Fact check: How Texas' Proposition 6 compares to other right to hunt laws in the U.S.
October 16, 2015
By Charles Aull
Is Texas' Proposition 6, a ballot measure guaranteeing Texans the right to hunt and fish, similar to laws in 18 other states guaranteeing these same rights?
Proponents of the measure say that it is.
We argue that that's mostly true, but these similarities become more complicated once you dive into the details. Proposition 6 does indeed share several characteristics with right to hunt and fish laws in 18 other states, yet it also contains a controversial clause related to wildlife management that sets it apart from 11 of them.
Background
Proposition 6 is a ballot measure that will be up for a vote in Texas on November 3, 2015. It is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, meaning that the state legislature voted to include it on the ballot and, if Texans approve it, the measure will amend the state constitution.
So what does it do?
The measure guarantees Texans "the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing."
It mandates "Hunting and fishing are preferred methods of managing and controlling wildlife."
Proposition 6 "does not affect any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain," nor does it "affect the power of the legislature to authorize a municipality to regulate the discharge of a weapon in a populated area in the interest of public safety."
State Senator Brandon Creighton (R) authored and introduced the amendment. A total of four legislators—out of 142—voted against it.
| Texas SJR 22 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chamber | Yeas | Nays | ||
| House | 27 | 3 | ||
| Senate | 111 | 1 | ||
| Sources: Texas Legislature Online, "SJR 22." | ||||
The amendment's language is based on a model amendment crafted by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a second amendment and firearms advocacy group. Creighton stated in April, "With recent lawsuits across the country successfully denying citizens certain hunting rights, our Texas heritage is threatened and needs protection. Our state has an obligation to take a strong stand on this issue."
Right to hunt and fish Laws
Supporters of the amendment have argued that passage of Proposition 7 would allow Texas to join 18 other states with similar laws already on the books.
For example, Alice Tripp, the legislative director of the Texas State Rifle Association, stated in January, "The goal is to create meaningful language and to join 18 other states which have passed similar constitutional protections."
Creighton himself has noted in press releases that 18 other states have passed "similar versions" of the amendment, and several local and national media outlets have echoed him.
Barring a few legal technicalities and depending on who you ask, there are actually about 20 or 21 states with right to hunt and fish laws. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearms industry trade group, includes a list that features 18 states with constitutional amendments guaranteeing the right to hunt and fish and two states—Florida and New Hampshire—with state statutes. The oldest of these laws comes from Vermont. It was passed in 1777. The others date back to no earlier than 1996, and most date to the twenty-first century.
The list also includes California and Rhode Island, which have laws on the right to fish but not the right to hunt. Douglas Shinkle at the National Conference of State Legislatures, a nonpartisan think tank and information center for state legislatures, notes that some read Alaska's constitution as guaranteeing a right to hunt and fish.
How does Proposition 6 compare to other right to hunt and fish laws?
As its supporters have argued, Proposition 6 has a great deal in common with these pre-existing laws.
Like all of them, for instance, it includes straightforward language guaranteeing "the right to hunt and fish." Also like the other laws, it includes language clarifying that it does not modify pre-existing legislation on private property rights. A third common characteristic is language aligning the amendment with pre-existing state regulations on hunting and fishing: "The people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife [...] subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing," reads the Texas amendment. Most other right to hunt and fish laws contain comparable, or in some cases identical, language.
But there is a key difference between Proposition 6 and a number of these other laws.
Proposition 6 includes a clause mandating that "[h]unting and fishing are preferred methods of managing and controlling wildlife." Seven states have laws with language similar to this. Eleven (or 14, if one includes Alaska, Florida and New Hampshire) do not.
| States with the "preferred method" clause | States without the "preferred method" clause |
|---|---|
|
|
What exactly does the "preferred method" clause mean?
Some argue that hunting should be a "preferred" means of wildlife management, meaning that hunting should be used for problems such as wildlife overpopulation instead of methods like sterilization and relocation. For example, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, an organization that promotes "hunting, angling, recreational shooting and trapping" at the state and federal levels, argues that "[a]lternative methods to hunting for population control, such as sterilization and contraception, are costly and to date have not been proven effective for managing free ranging populations. Hunting continues to be the most effective, cost efficient and socially acceptable method of population control. As such, hunting should be codified as the preferred wildlife management tool for the states." Darren LaSorte of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action made a similar argument in a 2008 article on right to hunt and fish laws in which he stated that wildlife management methods such "contraception schemes and the hiring of taxpayer-funded sharpshooters" are "expensive and unproven" and that they fail "to do what hunters have done well for generations."
But not all agree on the efficacy of hunting as a "preferred" wildlife management tool. Stacey Gordon, an associate professor of law at the University of Montana, summed up the arguments against hunting as a "preferred method" in a 2014 paper critiquing the NRA's model amendment for right to hunt and fish laws. She states that legislation establishing hunting as a "preferred" tool for wildlife management "takes decision-making power out of the hands of professionals with scientific knowledge" and that it "violates a well-established tenet [...] that wildlife professionals should make wildlife management decisions." Gordon also says that such laws "may create conflict with other land uses" and, in the context of managing urban deer populations, that "hunting is not always preferred or even possible."
We make no comment on the merits of either side of the debate surrounding hunting as a method of wildlife management, but we do point out that the inclusion of this clause in Texas' Proposition 6 marks a difference between it and over 50 percent of other currently existing right to hunt and fish laws.
Conclusion
Supporters of Proposition 6 and media outlets have stated that the proposed amendment is similar to laws in 18 other states. We found that to be a predominantly accurate statement, but Proposition 6's "preferred method" clause is a key difference that separates it from a number of other right to hunt and fish laws. We noted that some find this clause controversial and that only seven of 18 states include it in the text of their laws.
Launched in October 2015 and active through October 2018, Fact Check by Ballotpedia examined claims made by elected officials, political appointees, and political candidates at the federal, state, and local levels. We evaluated claims made by politicians of all backgrounds and affiliations, subjecting them to the same objective and neutral examination process. As of 2026, Ballotpedia staff periodically review these articles to revaluate and reaffirm our conclusions. Please email us with questions, comments, or concerns about these articles. To learn more about fact-checking, click here.
Sources
Texas Legislature Online, "S.J.R. No. 22," accessed October 15, 2015
Breitbart.com, "Texas Legislators Looking to Protect the 'Right to Hunt and Fish'," January 22, 2015
Houston Chronicle, "State constitutional amendments get their places on the ballot," June 17, 2015
NRA-ILA, "Right to Hunt," September 16, 2008
Congressional Sportmen's Foundation, "Right to Hunt, Fish and Trap," accessed October 15, 2015
Contact
More from Fact Check by Ballotpedia
 October 14, 2015 |
 October 14, 2015 |
 October 9, 2015 |
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter
