Texas Right to Hunt, Fish and Harvest Amendment, Proposition 6 (2015)

• Text of measure
• Background
• Support
• Opposition
• Media Editorials
• Path to the ballot
• Texas profile

Proposition 6
Type	Amendment
Origin	Texas Legislature
Topic	Hunting and fishing
Status	Approved a

Texas 2015 ballot
Proposition 1 - Taxes
Proposition 2 - Taxes
Proposition 3 - Residency
Proposition 4 - Gambling
Proposition 5 - Roads
Proposition 6 - Hunting
Proposition 7 - Taxes

All 2015 U.S. measures

The Texas Right to Hunt, Fish and Harvest Amendment, Proposition 6 was on the November 3, 2015 ballot in Texas as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved.

Voting yes would have added text to the state constitution preserving the right to hunt and fish, and recognized such activities as the preferred methods for wildlife management.

Voting no would have left the state constitution unchanged. No text would have been added.

Election results

Texas Proposition 6
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		1260763	81.04%
No		294973	18.96%

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was:

“

The constitutional amendment recognizing the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to laws that promote wildlife conservation.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article 1, Texas Constitution

The amendment added a Section 34 to Article 1 of the Texas Constitution. The following text was added:

Sec. 34.

(a) The people have 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.
(b) Hunting and fishing are preferred methods of managing and controlling wildlife.
(c) This section does not affect any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain.
(d) This section does not 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.

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

Officials

Sen. Brandon Creighton authored the amendment.

The following state legislators sponsored the measure:

• Sen. Brandon Creighton (R-4)
• Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-7)
• Sen. Konni Burton (R-10)
• Sen. Donna Campbell (R-25)
• Rep. Bob Hall (R-2)
• Rep. Juan Hinojosa (D-20)
• Sen. Jane Nelson (R-12)
• Sen. Robert Nichols (R-3)
• Sen. Charles Perry (R-28)
• Sen. Larry Taylor (R-11)
• Rep. Trent Ashby (R-57)
• Rep. Drew Darby (R-72)
• Rep. Ryan Guillen (D-31)
• Rep. Dennis Bonnen (R-25)
• Rep. Jim Keffer (R-60)
• Rep. Rodney Anderson (R-105)
• Rep. Greg Bonnen (R-24)
• Rep. DeWayne Burns (R-58)
• Rep. Byron Cook (R-8)
• Rep. John Cyrier (R-17)
• Rep. Marsha Farney (R-20)
• Rep. John Frullo (R-84)
• Rep. Kyle J. Kacal (R-12)
• Rep. Mark Keough (R-15)
• Rep. Tracy King (D-80)
• Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R-81)
• Rep. Lyle Larson (R-122)
• Rep. Jeff Leach (R-67)
• Rep. Will Metcalf (R-16)
• Rep. Andrew Murr (R-53)
• Rep. John Otto (R-18)
• Rep. Chris Paddie (R-9)
• Rep. Dade Phelan (R-21)
• Rep. Four Price (R-87)
• Rep. John Raney (R-18)
• Rep. Leighton Schubert (R-13)
• Rep. Drew Springer (R-68)
• Rep. Molly White (R-55)

Organizations

• National Rifle Association
• Texas State Rifle Association
• Texas Outdoor Partners
• Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association
• Texas Farm Bureau
• Dallas Safari Club
• Coastal Conservation Association
• Wildlife Habitat Federation
• National Wild Turkey Federation
• Saltwater-Fisheries Enhancement Association
• Ducks Unlimited

Arguments in favor

State Sen. Brandon Creighton, who introduced the legislation, said:

“

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.

”

Rep. Trent Ashby

State Rep. Trent Ashby said:

“

I’m excited to work alongside my friend, Senator Creighton, to introduce this common-sense legislation. Hunting and fishing are not only engrained in our state’s culture, but natural methods to manage and conserve our wildlife. Texas has an obligation to take a strong stand on this issue.

”

The National Rifle Association

Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, argued:

“

Adoption of the Right to Hunt and Fish amendment will safeguard the hunters and anglers of Texas from extreme animal rights groups dedicated to abolishing America’s outdoor tradition. This important constitutional safeguard will protect wildlife and promote conservation.

”

Alice Tripp, legislative director for the Texas State Rifle Association, said:

“

The goal is to create meaningful language and to join 18 other states which have passed similar constitutional protections and guarantee that public hunting and fishing remain the preferred means for wildlife management in Texas and include the use of traditional methods currently in place.

