Hunting Measure Aims to Preserve A Way of Life, Va. Supporters Say
By Steven Ginsberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday , October 29, 2000 ; Page C01
They hunted and fished at Jamestown. They hunted and fished during the Civil War. They're doing it right now in Northern Virginia, the Blue Ridge Mountains, Southside and on the Eastern
Shore. And on Election Day, there will be a question on the ballot in Virginia asking voters whether the state constitution should be amended to include the right to hunt and fish forevermore.
Backers of the measure say it is a necessary shield against what they perceive to be a nationwide trend against hunting and fishing, activities they view as central to their heritage, if not their
weekend plans. Opponents say the amendment would clutter the constitution and could endanger local control over gun regulations and animal rights. Others feel the measure is unnecessary
because it wouldn't change anything.
The debate over hunting and fishing rights is not just in Virginia and it's not just about the ability to kill deer or drop a line over the edge of a pier. It comes to the forefront at a time when suburbs
are increasingly replacing open stretches of land across the country and urban sensibilities are moving into formerly rural areas.
The transition from rural to suburban has left many with the feeling that their outdoor traditions will fall victim to lack of interest, animal rights organizations, environmentalists or other groups.
The amendment, supporters say, is an effort to maintain one remnant of a pioneer tradition in a world where strip malls, multiplexes and soccer fields represent the pastimes du jour. It is an attempt
to guarantee early morning deer hunts with dad and Sunday afternoons with a rod and reel and not a worry in the world. You cannot understand the feeling of camaraderie of sitting in a cold, wet
duck blind at dawn until you've done it, proponents say.
The issue resonates across North America. Five other states have hunting and fishing proposals on this year's ballot, some trying to affirm the activities, others trying to restrict them.
North Dakotans will vote on a measure nearly identical to the one in Virginia, while voters in Oregon and Washington will consider a proposal to restrict trap hunting. Alabama amended its
constitution in 1996 with a line similar to the one being considered in Virginia, where the measure was placed on the ballot by the General Assembly this year.
Native American tribes, many of which consider the pursuits to be central to their traditions, have won recent court battles upholding their right to unrestricted hunting and fishing on their lands.
Congress has taken up a bill that would protect hunting rights on federal property, which cleared committee but will not be acted on this session. The movement has spread north to Canada, where
the province of Ontario will consider a measure in the spring similar to the one in Virginia.
Even as the population of the commonwealth is on the rise, the number of sportsmen is declining. In 1992, about 320,000 people hunted and 477,732 people fished, according to the Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries. By 1999, those numbers dropped to 274,813 and 449,784 respectively. With decreased exposure and interest, plus the graying of sportsmen, officials expect those
numbers to continue to fall.
Proponents of the constitutional amendment see it as integral to their very being, while others aren't clear on why it's even being considered.
"I'm not sure what the problem is we're trying to solve," said Jane Woods, a former Republican state senator who represented Fairfax County. "There has to be a compelling reason . . . to mess
with the constitution."
Lines are drawn between suburbanized Northern Virginia and the rest of the state. Activists supporting the measure have extensively lobbied voters at fairs, festivals and barbecues across the
commonwealth, but not noticeably in Northern Virginia. Signs supporting the amendment dot restaurants and stores in rural Virginia, while many people in the Washington area aren't aware it's on
the ballot.
"I like to think they really don't understand what hunting and fishing is all about," said Sherry Crumley, referring to suburbanites who oppose the measure. Crumley started the Roanoke-based
Virginia Heritage Foundation in March to drum up support for the amendment. "It's very hard to explain the emotional side to someone who doesn't do it. Nothing moves me the way my hunting
does."
Animal rights advocates also question the amendment, saying it does little other than endanger local efforts to address specific hunting or fishing issues.
"This is an overreaction from radical components of the hunting community," said Wayne Pacelle, spokesman for the Humane Society of the United States. "If a community wants to restrict
hunting for public safety or social reasons, this measure may allow hunters to sue to invalidate those local ordinances. This is a contrived battle, there's no threat to hunting in a general sense in
Virginia."
The Humane Society and the Fund for Animals sued to block the tallying of the vote out of concern that the ballot question is poorly worded and doesn't fully explain the issue to voters. A circuit
court judge in Richmond rejected the suit on Friday.
The ballot question is: "Shall the Constitution of Virginia be amended by adding a provision concerning the right of the people to hunt, fish and harvest game?"
Those who support the amendment--the state legislature, Gov. James S. Gilmore III (R), the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and all the major candidates on the ballot, among
others--acknowledge that there is no imminent danger in Virginia. But they point to the smattering of efforts across the nation aimed at restricting people's ability to hunt and fish. It may not be a
problem in Virginia now, but it will be, they predict.
