Resolution 38, Another Question on the Ballot Nov. 4th

[IB4OU2]

Please support it!

Senate Joint Resolution 38, by state Rep. Randy Terrill(R-Moore) and Senator Glenn Coffee (R-Oklahoma City), would place a state question on the November ballot allowing citizens to determine whether the right to hunt and angle and take game and fish should be protected by the Constitution.
"Oklahoma has a long tradition of hunting and fishing that precedes statehood by centuries," Terrill said. "Our right to hunt and fish is inherent and deserves constitutional protection, especially given the increasingly radical actions of liberal activist groups targeting outdoor gaming around the nation. This bill gives our citizens the chance to protect their rights from being taken away by people who have no respect for our traditions and values."
The resolution will add a new section to the Constitution that gives all Oklahomans the right to hunt, trap, fish, and take game and fish. The legislation would prevent new state laws from prohibiting anyone from engaging in such activities.

[Fraggle145]

Please support it!

Senate Joint Resolution 38, by state Rep. Randy Terrill(R-Moore) and Senator Glenn Coffee (R-Oklahoma City), would place a state question on the November ballot allowing citizens to determine whether the right to hunt and angle and take game and fish should be protected by the Constitution.
"Oklahoma has a long tradition of hunting and fishing that precedes statehood by centuries," Terrill said. "Our right to hunt and fish is inherent and deserves constitutional protection, especially given the increasingly radical actions of liberal activist groups targeting outdoor gaming around the nation. This bill gives our citizens the chance to protect their rights from being taken away by people who have no respect for our traditions and values."
The resolution will add a new section to the Constitution that gives all Oklahomans the right to hunt, trap, fish, and take game and fish. The legislation would prevent new state laws from prohibiting anyone from engaging in such activities.

hunting, trapping, and fishing without restriction on numbers, season, or species type or without restriction on being able to do it? :confused:

[PalmBeachSooner1]

What a shame that you guys even have to pass such legislation. I guess the west coast loonies must have arrived. Hope it passes for your sake.

[IB4OU2]

hunting, trapping, and fishing without restriction on numbers, season, or species type or without restriction on being able to do it? :confused:

It's all regulated as it is now, this just ensures we can never have the right to hunt and fish taken away from us.

[achiro]

hunting, trapping, and fishing without restriction on numbers, season, or species type or without restriction on being able to do it? :confused:

The actual language of the bill says something to the extent of regulated by the oklahoma wildlife department. The point of the bill is that nobody can come along and take away hunting through legislation because it will be considered a right. Anyway, the animal rights freaks have already vowed to take it to court if it passes...which should be reason enough to vote FOR it.

[Fraggle145]

The actual language of the bill says something to the extent of regulated by the oklahoma wildlife department. The point of the bill is that nobody can come along and take away hunting through legislation because it will be considered a right. Anyway, the animal rights freaks have already vowed to take it to court if it passes...which should be reason enough to vote FOR it.

Those animal rights freaks are idiots. You know my opinion on that. I am for conservation, as are most hunters and fishermen. The often have no idea about science or anything else. Many ecosystems for hunting and fishing, especially in OK, arent "natural" so they have to be managed and hunted to be sustainable and functional. On top of that ODWC pays my bills (we are on their grant), so long as the management system stays how it is you can be sure I'll vote for it.

[OUHOMER]

I am in. Now as long as they spell it out so my mom can understand to vote YES. I have seen the language in the past confuse folks.

[OUHOMER]

by the way where can I find all the state questions being place on the Nov. ballot?

[Viking Kitten]

by the way where can I find all the state questions being place on the Nov. ballot?

http://www.ok.gov/~elections/sq_gen08.pdf

[tommieharris91]

I'll vote yes.

[royalfan5]

They tried this in Nebraska a few years ago. It didn't pass, as Nebraskans tend to reflexively vote no on constitutional amendments irregardless of the actual content of said amendment.

[OUHOMER]

Why do we hate winemakers?


STATE QUESTION NO. 743 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 346
This measure amends Section 3 of Article 28 of the Constitution. It requires a customer to be twenty-one and
physically present to purchase wine at a winery, festival or trade show. The measure changes the law to allow
certain winemakers to sell directly to retail package stores and restaurants in Oklahoma. The change applies
to winemakers who produce up to ten thousand gallons of wine a year. It applies to winemakers in state and
out of state. Those winemakers may not also use a licensed wholesale distributor. They must sell their wine
to every retail package store and restaurant in Oklahoma that wants to buy the wine. The sales must be on
the same price basis. The sales must be without discrimination. Those winemakers must use their own leased
or owned vehicles to distribute their wine. They may not use common or private carriers. If any part of this
measure is found to be unconstitutional, no winemaker could sell wine directly to retail package stores or
restaurants in Oklahoma.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

[Okla-homey]

Please support it!

