to the NCWRC.

There has been a similar increase in hunting license sales, which have increased about 36 percent over the past decade, from 469,589 to 636,927 during the last hunting season.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the number of hunters across the country has dropped 8 percent in the last decade, from 12.5 million in 2006 to 11.5 million in 2016. But at the same time, the number of people casting a fishing line has increased nearly 20 percent from 30 million in 2006 to 35.8 million in 2016.

Hunting and fishing opportunities have also been expanding. Legislation passed last year in North Carolina allows Sunday hunting – banned for more than 100 years – on private property with guns, along with archery equipment.

Two new hunting grounds were also recently opened to the public – the William H. Silver Game Land in Haywood County, and Headwaters State Forest in Transylvania County.

RELATED: NC Sunday hunting laws loosened on private and public lands

RELATED: Headwaters is NC’s newest state forest

RELATED: Elk get more room to roam with new Maggie Valley state game land

Chris Coxen, North Carolina district biologist with the National Wild Turkey Federation, said that while he does not see any imminent threats to hunting in North Carolina, he supports the amendment, “as a proactive measure that recognizes the importance of hunting and fishing in wildlife management and conservation, and provides additional protections when hunting or fishing are challenged at the ballot in the future.”

This lack of threat to the hunting and fishing public has frustrated Sen. Terry Van Duyn, D-Buncombe, who said she has tried repeatedly to find a suitable reason for altering the constitution.

“I asked that question multiple times in multiple committees and never got a serious answer. The bill sponsor could not answer that question,” Van Duyn said. “In my mind the constitution is a pretty sacred document. Not that you can’t change it, but not without a good reason to change it.”

Calls to the bill’s primary sponsors, Sen. Danny Britt, Jr., R-Columbus, Tom McInnis, R-Richmond, and Sen. Norman Sanderson, R-Pamlico, were not returned as of Tuesday afternoon.

“It is pretty clear that the amendment won’t actually do anything. If we don’t know what it will do and we don’t know why we’re doing it, are we opening the door to some lawsuit that we haven’t anticipated?” Van Duyn said.

For instance, she said people might be able to sue to hunt anywhere they want, if they are given a “right” to hunt and fish.

RELATED: Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests Plan release hits delay

RELATED: WNC to add WNC to add outdoor jobs, $10 million to local economy

The North Carolina amendment seems to be following a trend. Vermont was the first state to pass such an amendment, in 1777.

More recently, 21 other states that have passed constitutional amendments bestowing the right to hunt and fish, including neighboring states Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

A similar North Carolina bill was introduced in 2016 but never made it out of the Senate committee for rules and operations.

Recent amendments also seem to be following a National Rifle Association initiative advocating for such constitutional rights. The NRA provides model language for right to hunt and fish amendments that is almost verbatim in North Carolina’s proposed amendment.

Brad Stanback, the Wildlife Resources Commissioner for District 9, which represents Western North Carolina from Buncombe County west to the Tennessee border, does not feel the amendment would do anything to protect hunting and fishing.

What he sees as a threat is ever-encroaching development into rural and forested areas, which squeezes out wildlife from their traditional habitat, which in turn decreases the amount of land for hunting and fishing.

“If the legislature were really concerned about the ability of North Carolinians to hunt and fish, they would restore full funding to the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and other state funds that provide for the acquisition of more public land for people to use for hunting and fishing, among many other uses,” Stanback said.

A philanthropist who lives in Canton, Stanback and his parents, Fred and Alice Stanback of Salisbury, have donated millions of dollars to land conservation in the mountains, including to the Silver Game Land and Headwaters projects.

“I think the amendment is politically motivated. It was mostly a ‘don’t take our guns away’ sort of message to voters to give them an incentive to turn out to vote in a midterm election,” Stanback said.

“I support hunting and fishing by traditional means, but we don’t need a constitutional amendment for that."