Looks like a good one to vote YES on. What are ya'lls thoughts?

AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE (5)
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution
of Alabama of 1901, to amend Amendment
597, now appearing as Section 36.02 of the
Official Recompilation of the Constitution of
Alabama of 1901, as amended, to clarify that
the people have the right to hunt, fish, and
harvest wildlife subject to reasonable
regulations that promote conservation and
management of fish and wildlife and preserve
the future of hunting and fishing. (Proposed by
Act No. 2014-286)

subject to reasonable regulations



The government is all about reasonable regulations

Was this part added to the prior amendment that (merely) reaffirmed our God-given rights to hunt and fish and, if so, who determines what a "reasonable" regulation is? DCNR? Courts? The public?

Take out all the other jargon about reasonable regulations and I'd vote for it. I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with the rights we have now and why someone one thinks they need changing.

Are we having a problem currently having a problem clarifying that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to reasonable regulations that promote conservation and management of fish and wildlife and preserve
the future of hunting and fishing?

I'm always suspicious of any amendment that addresses an issue that isn't an issue. It's usually somebody trying to slip something in there that they know we wouldn't otherwise pass.

The Government and reasonable should never be used in the same sentence, there is nothing reasonable about government

When "subject to reasonable regulations" is included that sounds like someone somewhere is tweaked about something they didn't get done or couldn't get done or they want to get done regarding some rules or checkpoints or limits or something and by sliding in four words it's possible to argue "well, this is reasonable in 14 other states" or "our people believe this is reasonable and common sense says it is" to get something done.

I guess I'm voting NO to this amendment. Thanks for the clarifications ...

changed my mind

This ^

FYI - I received a flyer in the mail from the NRA yesterday encouraging me to vote "YES" for Amendments 3 and 5.

I will be out of town next Tuesday so I voted early. I had not herd anything about amendment 5 but after reading I voted no. I kept thinking about the mandatory check-in system and this seemed to me like a attempt to push new regulations.

[quote=jsh1904]subject to reasonable regulations



The government is all about reasonable regulations

Good postings. Thanks for clarification

Precisley... I'd like to hear a definition of reasonable regulation....other than..."We're the government... We do what the hell we want...."

"Reasonable regulation" is the verbiage I have an issue with. Our government's definition of reasonable does not align with mine.

Bingo!

X2

I'm voting no on 3 and 5

This amendment was designed to be proactive against the wishes of anti-hunting groups like PETA. The goal is to preserve our rights and heritage expressly.

But as usual our legislation is poorly written.

I'm voting no on this one as well.

No for me

Precisely...I feel like A3 and A5 are both "well intentioned" but when it comes to interpreting laws, intentions are always twisted and misconstrued.

Again... No.
I have had this stuck at the top for a while now.

Reasonable regulations are why we have the ability to hunt and fish now. We have historically high deer and turkey populations in this state because far sighted conservationists enacted reasonable regulations. I will be voting for the amendment because it preserves the right to hunt and fish for future generations. But that right must be subject to reasonable regulations such as bag limits and seasons. Without the reasonable regulations language a person could argue that any regulation is a violation of the constitution if the amendment passed without that caveat.

Thanks for your input Adrian. I felt like yes was the right vote anyway but that makes me feel better

Spot on. I'm voting yes.

Y'all are getting too paranoid about this crap. This a measure to protect the rights of the people to hunt, fish, and take wildlife from anti-hunting nut jobs, and ya'll are so worried about us government types imposing some regulation you don't like that you can't even see it. The PEOPLE own wildlife, and we've already seen first hand that we can't leave the management of that resource to the people. They screwed that up in the most horrible of ways. The state, IMO, has done a dang good job at giving AL the most liberal seasons on all species of any state in the country, and the whining continues.

And government hasn't given us a reason to be paranoid?? They do so much bad it's hard to trust they'll do something good...

Tru-talker, I'm just as paranoid as anybody about the FEDS. This is another attempt to keep their hands out of Alabama's business.

This was not even brought up until someone (49er) began challenging the constitutionality of the regulation making process. Now they want to change the constitution ... why is that?

No on this one and on 3.

Not sure on this one?

Voting Yes on this one and ammendment 3

after further review.. I am voting yes

I've been reading up on this one myself, as I've been undecided because of certain language revisions.

Alabama Policy Institute has issued a guide on #5. I trust them to clearly and accurate portray the whole story.

Voting is important, but informed voting is even more important. Read and study, then make your own conclusions and decisions. I'm voting yes.

http://www.alabamapolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/GTI-amendment-5.pdf

The very first reasonable regulation will be game check