”

The Agriculture, Water and Rural Affairs Committee of the Texas State Senate elaborated on why the committee agreed the amendment is needed:

“

Hunting and fishing are activities that have been inherently passed down from generation to generation and engrained in our state's heritage. But, in this day and age, with recent lawsuits and certain efforts with the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, our heritage is threatened and needs protection.

”

The House Culture, Recreation, & Tourism Committee offered a similar opinion:

“

Interested parties note that Texas has a rich and vibrant hunting tradition that has existed for generations. According to some sources, various groups around the country have worked to limit or eliminate hunting in some states, and in response a number of states have adopted some form of constitutional protection for hunting and fishing. S.J.R. 22 seeks to address this issue for Texas.

”

Gov. Abbott

Gov. Greg Abbott said:

“

Proposition 6 protects your rights as a Texan to hunt and fish. Texans have long lived off the bounty of the land. Hunting and fishing are family traditions, and we know how to conserve our natural resources for future generations.

”

Ben Carter, executive director of the Dallas Safari Club, also highlighted perceived threats to hunting and fishing, and he added a brief overview of the economic and state revenue benefits of hunting and fishing in Texas. He contended:

“

Hunting and fishing are more than just traditional lifestyles or weekend hobbies in Texas. They’re an economic force. Consider these statistics: ▪ 2.7 million people hunt or fish in Texas, more than the population of Houston (2.1 million). ▪ $4.1 billion is spent annually on hunting and fishing in Texas, a business nearly twice the size of our state’s second-largest agricultural commodity, cotton ($2.3 billion). ▪ 65,000 Texas jobs are supported by hunting and fishing, more than Dell, the University of Texas-Austin and MD Anderson Cancer Center combined (59,000 jobs). ▪ $415 million in state and local tax revenue is generated from hunting and fishing in Texas, enough to support the average salaries of 8,100 police officers.

”

Rebecca Louviere, hunting policy liaison for the NRA, wrote in a column for the Waco Tribune-Herald:

“

Never mind the $4.1 billion hunters and anglers spend every year in the Lone Star State. Never mind the 65,993 families who depend on the outdoor industry to pay their rent, feed their families and heat their homes. And never mind the outdoors. After all, if it wasn’t for the nearly $55 million hunters, anglers and target shooters contributed to conservation projects in Texas in 2014, then there wouldn’t be much of the outdoors left. We hunt for conservation. We hunt for food, for tradition and for fellowship. And that’s what Proposition 6 is really about — preservation of our treasured outdoor lifestyle.

”

Opposition

Arguments against

Rep. Roland Gutierrez

Rep. Roland Gutierrez (D-119) said that while he enjoys hunting and fishing, he disagrees with adding the amendment to the state's constitution. He contended:

“

At the end of the day, what we put in our constitution is important and our constitution isn't a toy. It's not an item or a document to be taken lightly and if we are asking to put things in our constitution that say this constitutional right to fish and hunt, how about our constitutional right to watch Sunday night football or our constitutional right to love the San Antonio Spurs?... When we do these things to our constitution and make voters go out and vote for these things, it demeans the document and it demeans us."

”

Lisa Lange, senior vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), criticized the amendment, calling hunting a "bloody pastime." She stated:

“

An amendment to 'protect' the right to hunt and fish is bizarre and frivolous — it would clutter up the most important charter of government and open the door to a flood of other amendments whose sole purpose is to make political statements for special-interest groups.

”

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2015.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Texas ballot measures

One committee was registered in support of the measure—Texans United for Hunting and Fishing Rights.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$244,430.00	$48,100.00	$292,530.00	$277,049.50	$325,149.50
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$244,430.00	$48,100.00	$292,530.00	$277,049.50	$325,149.50

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.

Committees in support of Proposition 6
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Texans United for Hunting and Fishing Rights	$244,430.00	$48,100.00	$292,530.00	$277,049.50	$325,149.50
Total	$244,430.00	$48,100.00	$292,530.00	$277,049.50	$325,149.50

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in support of the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Dallas Safari Club	$48,100.00	$0.00	$48,100.00
Safari Club International	$33,702.00	$0.00	$33,702.00
Saulsbury Ventures LLC	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation	$20,351.00	$0.00	$20,351.00
Safari Club International West Texas Chapter	$20,000.00	$0.00	$20,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

The Amarillo Globe-News editorial board wrote:

“

While it is highly unlikely any group or organization would attempt, much less be successful, at outlawing hunting or fishing in Texas, would it be surprising if a group or lawmaker attempted to restrict the hunting of certain animals? Would it be a surprise if a group or lawmaker tried other political maneuvers that inhibit hunting or fishing? It wouldn’t be a shock to us. The amendment has no impact on the authority of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, nor does it change hunting/fishing license fees. The amendment is proactive, guaranteeing Texans the right to hunt and fish, and it is supported by Texas State Rifle Association. Constitutional amendments in Texas are usually approved overwhelmingly by voters. Proposition 6 needs to continue that trend.

