|
|
Location: Athens, Ohio | COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Ohio lawmakers are weighing a proposal that could add a constitutional right to hunt and fish, a measure supporters say would preserve part of the state’s economy and heritage.
Senate Joint Resolution 8, introduced in October by state Sen. Steve Huffman (R-Tipp City), seeks to amend the Ohio Constitution to recognize hunting and fishing as fundamental rights. If approved by three-fifths of both legislative chambers, the proposal would appear on the November 2026 statewide ballot.
Under the resolution, a new Section 23 would be added to Article I of the Ohio Constitution, declaring that “the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife is a valued part of Ohio’s heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good.” The measure specifies that those activities “shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife,” and that any regulation of them must come from the General Assembly or agencies acting under its authority.
Huffman told members of the Senate General Government Committee during the resolution’s first hearing on Nov. 4 that hunting and fishing are vital to both the state’s economy and its rural traditions.
“Hunting and fishing are core parts of Ohio’s heritage and economy, contributing more than $1.9 billion annually, and supporting 12,000 jobs just last year,” Huffman said in his testimony. “Hunting and fishing also attract visitors from across the nation. Last season, hunters from all 50 states bought nonresident licenses, including nearly 8,000 from Pennsylvania.”
The senator noted that the proposal mirrors constitutional amendments adopted in other states. Since 1996, 23 states have approved similar measures, most recently Florida in 2024, Huffman said. These states are following the lead of Vermont, who in 1777, enshrined the right to hunt and fish in their state constitution.
m |
|
| |
|
Posts: 427
Location: SW Ohio | I believe I would vote for it as long as there aren't any riders attached to it. One could question, if passed, why are we required to pay for a "right"? Voting is a right and doesn't require I pay for a license to exercise that right. I know the license system brings millions into Ohio's coffers but if passed as a "right", I see a push to abolish license fees. Similar to the push to end property taxes (owning property is also a "right"). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1421
| Does this mean you couldn't take away a poachers "rights?" |
|
| |
|
| This legislation makes me uncomfortable. I have always approached hunting and fishing as a privilege, something that could be taken away if I don't follow the rules that we as a society set. For most of us, driving an automobile is critical to our ability to work, travel, etc., but if we abuse that privilege, we lose it. I have known poachers, primarily in the area of hunting, that claim it is their right to take the deer, etc. that they want/need.
Rights as defined by the constitution typically have few restrictions. Not sure how that would mix with setting bag limits for instance. |
|
| |
|
Location: Athens, Ohio | I'm just curious who the 23 states with 'similar measures' are and how they address these issues?m |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1338
Location: E. Tenn | mikie - 11/20/2025 1:15 PM
I'm just curious who the 23 states with 'similar measures' are and how they address these issues?m
From the Tennessee State Constitution:
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. |
|
| |
|
| miket55 - 11/20/2025 1:33 PM
mikie - 11/20/2025 1:15 PM
I'm just curious who the 23 states with 'similar measures' are and how they address these issues?m
From the Tennessee State Constitution:
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.
Thanks. This really addresses the concerns I had. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 583
| Wisconsin has had hunting/fishing as a constitutionally protected right since 2003, and I believe it is an important right, given the prospect of anti-hunting and anti-fishing animal rights groups who might actively oppose or try to limit our rights.
Article I, Sec 26 states that the people "have the right to fish, hunt, trap and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law".
This means that the DNR can set restrictions such as bag limits, seasons, fees, and etc., so long as the restrictions are reasonable. This ensures that the DNR has a justifiable basis for all promulgated rules and regulations, while also ensuring that the citizenry abide by such rules. E.g., poachers, non-license carrying persons, etc., can't use the "constitutional right" as a defense to disobeying the law.
|
|
| |
|
| One negative that came, at least in part, from the bill being passed in WI is that there are longer regulations on wanton waste. It used to be that if you harvested a deer you were required to not waste the deer, to the degree practical. Today, you can shoot a deer, hang it in a tree in your front lawn and let it rot. The neighbors might not be happy but the DNR cannot cite you.
Two years ago, we planned a moose hunt on the Yukon, that eventually fell through due to the outfitter having issues. But I read all the regs and there you cannot even leave the rib cage unless you have made an effort to strip all usable meat from the ribs. Fines for waste are large. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1612
Location: Brighton CO. | Here in Colorado you shoot a Deer or Elk you register it a cheek station and you better account for the whole animal or there's hell to be paid. (rightfully so). |
|
| |