A voters guide to the Virginia elections is available on The Post's Web site at www.washingtonpost.com/vavoters.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35326-2000Oct28.html © 2000 The Washington Post
By Steven Ginsberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday , October 29, 2000 ; Page C01
They hunted and fished at Jamestown. They hunted and fished during the Civil War. They're doing it right now in Northern Virginia, the Blue Ridge Mountains, Southside and on the Eastern
Shore. And on Election Day, there will be a question on the ballot in Virginia asking voters whether the state constitution should be amended to include the right to hunt and fish forevermore.
Backers of the measure say it is a necessary shield against what they perceive to be a nationwide trend against hunting and fishing, activities they view as central to their heritage, if not their
weekend plans. Opponents say the amendment would clutter the constitution and could endanger local control over gun regulations and animal rights. Others feel the measure is unnecessary
because it wouldn't change anything.
The debate over hunting and fishing rights is not just in Virginia and it's not just about the ability to kill deer or drop a line over the edge of a pier. It comes to the forefront at a time when suburbs
are increasingly replacing open stretches of land across the country and urban sensibilities are moving into formerly rural areas.
The transition from rural to suburban has left many with the feeling that their outdoor traditions will fall victim to lack of interest, animal rights organizations, environmentalists or other groups.
The amendment, supporters say, is an effort to maintain one remnant of a pioneer tradition in a world where strip malls, multiplexes and soccer fields represent the pastimes du jour. It is an attempt
to guarantee early morning deer hunts with dad and Sunday afternoons with a rod and reel and not a worry in the world. You cannot understand the feeling of camaraderie of sitting in a cold, wet
duck blind at dawn until you've done it, proponents say.
The issue resonates across North America. Five other states have hunting and fishing proposals on this year's ballot, some trying to affirm the activities, others trying to restrict them.
North Dakotans will vote on a measure nearly identical to the one in Virginia, while voters in Oregon and Washington will consider a proposal to restrict trap hunting. Alabama amended its
constitution in 1996 with a line similar to the one being considered in Virginia, where the measure was placed on the ballot by the General Assembly this year.
Native American tribes, many of which consider the pursuits to be central to their traditions, have won recent court battles upholding their right to unrestricted hunting and fishing on their lands.
Congress has taken up a bill that would protect hunting rights on federal property, which cleared committee but will not be acted on this session. The movement has spread north to Canada, where
the province of Ontario will consider a measure in the spring similar to the one in Virginia.
Even as the population of the commonwealth is on the rise, the number of sportsmen is declining. In 1992, about 320,000 people hunted and 477,732 people fished, according to the Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries. By 1999, those numbers dropped to 274,813 and 449,784 respectively. With decreased exposure and interest, plus the graying of sportsmen, officials expect those
numbers to continue to fall.
Proponents of the constitutional amendment see it as integral to their very being, while others aren't clear on why it's even being considered.
"I'm not sure what the problem is we're trying to solve," said Jane Woods, a former Republican state senator who represented Fairfax County. "There has to be a compelling reason . . . to mess
with the constitution."
Lines are drawn between suburbanized Northern Virginia and the rest of the state. Activists supporting the measure have extensively lobbied voters at fairs, festivals and barbecues across the
commonwealth, but not noticeably in Northern Virginia. Signs supporting the amendment dot restaurants and stores in rural Virginia, while many people in the Washington area aren't aware it's on
the ballot.
"I like to think they really don't understand what hunting and fishing is all about," said Sherry Crumley, referring to suburbanites who oppose the measure. Crumley started the Roanoke-based
Virginia Heritage Foundation in March to drum up support for the amendment. "It's very hard to explain the emotional side to someone who doesn't do it. Nothing moves me the way my hunting
does."
Animal rights advocates also question the amendment, saying it does little other than endanger local efforts to address specific hunting or fishing issues.
"This is an overreaction from radical components of the hunting community," said Wayne Pacelle, spokesman for the Humane Society of the United States. "If a community wants to restrict
hunting for public safety or social reasons, this measure may allow hunters to sue to invalidate those local ordinances. This is a contrived battle, there's no threat to hunting in a general sense in
Virginia."
The Humane Society and the Fund for Animals sued to block the tallying of the vote out of concern that the ballot question is poorly worded and doesn't fully explain the issue to voters. A circuit
court judge in Richmond rejected the suit on Friday.
The ballot question is: "Shall the Constitution of Virginia be amended by adding a provision concerning the right of the people to hunt, fish and harvest game?"
Those who support the amendment--the state legislature, Gov. James S. Gilmore III (R), the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and all the major candidates on the ballot, among
others--acknowledge that there is no imminent danger in Virginia. But they point to the smattering of efforts across the nation aimed at restricting people's ability to hunt and fish. It may not be a
problem in Virginia now, but it will be, they predict.
A voters guide to the Virginia elections is available on The Post's Web site at www.washingtonpost.com/vavoters.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35326-2000Oct28.html © 2000 The Washington Post