Panel votes for right to hunt and fish

Phoenix, AZ – The measure would bar any law or regulation that unreasonably
restricts hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife. It also would
make hunting a preferred means of managing and controlling
wildlife. National Rifle Association lobbyist Darren LaSorte said
animals rights groups have tried to convince voters to restrict
hunting. They were successful in 1994 when Arizonans voted to ban
the use of steel-jawed traps on public lands. LaSorte told
lawmakers there could be more problems on the horizon.

(There are powerful anti-hunting groups out there, trying to ban
hunting. The Humane Society of the United States is the most
prevalent. It spends about $120 million a year to lobby and
litigate against hunting in America.)

Having a right to hunt in the constitution would make it harder
to put new restrictions on the ballot. But Sierra Club lobbyist
Sandy Bahr said it also would limit the ability of the Game and
Fish Commission to use scientific methods to set even reasonable
limits on hunting.

I believe that science should be included in deciding what the
'bag' limits are, whether or not to hunt a particular species,
whether or not to close a season. All of those things, you should
use science to decide it.)

LaSorte said that's not true, saying this would protect
scientific determinations from what he called the tyranny of the
majority. For Arizona Public Radio this is Howard Fischer.