Senate Joint Resolution 38, by state Rep. Randy Terrill(R-Moore) and Senator Glenn Coffee (R-Oklahoma City), would place a state question on the November ballot allowing citizens to determine whether the right to hunt and angle and take game and fish should be protected by the Constitution.
"Oklahoma has a long tradition of hunting and fishing that precedes statehood by centuries," Terrill said. "Our right to hunt and fish is inherent and deserves constitutional protection, especially given the increasingly radical actions of liberal activist groups targeting outdoor gaming around the nation. This bill gives our citizens the chance to protect their rights from being taken away by people who have no respect for our traditions and values."
The resolution will add a new section to the Constitution that gives all Oklahomans the right to hunt, trap, fish, and take game and fish. The legislation would prevent new state laws from prohibiting anyone from engaging in such activities.

Why not? Rep. Terrell's last legislative gem (HB 1804) has worked splendidly. I think I read in this weekend's Tulsa World three (3) arrests have been made statewide since its enactment.:rolleyes:

[Viking Kitten]

Why do we hate winemakers?



We don't. A similar SQ already passed a vote of the people a few years ago. However, that measure only allowed Oklahoma wineries to sell to liquor stores and restaurant, and a federal court found that discriminatory. So it was rewritten this year to apply to small wineries that produce "up to ten thousand gallons of wine a year." The size restriction should pass the courts' muster.

[Viking Kitten]

Here is my problem with the question related to hunting and fishing: First of all, I have no problem with hunting and fishing. Neither does anyone else, no one has made any move to challenge those rights here in OK. This whole thing is simply an election year political stunt. "Look how I preserved your rights, see?"

In fact, we are such a pro-hunting, fishing, and trapping state that it would be political suicide for any lawmaker to try and challenge those rights. So why amend the state Constitution?

This is why I find this troubling:


The legislation would prevent new state laws from prohibiting anyone from engaging in such activities.

I don't know what unforseen circumstances might come up that might necessitate some kind of a restriction. Again, such a thing would be VERY unlikely to pass here anyway. I just don't think it's wise to tie people's hands like this.

[Okla-homey]

Here is my problem with the question related to hunting and fishing: First of all, I have no problem with hunting and fishing. Neither does anyone else, no one has made any move to challenge those rights here in OK. This whole thing is simply an election year political stunt. "Look how I preserved your rights, see?"

In fact, we are such a pro-hunting, fishing, and trapping state that it would be political suicide for any lawmaker to try and challenge those rights. So why amend the state Constitution?

This is why I find this troubling:



I don't know what unforseen circumstances might come up that might necessitate some kind of a restriction. Again, such a thing would be VERY unlikely to pass here anyway. I just don't think it's wise to tie people's hands like this.


I suspect this has something to do with the fact that currently, a dad who has a child support arrearage can have his hunting/fishing license(s)suspended by the child support enforcment authorities. If it becomes a "right," it might be harder to do that to Cletus.

[Fraggle145]

We don't. A similar SQ already passed a vote of the people a few years ago. However, that measure only allowed Oklahoma wineries to sell to liquor stores and restaurant, and a federal court found that discriminatory. So it was rewritten this year to apply to small wineries that produce "up to ten thousand gallons of wine a year." The size restriction should pass the courts' muster.

And why do we want to do this? I want the wine to flow as easily as possible.

[Viking Kitten]

Baby steps, dude. Right now, the local winemakers can't sell their wine to retail stores and restaurants AT ALL. This loosens the restrictions.

Weird liquor laws. We haz them.

[Jerk]

Why do we hate winemakers?


STATE QUESTION NO. 743 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 346
This measure amends Section 3 of Article 28 of the Constitution. It requires a customer to be twenty-one and
physically present to purchase wine at a winery, festival or trade show. The measure changes the law to allow
certain winemakers to sell directly to retail package stores and restaurants in Oklahoma. The change applies
to winemakers who produce up to ten thousand gallons of wine a year. It applies to winemakers in state and
out of state. Those winemakers may not also use a licensed wholesale distributor. They must sell their wine
to every retail package store and restaurant in Oklahoma that wants to buy the wine. The sales must be on
the same price basis. The sales must be without discrimination. Those winemakers must use their own leased
or owned vehicles to distribute their wine. They may not use common or private carriers. If any part of this
measure is found to be unconstitutional, no winemaker could sell wine directly to retail package stores or
restaurants in Oklahoma.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

That's so damned confusing that I don't know whether to vote for it or against it. I'll vote for the wineries....so do I vote yes or no?

