Nevada Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment (2018)

Nevada Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Hunting and fishing
Status Not on the ballot
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of Nevada measuresNevada Question 1Nevada Question 2Nevada Question 3Nevada Question 4Nevada Question 5Nevada Question 6Submit

The Nevada Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment was not on the ballot in Nevada as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.

The measure would have established a constitutional right to hunt, trap, and fish in Nevada.

The proposal was approved in the Nevada Legislature as Senate Joint Resolution 11 in 2015. The amendment needed to be approved one more time in each legislative chamber during the 2017 legislative session to appear on the ballot. However, neither chamber acted on the amendment before the deadline to do so passed.

Text of measure

Constitutional changes

See also: Article 1, Nevada Constitution

The measure would have added a Section 23 to Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution. The following text would have been added:

Sec. 23. 1. The right to hunt, trap and fish, including by the use of any traditional method, shall be preserved for the residents of this State and managed through statutes and regulations which preserve that right and which promote the conservation and management of wildlife. Hunting, trapping and fishing of wildlife by members of the public is an important part of the heritage of this State and shall remain an integral component of the management of wildlife in this State.

2. This section does not:

(a) Create a right to trespass on private property;

(b) Affect any right to divert, appropriate or use water or establish any minimum amount of water in any body of water;

(c) Diminish any other private right;

(d) Diminish the authority of a local government to regulate the use of real property owned, occupied or leased by the local government; or

(e) Prohibit the enactment or enforcement of any statute or regulation requiring a person to obtain a hunting, trapping or fishing license or requiring the suspension or revocation of a person’s hunting, trapping or fishing license.

Support

Supporters

Officials

• Sen. Scott Hammond (R-18)
• Sen. Pete Goicoechea (R-19)
• Sen. Don Gustavson (R-14)
• Sen. James Settelmeyer (R-17)

Organizations

• Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association
• Nevada Trappers Association
• Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, Inc.
• Southern Nevada Coalition for Wildlife
• Independent American Party of Nevada

Arguments

Nevada Sen. Scott Hammond (R-18), one of the sponsors of the amendment in the legislature, said:

“

[Wildlife recreation] provides an economic boost to our State and offers those who participate in it a unique connection to the land. It gives us a true appreciation and respect for wildlife. Sportfishing and hunting activities contribute significant amounts of money, even millions of dollars, in retail sales to our State’s economy. These contributions are made through local and State tax revenues. Nationwide, state wildlife agencies could not survive without the financial contributions of hunters, trappers and fishers. They provide the majority of revenue for these agencies. Wildlife recreation goes beyond simple economics. It promotes healthy lifestyles though exercise, relaxation and camaraderie between those who participate in it. Most hunting and fishing organizations tend to be altruistic. They promote community-fundraising events, field days and outdoor education. Wildlife recreation offers opportunity to interact with nature and provides a deep spiritual connection between the people and the land; the wildlife and our planet. … Hunting, trapping and fishing have been an integral part of the human experience for generations. Amending the Nevada Constitution to protect these activities will guarantee that future generations will enjoy the outdoors and continue to support our State’s economy.

”

Other arguments in support of the amendment included:

• Larry Johnson, President of the Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, Inc., stated, "We feel an intense need for this constitutional amendment since our culture, heritage, and outdoor way of life has been under continual attack for many years now, from the administrative side, the judicial side, and the legislative side."

Opposition

Opponents

• Nevadans for Responsible Wildlife Management
• Canine Rehabilitation Center and Sanctuary
• American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
• Best Friends Animal Society
• Nevada Humane Society
• Nevada Political Action for Animals
• Northern Nevada Society for the
• Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
• Tahoe Humane Society and Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
• Pet Network of Lake Tahoe
• Wylie Animal Rescue Foundation
• Fallon Animal Welfare
• Nevada Humane Society of Carson City
• Hidden Valley Horse Rescue
• Compassion Charity for Animals:

Arguments

• Trish Swain, Director of TrailSafe Nevada, stated, "I have heard a lot of references to culture and religion. I also have culture and religion. My culture and religion most definitely talk about kindness to those who are helpless, along with noncruelty and preservation of animals. I feel my culture and religion are being attacked constantly, just as the other side has mentioned."
• Margaret Flint, representing Nevadans for Responsible Wildlife Management and Canine Rehabilitation Center and Sanctuary, said, "What gives them any more right than I have to be able to go outside to recreate safely and know that I am safe and not have to worry? Why are their rights more important than the rest of us who want to be outdoors?"
• Caron Tayloe, Board Member of the League of Humane Voters, said, "Section 23, subsection 1, references trapping as an integral component of the management of wildlife in this state. It is certainly not the preferred component. We believe biology and the folks in that area would be the preferred method of management."

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:

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Nevada Constitution

In Nevada, a majority vote is required in two successive sessions of the Nevada State Legislature to place an amendment on the ballot.

2015 legislative session

The amendment was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 11 (SJR 11). On, April 8, 2015, the Nevada Senate approved SJR 11, with 16 senators voting "yea" and 5 voting "nay." The Nevada State Assembly approved SJR 11 on May 4, 2015, with 32 representatives voting "yea" and 10 voting "nay." On May 7, 2016, the first approval of SJR 11 was enrolled with the Nevada Secretary of State.

Senate vote

April 8, 2015

Nevada SJR 11 Senate Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		16	76.19%
No		5	23.81%

House vote

May 4, 2015

Nevada SJR 11 House Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		32	76.20%
No		10	23.80%

2017 legislative session

Senate Joint Resolution 11 (SJR 11) received no action in the legislature during the 2017 legislative session. On April 15, 2017, the deadline passed for bills to be out of committee in at least one chamber of the legislature.

SJR 11 was sponsored by Republican members of the Senate. Both chambers of the legislature were controlled by Republicans in 2015. Democrats took control of the Assembly and Senate in 2017, following their state legislative wins in the 2016 election.

See also

Suggest a link

• Nevada 2018 ballot measures
• 2018 ballot measures
• Nevada Legislature

External links

• Senate Joint Resolution 11