Tennessee Hunting Rights Amendment (2010)

Tennessee Constitution
Preamble
Articles
I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • Schedule

Tennessee Hunting Rights Amendment was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in the state of Tennessee as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment where it was approved.

The proposed measure called for the personal right to hunt and fish within state laws and existing property rights. Additionally, the amendment allowed for hunting and fishing of non-threatened species. According to Senator Doug Jackson, he had been trying to place the measure on the ballot since the 1990s.

Aftermath

TCFA and TRFA vs. TWRC

The Tennessee Commercial Fishermen’s Association (TCFA) and Tennessee Roe Fishermen’s Association (TRFA) challenged the state's Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission (TWRC) in court over restrictions on catching paddlefish. The TWRC limits paddlefish harvesting in some areas and bans harvesting in other areas. American Paddlefish are considered a vulnerable species in Tennessee, where commercial fishers catch them for their valuable meat and eggs. Their eggs are used to make caviar.

On May 14, 2015, Judge Russell T. Perkins of the Davidson County Chancery Court ruled against the TCFA and TRFA. He cited Tennessee's right to hunt and fish amendment in his decision, arguing that the amendment allows "reasonable regulations and restrictions" and does not "limit the state’s power to regulate commercial activity." Judge Perkins also noted that restrictions of paddlefish harvesting were implemented before voters approved the amendment in 2010. The judge concluded that:

“	Contrary to plaintiffs’ assertion, the language of this amendment does not appear to limit any right the state had to regulate commercial activity before the amendment passed nor does it indicate that it should be interposed to retroactively set aside previously adopted wildlife regulations. This provision does not, in itself, restrict the state’s right to regulate commercial fishing and does not turn the personal right to fish using traditional methods ‘to take non-threatened species’ into a limit on the state’s power to regulate commercial fishing.	”
—Judge Russell T. Perkins

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

In order to be approved in November, the measure had to receive more "yes" votes than "no." Additionally, the "yes" votes must be a majority of votes cast in the gubernatorial election - 1,010,302. All the votes for candidates for governor were added together and divided by two - 505,151. Since the votes supersede that minimum requirement, the measure was considered approved and the Constitution was amended as stipulated by the measure.

Tennessee Hunting Rights Amendment
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		1,255,840	87.38%
No		181,465	12.62%

Source: Tennessee Secretary of State (dead link)

Text of measure

The ballot question read:

Shall Article XI, Section 13 of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee be amended by adding the following sentences at the end of the section:

The citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state's power to regulate commercial activity. Traditional manners and means may be used to take non-threatened species.

Yes __ No __

Fiscal Impact

According to state officials, the fiscal impact of the proposed amendment was a one-time increase of $20,000 in local expenditures in FY 2010-11. The cost covered a one-time publication cost for local governments in Fall 2010 for each county election commission to print the text of the amendment in a newspaper. Officials based the estimate on recent election publications.

Constitutional changes

The legislation added a new provision to Article XI, Section 13 of the Tennessee Constitution. It read:

The citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state's power to regulate commercial activity. Traditional manners and means may be used to take non-threatened species.

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

Supporters of the proposed measure argued that the measure would "prevent radical animal rights activists and an increasingly urban state legislature from one day shutting down the activities." In response to opponents who said that the measure was not necessary, supporters acknowledged that the measure may not be necessary but added that adding a constitutional amendment to the ballot was a difficult process. "If you wait until you need it, the reality of being able to get it done would be pretty difficult," said Mike Butler, head of the Tennessee Wildlife Federation (dead link). It was also noted, that while there was not an immediate threat to the Tennessean hunting and fishing rights, the future was uncertain and having legislation enacted already would help rather than hinder future discussions.

Tactics and strategies

Most legislators in the state supported this measure as well. The campaign in support of the measure collected an estimated $150,000 in campaign funds. The campaign used the money for TV ads and website campaigning. Those in support said they were trying to draw more attention the proposed amendment because often voters will skip over issues and just vote for candidates.

Opposition

Opponents of the proposed measure argued that the measure was "frivolous" and "unnecessary." Some argued that the proposed measure could set a precedent for cluttering the Tennessee Constitution with political statements by special-interest groups. According to reports, an official of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) said, "If people have a right to hunt, why not a right to shop or golf?"

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Tennessee ballot measures

Opposition

• The Tennessean urged a "no" vote, saying, "A sim­ple res­o­lu­tion of the House and Sen­ate would have suf­ficed to send the mes­sage that hunt­ing and fish­ing is here to stay. Mak­ing this a mat­ter of such urgency as to amend the Ten­nessee Con­sti­tu­tion, which typ­i­cally con­cerns itself with free­dom of reli­gion, the right to a fair trial and so on, tends to cheapen that foun­da­tional document."

• The Memphis Commercial-Appeal urged a "no" vote, saying, "Let's guarantee the right to play football. American football, of course. And tailgating before, during and after games. And trash talking. And celebrating wins in a brash, uninhibited manner. Let's protect impersonating Elvis. Ogling at the swimming pool. Singing in the shower. This list could go on, but there is work to do preserving rights that could show up in the sights of our increasingly urban legislature. Today hunting and fishing. Tomorrow pickup trucks."

Other

• The Knoxville News-Sentinel's editorial board was largely indifferent, saying, "The amendment clearly isn't necessary, but it also doesn't appear to contain anything objectionable."

Path to the ballot

See also: Legislatively-referred constitutional amendments in Tennessee

The Tennessee General Assembly was required to approve the proposed amendment in two successive sessions. In the second such session, the proposed amendment was required to earn 2/3rds approval, however, in the first session, it only required majority approval.

On January 28, 2010 the Tennessee State Senate voted 31-0 in favor of placing the measure on the ballot. On March 18, 2010 the House of Representatives voted 90-1 in favor of the measure; qualifying the measure for the November 2010 statewide ballot.

See also

Suggest a link

• 2010 ballot measures
• Tennessee 2010 ballot measures

Articles

• Voters supported "right to hunt" in three of four states
• Tennessee right to hunt measure moves forward to 2010 ballot
• Tennessee Senate votes to place hunting rights amendment on ballot

External links

• SJR 30 Bill History
• SJR 30 Bill Summary
• SJR 30 Fiscal Note

Additional reading

• KnoxNews.com, "Knox Know-it-all: Multiple steps in amendment process," June 6, 2011
• Tennessean, "TN hunting, fishing amendment's impact may not be felt for years," November 14, 2010
• The Chattanoogan, "Rep. Watson: Voting Yes On The Hunting And Fishing Amendment," October 26, 2010
• Nashville Public Radio, "Multi State Push to Give Ultimate Protection to Hunting includes Tennessee," October 25, 2010
• Dyersburg State Gazette, "Voters consider constitutional amendment on hunting and fishing rights," October 23, 2010
• Memphis Daily News, "Right to Hunt Amendment Caps 20-Year Fight," October 21, 2010
• News Channel 5, "Little Known Constitutional Amendment Proposal on Ballot," October 15, 2010 (dead link)
• WATE, "Tennessee voters will decide on hunting and fishing amendment," October 15, 2010
• Chattanooga Times Free Press, "Hunting, fishing on ballot," October 13, 2010
• My Fox Memphis, "Hunting Measure on Ballot in November," September 16, 2010 (dead link)
• MyEyeWitnessNews.com, "Tennesseans To Vote in November on "Right to Hunt and Fish,"" September 5, 2010
• Associated Press, "States being asked for 'right-to-hunt' amendments," September 3, 2010
• WSMV-TV, "Should Hunting, Fishing Be A Constitutional Right?" August 26, 2010