[Viking Kitten]

Vote yes.

[Jerk]

Vote yes.

Thanks.

[Viking Kitten]

If you read it carefully, you see how it still favors Oklahoma winemakers without explicitly discriminating against out-of-staters. They have to deliver their wine to retail liquor stores an restaurants themselves, they CANNOT use a third party delivery service like Fedex or UPS. This will make it not financially feasible for most out of state wine producers to sell their wine here.

[Jerk]

If you read it carefully, you see how it still favors Oklahoma winemakers without explicitly discriminating against out-of-staters. They have to deliver their wine to retail liquor stores an restaurants themselves, they CANNOT use a third party delivery service like Fedex or UPS. This will make it not financially feasible for most out of state wine producers to sell their wine here.

Ok I'm starting to get it now. First time I read it I got a headache. Thanks.

[achiro]

no one has made any move to challenge those rights here in OK.
You'd really be surprised what goes on behind the scenes in this regard. It doesn't even really have to say anything about hunting. In many states there has been an effort to not allow dogs for hunting purposes(worded much differently to make it sound nicey nice but would accomplish that just the same) hence the "by traditional means" part.

[Viking Kitten]

You'd really be surprised what goes on behind the scenes in this regard. It doesn't even really have to say anything about hunting. In many states there has been an effort to not allow dogs for hunting purposes(worded much differently to make it sound nicey nice but would accomplish that just the same) hence the "by traditional means" part.

I get that, but again, any Oklahoma legislator who wants to keep their job is not gonna be dumb enough to vote for something like that. Other states' legislatures can pass all the whack job animal rights crap they want. It's not an issue here, and the state Constitution is unwieldy enough as it is. Seriously, it's a mess.

[Sooner_Havok]

I can get behind it, but I'm with VK. Here in Oklahoma, this is nothing but a political stunt.

[Jerk]

I read the ODWC regulations book this year and it said I could legally take prairie dogs by...


Shotgun (conventional or muzzleloading), rifle (conventional or muzzleloading), handgun, archery equipment, legal raptors, hand-propelled missile, air-propelled missile and slingshot.

My question is this...what is a hand or air propelled missile, where can I get one, is it lazer guided or does it use GPS, and can it have an explosive warhead on the tip?

[Sooner_Havok]

I read the ODWC regulations book this year and it said I could legally take prairie dogs by...



My question is this...what is a hand or air propelled missile, where can I get one, is it lazer guided or does it use GPS, and can it have an explosive warhead on the tip?

I think it means a rock or a BB gun.

Perhaps a potato gun too :D

[Jerk]

I think it means a rock or a BB gun.

Perhaps a potato gun too :D

Rock throwing? That sounds somewhat primitive. How about something more modern like a 500 pound JDAM?

[Viking Kitten]

What's a legal raptor? Is that like an 18-year-old dinosaur?

(If anyone wants to neg me for that lousy joke, feel free.:O)

[Sooner_Havok]

Rock throwing? That sounds somewhat primitive. How about something more modern like a 500 pound JDAM?

:eek:

To each his own, but I think that might mess up your prairie dog pelt:D

[achiro]

Heres the whole thing


STATE OF OKLAHOMA

2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)

FLOOR SUBSTITUTE
FOR ENGROSSED
SENATE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 38 By: Coffee, Rabon, Rice, Garrison, Ivester, Gumm, Sparks, Adelson and Paddack of the Senate

and

Terrill of the House







FLOOR SUBSTITUTE

A Joint Resolution directing the Secretary of State to refer to the people for their approval or rejection a proposed amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution by adding a new section to Article II to be designated as Section 36; recognizing certain right of the citizens of this state related to game and fish; granting the Wildlife Conservation Commission certain power and authority; allowing for the use of certain methods, practices and procedures to take certain wildlife; specifying preferred means of managing certain wildlife; providing for construction of law; providing ballot title; and directing filing.




BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
SECTION 1. The Secretary of State shall refer to the people for their approval or rejection, as and in the manner provided by law, the following proposed amendment to Article II of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma by adding a new Section 36 to read as follows:
Section 36. All citizens of this state shall have a right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest game and fish, subject only to reasonable regulation as prescribed by the Legislature and the Wildlife Conservation Commission. The Wildlife Conservation Commission shall have the power and authority to approve methods, practices and procedures for hunting, trapping, fishing and the taking of game and fish. Traditional methods, practices and procedures shall be allowed for taking game and fish that are not identified as threatened by law or by the Commission. Hunting, fishing, and trapping shall be the preferred means of managing game and fish that are not identified as threatened by law or by the Commission. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain, or any other property rights.
SECTION 2. The Ballot Title for the proposed Constitutional amendment as set forth in SECTION 1 of this resolution shall be in the following form:
BALLOT TITLE
Legislative Referendum No. ____ State Question No. ____
THE GIST OF THE PROPOSITION IS AS FOLLOWS:
This measure adds a new section to the State Constitution. It adds Section 36 to Article 2. It gives all people of this state the right to hunt, trap, fish and take game and fish. Such activities would be subject to reasonable regulation. It allows the Wildlife Conservation Commission to approve methods and procedures for hunting, trapping, fishing and taking of game and fish. It allows for taking game and fish by traditional means. It makes hunting, fishing, and trapping the preferred means to manage certain game and fish. The new law will not affect existing laws relating to property rights.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?
FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES _____________
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO _____________
SECTION 3. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate shall, immediately after the passage of this resolution, prepare and file one copy thereof, including the Ballot Title set forth in SECTION 2 hereof, with the Secretary of State and one copy with the Attorney General.

51-2-11141 KB 04/18/08
.

[achiro]

I get that, but again, any Oklahoma legislator who wants to keep their job is not gonna be dumb enough to vote for something like that. Other states' legislatures can pass all the whack job animal rights crap they want. It's not an issue here, and the state Constitution is unwieldy enough as it is. Seriously, it's a mess.

Now yes, but what about 15-20-50 years from now. The point that folks pushing this type of legislation want to get across is that they want their great grandchildren to be able to hunt/fish.

[Jerk]

:eek:

To each his own, but I think that might mess up your prairie dog pelt:D

There are millions of them in the panhandle. But seriously, I wouldn't want them to become endangered or extinct. Shooting them is so much fun that I want their population to thrive. Hell, I pray for a plague. A plague of prairie dogs!!

[Fraggle145]

...This will make it not financially feasible for most out of state wine producers to sell their wine here.

I think that ...sucks... Why do we only want Oklahoma wine? Most of it that I have had is not that good. JMHO.

I want all wine!

[Curly Bill]

I think Vet is behind the wine dealio, he wants to corner the market...

...something about being the Rockefeller of alcohol.

[Viking Kitten]

I think that ...sucks... Why do we only want Oklahoma wine? Most of it that I have had is not that good. JMHO.

I want all wine!

Okay, see as it stands, you can have all kinds of wine in Oklahoma, but right now, all winesellers have to go through a third party liquor distributor. Which is a dumb bass ackward law, but this is Oklahoma, so there you go. This makes it tough for small wineries to sell their wine in liquor stores because the middleman eats up all the profit. Are you with me so far?

This SQ grants an EXCEPTION to that rule for small winemakers (producing up to 10K gallons a year) to sell their wine DIRECTLY to liquor stores and restaurants. These small producers will now be able to make enough money from these sales to make it worth their while. This will give you, the consumer MORE CHOICES, because you'll be able to select from local wines as well as those that came through the traditional third party distributors. The wine sellers win, the liquor stores win, you win. It's a win, win, win.

[Fraggle145]

Okay, see as it stands, you can have all kinds of wine in Oklahoma, but right now, all winesellers have to go through a third party liquor distributor. Which is a dumb bass ackward law, but this is Oklahoma, so there you go. This makes it tough for small wineries to sell their wine in liquor stores because the middleman eats up all the profit. Are you with me so far?

This SQ grants an EXCEPTION to that rule for small winemakers (producing up to 10K gallons a year) to sell their wine DIRECTLY to liquor stores and restaurants. These small producers will now be able to make enough money from these sales to make it worth their while. This will give you, the consumer MORE CHOICES, because you'll be able to select from local wines as well as those that came through the traditional third party distributors. The wine sellers win, the liquor stores win, you win. It's a win, win, win.

