Kentucky Hunting and Fishing Amendment, House Bill 1 (2012)

House Bill 1
Type	Constitutional amendment
Origin	Kentucky State Legislature
Topic	Hunting
Status	a

The Kentucky Hunting and Fishing Question, also known as House Bill 1, was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot in the state of Kentucky, where it was approved.

The measure protected the right of residents to hunt and fish in the state. It was sponsored by Representatives Leslie Combs and Greg Stumbo. The measure was proposed in order to mandate that hunting and fishing should never be outlawed in the state without the vote of the people.

The measure was introduced in Kentucky's 2011 legislative session. According to Stumbo: "That's a big step I think in the right direction to help not only this generation of sportsmen, but the next. We have a wonderful heritage of sports in this state. Kentucky was and still is the happy hunting ground."

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results

The following are official election results:

Kentucky House Bill 1 (2012)
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		1,298,340	85%
No		238,320	15%

Results via the Kentucky Secretary of State.

Text of measure

Summary

The summary of the bill read:

An Act proposing to amend the Constitution of Kentucky relating to hunting, fishing, and harvesting wildlife.

Ballot Language

The following was ballot language that voters saw on the ballot:

“

Are you in favor of amending the Kentucky Constitution to state that the citizens of Kentucky have the personal right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject to laws and regulations that promote conservation and preserve the future of hunting and fishing, and to state that public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildife? Yes No

”

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

• Bill Haycraft, president of the League of Kentucky Sportsmen, commented on animal rights groups and the possibility of those groups lobbying for making hunting illegal at the time, "They have lots of money. They're highly educated. And if they can swing it with the legislatures, they will do it."
• According to House Speaker Greg Stumbo, "The real meat of this amendment to me is that it guarantees that the wildlife herds and our fishery population will be controlled by wildlife management."
• Nick Shack, hunter and state resident, stated, "I take a lot of pride in [hunting]. It gets me outside. It connects me with the past and the traditions of being outside hunting. It is camaraderie. I take a lot of hunting trips with friends. When I grew up, everyone deer hunted. It was a common thing, something we looked forward to every year."

Opposition

• Although he did not give his position either for or against the measure, Don Dugi, a political scientist at Transylvania University in Lexington stated, "There is no threat that this amendment would remedy. This is occurring in a number of states, and it's sponsored by groups like the NRA to solidify their political position. It could be that, by making this a guarantee, they're hoping to get some tenuous protection against gun control, if anyone were ever to attempt that here."
• According to Evansville Courier-Press columnist John Lucas, "Adding an amendment to the constitution won't bring back the good ol' days. If we Kentuckians really want to protect hunting, we would encourage the state as some others do to pay landowners to preserve habitat and allow access. We would also demand the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources manage its recreation areas to provide a variety of opportunities rather than catering to the deer hunting crowd. I'm going to vote no on the amendment, but it really doesn't matter one way or another. A paragraph in the constitution won't bring back the quail and rabbits or the fencerows, branch rows and meadows that sustained them. We would do just as well to add a lament for the buffalo."

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Kentucky Constitution

On February 8, 2011, the Elections, Constitutional Amendments and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee voted to approve the measure, passing the amendment to the Kentucky House of Representatives for full debate and vote. The measure was then approved by the House, sending the measure to the Kentucky State Senate for a similar vote. Then, on March 1, 2011, the Senate State and Local Government Committee voted to approve the measure with a unanimous vote, placing the measure for a full chamber debate and vote. On March 4, 2011, the measure was approved and appeared on the statewide ballot in 2012.

60% of the membership of each chamber of the Kentucky General Assembly must approve of a proposed amendment in order for it to appear on the next general election during which members of the state legislature are up for election.

Timeline

The following is a timeline of events surrounding the measure:

Event	Date	Developments
Vote	Feb. 11, 2011	Kentucky House of Representatives approve the measure.
Vote	Mar. 4, 2011	Kentucky State Senate approves measure, sending it to the ballot.

See also

Suggest a link

• Kentucky 2012 ballot measures
• Kentucky House of Representatives
• 2012 ballot measures

Articles

• Right to hunt and fish being discussed in Kentucky
• Hunting amendment snags place on 2012 ballot in Kentucky

External links

• League of Kentucky Sportsmen official website