South Carolina Hunting and Fishing Amendment, Amendment 1 (2010)

South Carolina Constitution
Preamble
Articles
I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • VIII-A • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • XIV • XV • XVI • XVII

The South Carolina Hunting and Fishing Amendment, also known as Amendment 1, was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in the state of South Carolina as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved.a The measure was proposed to allow residents in the state the right to hunt and fish. Although South Carolina residents did have this right, the measure was proposed in order to solidify that right, according to proponents.

Brian White, Michael Pitts, McLain Toole, Mark Willis, Liston Barfield, Alan Clemmons, Nelson Hardwick and George Hearn are the authors of the measure.

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

Official election results of the measure follow:

South Carolina Amendment 1 (Hunting and Fishing)
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		1,126,228	88.97%
No		139,668	11.03%

Official results via the South Carolina State Election Commission

Text of amendment

Official ballot title

The official ballot title that South Carolina voters saw read as follows:

Must Article I of the Constitution of this State, relating to the declaration of rights under the state's constitution, be amended by adding Section 25 so as to provide that hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife; to provide that the citizens of South Carolina shall have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly; and to specify that this section must not be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources?

Explanation:

A ‘Yes' vote will make it a constitutional right for citizens to hunt and fish and will permit the State to legally provide for proper wildlife management and the protection of private property rights.

Yes []

No []

Summary

The summary of the proposed amendment read:

A joint resolution to propose an amendment to Article I of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, relating to the declaration of rights under the state's constitution, by adding Section 25 so as to provide that hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife; to provide that the citizens of South Carolina shall have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally purued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly; and to specify that this section must not be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources.

Constitutional changes

The measure was proposed to amend Article I of the South Carolina Constitution by adding Section 25 to read as follows:

"The traditions of hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife. The citizens of this State have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly. Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources."

Background

See also: History of right to hunt and fish constitutional amendments

As of November 2024, 24 states had constitutional provisions providing for the right to hunt and fish. Vermont was the first state to constitutionalize such a right in 1777. The other 22 states have adopted right to hunt and fish amendments since 1996. The state constitutions of California and Rhode Island include amendments guaranteeing the right to fish, but not to hunt.

List

The following is a list of state ballot measures to adopt right to hunt and fish amendments:

State	Year	Type	Title	Description	Result	Yes Votes	No Votes
FL	2024	LRCA	Amendment 2	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt and fish	a	6,941,307 (67%)	3,365,987 (33%)
UT	2020	LRCA	Constitutional Amendment E	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt and to fish	a	1,063,212 (75%)	355,848 (25%)
NC	2018	LRCA	Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife	a	2,083,123 (57%)	1,563,090 (43%)
IN	2016	LRCA	Public Question 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods	a	1,893,467 (79%)	492,300 (21%)
KS	2016	LRCA	Constitutional Amendment 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods	a	926,970 (81%)	213,104 (19%)
TX	2015	LRCA	Proposition 6	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods	a	1,260,763 (81%)	294,973 (19%)
AL	2014	LRCA	Amendment 5	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including traditional methods	a	789,777 (80%)	199,483 (20%)
MS	2014	LRCA	HCR 30	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods	a	524,423 (88%)	71,683 (12%)
ID	2012	LRCA	HJR 2	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods	a	456,514 (73%)	165,289 (27%)
KY	2012	LRCA	Amendment	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife	a	1,298,340 (84%)	238,320 (16%)
NE	2012	LRCA	Amendment 2	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife	a	557,534 (77%)	169,250 (23%)
WY	2012	LRCA	Amendment B	Provide for a state constitutional right to harvest wild bird, fish, and game	a	212,561 (89%)	25,564 (11%)
AR	2010	LRCA	Amendment 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest wildlife	a	612,495 (83%)	127,444 (17%)
AZ	2010	LRCA	Proposition 109	Provide for state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife		714,144 (44%)	926,991 (56%)
SC	2010	LRCA	Amendment 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife	a	1,126,228 (89%)	139,668 (11%)
TN	2010	LRCA	Amendment	Provide for state constitutional right to hunt and fish	a	1,255,840 (87%)	181,465 (13%)
OK	2008	LRCA	State Question 742	Establish a constitutional right to hunt, trap, fish, and take game, granting authority to the Wildlife Conservation Commission.	a	1,082,341 (80%)	269,787 (20%)
GA	2006	LRCA	Amendment 2	Preserve the ability to fish and hunt in Georgia and ensure it is managed by law and regulation for the public good	a	1,626,226 (81%)	379,024 (19%)
LA	2004	LRCA	Question 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap	a	1,195,445 (81%)	279,926 (19%)
MT	2004	LRCA	C-41	Provide for a state constitutional right to harvest wild fish and game	a	345,505 (81%)	83,185 (19%)
WI	2003	LRCA	Question 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, trap, and take game	a	668,459 (82%)	146,182 (18%)
ND	2000	LRCA	Measure 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, trap, and take game	a	206,443 (77%)	61,531 (23%)
VA	2000	LRCA	Question 2	Provide for a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game	a	1,448,154 (60%)	970,266 (40%)
MN	1998	LRCA	Amendment 3	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and take game	a	1,570,720 (77%)	462,749 (23%)
AL	1996	LRCA	Amendment 1	Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt and fish	a	955,149 (81%)	218,350 (19%)

Map

The following map shows which states have constitutional rights to hunt and fish in their state constitutions:

Support

A turkey hunter in South Carolina. Photo credit: Low Country Hunting

Supporters

• The Wildlife Federation was a supporter of the measure. According to Cary Chamblee, who spoke on behalf of the organization, "It's important because all of the country, over the past 10-15 years, there have been challenges to hunting and fishing from animal rights groups, mostly, and this is kind of forward thinking...As a state grows and urbanizes, and fewer and fewer people as a percentage are hunting and fishing, we want to retain those rights."
• Bob Scott, chief executive officer of the South Carolina Forestry Association, claimed that state and national groups that opposed hunting could threaten the sport in the future. Scott commented on the groups, "They have very effective leaders, and they're adept at marketing their position perhaps better than some of the hunting and fishing organizations,"

Arguments

• According to resident Earl Kennamer, the measure was important towards the future of hunting. The measure, according to Kennamer,would ensure that hunting would not be make illegal: "Hunting is part of my life. It’s my touch to nature...I'm worried about having legislation passed by different entities that want to stop hunting. I’m worried they will one day get rid of hunting altogether."

Opposition

Opponents

• The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) were against the measure. According to organization spokesperson Ryan Huling, “We think there are so many better ways to enjoy nature than killing a piece of it. PETA as an organization exists to remind people that there’s really no difference in abusing cats and dogs to abusing deer and fish. These animals all feel pain in exactly the same way.”

Media endorsements

See also: Endorsements of South Carolina ballot measures, 2010

Support

• The Post and Courier was in favor of the measure, arguing, "Ten states have approved a constitutional right to hunt -- the first being Vermont in 1777. South Carolina should join that group with a "Yes" vote on constitutional Amendment 1 on Nov. 2. The amendment also would grant the same protected status to fishing."
• The Spartanburg Herald Journal urged voters to vote 'yes' on the measure, writing in an editorial, "While it is unlikely that state law would be changed to infringe on these rights, it is harder to predict what Congress might do. Having these rights enshrined in the state constitution might enhance the state's ability to fight federal action to restrict hunting and fishing."

Path to the ballot

The measure was first introduced to the South Carolina House of Representatives on February 10, 2009, where it was approved by the chamber with a vote of 106-1. The measure was then sent to the South Carolina State Senate, where the chamber approved the measure, after making amendments. The measure was then approved by the House and sent to the ballot. Section 1 of Article XVI of the South Carolina Constitution says that a legislatively referred amendment can go on the ballot if approved by a 2/3rds vote of each house of the South Carolina State Legislature. (If the state's voters approve the amendment, it must then go back to the legislature for a second affirmative vote.)

Similar measures

See also Certified 2010 hunting ballot measures

Similar measures that have been certified for the ballot in other states in 2010 include the following:

• An Arizona ballot question appeared before voters in the November 2, 2010 general election ballot that asked voters whether or not to allow a constitutional protection to the right to hunt in Arizona. The measure was pushed by Representative Jerry Weiers.

• Arkansas had a ballot question presented to voters in the November 2, 2010 general election ballot that was proposed to allow residents the right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest wildlife in the state. The measure was sponsored by Senator Steve Faris.

• Voters in Tennessee decided on November 2, 2010 whether or not to allow for the personal right to hunt and fish within state laws. Additionally, the amendment allowed for hunting and fishing of non-threatened species.

See also

Suggest a link

• South Carolina 2010 ballot measures
• South Carolina Legislature

External links

• South Carolina proposed constitutional amendments on the 2010 ballot
• South Carolina Election Voter Information
• State Ethics Commission Ballot Measure Campaign Disclosure Reports
• Understand constitutional ballot questions

Additional reading

• Four amendments to appear on November ballot (dead link)