Ah. I see now. :D

[Stoop Dawg]

Okay, see as it stands, you can have all kinds of wine in Oklahoma, but right now, all winesellers have to go through a third party liquor distributor. Which is a dumb bass ackward law, but this is Oklahoma, so there you go. This makes it tough for small wineries to sell their wine in liquor stores because the middleman eats up all the profit. Are you with me so far?

This SQ grants an EXCEPTION to that rule for small winemakers (producing up to 10K gallons a year) to sell their wine DIRECTLY to liquor stores and restaurants. These small producers will now be able to make enough money from these sales to make it worth their while. This will give you, the consumer MORE CHOICES, because you'll be able to select from local wines as well as those that came through the traditional third party distributors. The wine sellers win, the liquor stores win, you win. It's a win, win, win.

We recently got a letter from our wine club saying that they won't deliver to Texas any more. I guess there is some pending litigation of some sort in the state.

Talk about people not respecting other people's rights, why can't I have a bottle of freakin wine delivered to my home once a month? What kind of dictatorial totalitarian state am I living in? (tic, of course)

[Chuck Bao]

For the absentee voters, you should have started this thread like a month ago.

I voted "YES" on the hunting one. My inclination is to vote "NO" on anything I don't understand. After re-reading it several times, I still didn't have a clue as to why this was even a question.

If it is a state right that everyone can hunt and trap, where is everyone going to hunt and trap that doesn't own their own land, if the private land rights are maintained? Are we going to have like a bazillion hunters running around Lake Murray? Pretty scary.

And, what the hell is trapping? Should I be worried about being trapped on state land?

But, I like hunting and fishing. So, I went ahead with "YES".

The wine one was much easier. I like wine. Selling directly to retailers. That's good. Industry in Oklahoma - good. So, "YES".

Back to the trapping question, what is traditional? Snare traps? Really?

As just a funny aside, several years ago I was hiking at a national park near the Burma border and came across a park ranger. I said: "Look, you caught a chicken in your trap". He said: "no, that is a tiger trap".

[OUHOMER]

They must sell their wine
to every retail package store and restaurant in Oklahoma that wants to buy the wine. The sales must be on
the same price basis. The sales must be without discrimination. Those winemakers must use their own leased
or owned vehicles to distribute their wine. They may not use common or private carriers.

Umm, Yea, this is Bubba , from Bubba's Bar and Grill in Boise, OK. I need an to order 1 case of that red wine, it good with ribs. I guess I will meet you when you drive all the way up here to deliver it. :confused:

[Viking Kitten]

Umm, Yea, this is Bubba , from Bubba's Bar and Grill in Boise, OK. I need an to order 1 case of that red wine, it good with ribs. I guess I will meet you when you drive all the way up here to deliver it. :confused:

Well, panhandle people are probably SOL, unless there is some thriving Dodge City wine industry that I don't know about. However, if the winery is in Okemah or Guthrie or Lexington, this certainly opens up the OKC market to them. Or at least it will in about 20 years when Oklahoma wine no longer tastes like grape Kool-aid.

[Viking Kitten]

Now yes, but what about 15-20-50 years from now. The point that folks pushing this type of legislation want to get across is that they want their great grandchildren to be able to hunt/fish.

Once again, I am not against hunting and fishing. What I am against is playing political games that could have unintended consequences down the road. Considering that I have had people who voted IN FAVOR of SJR-38 tell me off-the-record it's nothing more than a stunt, I can't in good conscience vote for it.

[achiro]

Once again, I am not against hunting and fishing. What I am against is playing political games that could have unintended consequences down the road. Considering that I have had people who voted IN FAVOR of SJR-38 tell me off-the-record it's nothing more than a stunt, I can't in good conscience vote for it.

Most legislation is a "stunt" in one way or another. They find a hot topic and find a way to go with the public opinion on it. It's not very often you see unpopular stuff brought up and even more rare to see it brought to a vote. This is something that many states have looked at for several years. Again, the concern isn't so much about now as much as it is about later. Again, you would be surprised at the "anti" stuff that is coming up and where.

[Viking Kitten]

If Oklahoma sportsmen do their job, they'll teach their children and grandchildren to hunt, fish, etc., and continue to foster a cultural climate where these things are valued. Then the notion of PETA or some other bunch of nutjobs coming in and launching a serious threat to those rights in Oklahoma will be just as ridiculous 50 years in the future as it is right now.

Again, in my opinion, the risks of tying the Legislature's hands greatly exceeds the risk that Oklahomans won't be able to hunt someday years from now. As it stands, please show me where there has been ANY THREAT to those rights here in Oklahoma.

