Ballot 101: What Amendment 2 actually means for hunting and fishing

On the surface, the amendment sounds like a slam dunk.

It would enshrine the right to hunt and fish in the state constitution, protecting it from future legislative changes. But a closer look reveals that the amendment is not as simple as it seems. In fact, it could have a number of unintended consequences, including making it more difficult to manage wildlife populations and protect endangered species.

The amendment would add the following language to the state constitution:

"The right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife shall be forever guaranteed. The state shall not infringe upon this right, except for the purpose of conservation and public safety."

This language is very broad, and it could be interpreted in a number of ways. For example, it could be interpreted to mean that the state could not regulate hunting and fishing at all, even for the purpose of conservation. This would make it very difficult to manage wildlife populations and protect endangered species.

The amendment could also be interpreted to mean that the state could only regulate hunting and fishing for the purpose of conservation and public safety. This would give the state more leeway to regulate hunting and fishing, but it would still make it difficult to manage wildlife populations and protect endangered species.

The amendment could also have a number of other unintended consequences. For example, it could make it more difficult for the state to acquire land for wildlife management and conservation. It could also make it more difficult for the state to enforce hunting and fishing regulations.

Overall, the amendment is not as simple as it seems. It could have a number of unintended consequences, including making it more difficult to manage wildlife populations and protect endangered species. Voters should carefully consider the potential consequences of the amendment before voting on it.