”

The Dallas Morning News recommended voting for the amendment, arguing:

“

A constitutional amendment affirming the right to hunt and fish in Texas is akin to securing your pants with duct tape, even though belt and suspenders were doing the job just fine. Proposition 6 guarantees protections already in place under the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. While largely unnecessary, it also would be a benign addition that we can recommend. The only potential harm is more verbiage in our already cluttered Constitution. This amendment is carefully written to not impinge on laws related to trespass, eminent domain or property rights. Nor does it change regulations or licensing practices that govern hunting and fishing.

”

The Star-Telegram editorial board said:

“

On the whole, Proposition 6 is probably harmless. It’s a feel-good proposal for people who love hunting and fishing, which is a pretty big group in Texas. The Star-Telegram Editorial Board recommends voting for Proposition 6.

”

On Ammoland.com, a website for shooting sports news, the website urged support for Proposition 6:

“

In today’s Texas, hunting and fishing is the preferred method for managing game populations but as Texas grows in population and as land develops, other so called “more humane” methods such as pharmaceuticals could replace our hunting and fishing traditions. The time and opportunity to add this layer of protection is now!

”

Oppose

The Houston Chronicle recommended a vote against the amendment, arguing:

“

This amendment "recognizing the right of the people to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife subject to laws that promote wildlife conservation" is the most ridiculous on the ballot. Its supporters claim that the people's right to hunt and fish is under attack by rabid conservationists filing lawsuits and that constitutional protections are needed. The amendment is essentially a paean to the "black helicopter" crowd that's eager to harry and harass legitimate conservation efforts in Texas. It's unnecessary. We recommend a NO vote on Proposition 6.

”

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Texas Constitution

The amendment was filed by Rep. Brandon Creighton (R-4) as Senate Joint Resolution 22 on January 9, 2015.

A two-thirds vote in both chambers of the Texas State Legislature was required to refer this amendment to the ballot. Texas is one of 16 states that require a two-thirds supermajority vote in both chambers. The Texas Senate approved the amendment on April 1, 2015. Three senators voted against the amendment, while the remaining 27 voted to approve it. On May 20, 2015, the Texas House of Representatives approved the measure, with 111 representatives voting "yea" and one voting "nay." Twenty-five representatives were present, but did not vote. The amendment was enrolled the following day, May 21.

Senate vote

April 1, 2015, Senate vote

Texas SJR 22 Senate Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		27	90.00%
No		3	10.00%

House vote

May 20, 2015, House vote

Texas SJR 22 House Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		111	99.11%
No		1	00.89%

"No" votes

Between the Texas Senate and Texas House of Representatives, a total of four legislators voted against referring the amendment to the ballot. These legislators were:

• Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-13)
• Sen. Sylvia Garcia (D-6)
• Sen. Jose R. Rodriguez (D-29)
• Rep. Borris Miles (D-146)

State profile

Demographic data for Texas
	Texas	U.S.
Total population:	27,429,639	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	261,232	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	74.9%	73.6%
Black/African American:	11.9%	12.6%
Asian:	4.2%	5.1%
Native American:	0.5%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.1%	0.2%
Two or more:	2.5%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	38.4%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	81.9%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	27.6%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$53,207	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	19.9%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Texas. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Texas

Texas voted Republican in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, one is located in Texas, accounting for 0.5 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Texas had one Retained Pivot County, 0.55 percent of all Retained Pivot Counties.

More Texas coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Texas
• United States congressional delegations from Texas
• Public policy in Texas
• Endorsers in Texas
• Texas fact checks
• More...

See also

Suggest a link

• Texas 2015 ballot measures
• 2015 ballot measures
• Texas Legislature

External links

• Senate Joint Resolution 22
• National Conference of State Legislators, "State Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish," March 26, 2015
• Texas Secretary of State - What's On the Ballot 2015
• Texas Legislative Council 2015 Analyses of Proposed Constitutional Amendments
• Texas House of Representatives House Research Organization Focus Report - Amendments Proposed for November 2015 Ballot