Kind of a moot point anyway, I expect SQ742 will pass handily.

[achiro]

If Oklahoma sportsmen do their job, they'll teach their children and grandchildren to hunt, fish, etc., and continue to foster a cultural climate where these things are valued. Then the notion of PETA or some other bunch of nutjobs coming in and launching a serious threat to those rights in Oklahoma will be just as ridiculous 50 years in the future as it is right now.
Nice in theory, but times are a changin. There are lots of reasons(that I won't get into) but the numbers of hunters continue to drop year after year.


Again, in my opinion, the risks of tying the Legislature's hands greatly exceeds the risk that Oklahomans won't be able to hunt someday years from now. As it stands, please show me where there has been ANY THREAT to those rights here in Oklahoma.

Kind of a moot point anyway, I expect SQ742 will pass handily.

I agree that it will probably pass and I am not trying to talk you into voting for it, I am just trying to explain the rationale of doing it now.
If you wait until we become the kind of state that lets anti legislation get started to try and pass something like this, then it would never happen. Now really is the time to do this. I am not crazy about all of the language myself, some of it is vague in my mind, "by traditional means" as an example, does that mean gun, bow, rocks? But it's a start.

[picasso]

That's so damned confusing that I don't know whether to vote for it or against it. I'll vote for the wineries....so do I vote yes or no?

vote yes. sheesh what a stupid assed law.

[Mjcpr]

Once again, I am not against hunting and fishing. What I am against is playing political games that could have unintended consequences down the road. Considering that I have had people who voted IN FAVOR of SJR-38 tell me off-the-record it's nothing more than a stunt, I can't in good conscience vote for it.

Are you against hunting and fishing?

:confused:

[Fraggle145]

I have another question about this... Are licenses still going to be required to hunt and fish? and what does it mean when it "makes hunting, fishing, and trapping the preferred means to manage certain game and fish?" can i get a clarification here?

I mean if this does away with licenses then i cant be for it as that is where nearly all of the money for ODWC comes from. Also I cant vote for something that would tie the hands of what ODWC can and cant do to manage wildlife population. i just want to know if this is the government telling the experts how to do their job.

[IB4OU2]

I have another question about this... Are licenses still going to be required to hunt and fish? and what does it mean when it "makes hunting, fishing, and trapping the preferred means to manage certain game and fish?" can i get a clarification here?

I mean if this does away with licenses then i cant be for it as that is where nearly all of the money for ODWC comes from. Also I cant vote for something that would tie the hands of what ODWC can and cant do to manage wildlife population. i just want to know if this is the government telling the experts how to do their job.


STATE QUESTION NO. 742 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 345

This measure adds a new section to the State Constitution. It adds Section 36 to Article 2. It gives all people of this state the right to hunt, trap, fish and take game and fish. Such activities would be subject to reasonable
regulation. It allows the Wildlife Conservation Commission to approve methods and procedures for hunting, trapping, fishing and taking of game and fish. It allows for taking game and fish by traditional means. It makes hunting, fishing, and trapping the preferred means to manage certain game and fish. The new law will not affect existing laws relating to property rights.


SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

[Fraggle145]

STATE QUESTION NO. 742 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 345


This measure adds a new section to the State Constitution. It adds Section 36 to Article 2. It gives all people of this state the right to hunt, trap, fish and take game and fish. Such activities would be subject to reasonable regulation. It allows the Wildlife Conservation Commission to approve methods and procedures for hunting, trapping, fishing and taking of game and fish. It allows for taking game and fish by traditional means. It makes hunting, fishing, and trapping the preferred means to manage certain game and fish. The new law will not affect existing laws relating to property rights.



SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO



I asked because of these two things in bold... It looks like the WCC is taking over the job of the ODWC, which is not the same thing.

[IB4OU2]

Thanks everyone that supported this! Iv'e got some extra venison jerky if you want it...;)

[Viking Kitten]

:( Can I have some anyway? I really do think you should hunt and fish to your heart's content, even though I had problems with the ambiguous wording of this thing.

Mmmm... Bambi's mother.

[IB4OU2]

have
:( Can I have some anyway? I really do think you should hunt and fish to your heart's content, even though I had problems with the ambiguous wording of this thing.

Mmmm... Bambi's mother.


You can have all you want sweetie, my wife had questions about the wording too and like you was wondering why in Oklahoma they needed a question like that on the ballot anyway. I told her it may help us become more PETA proof.
:D