June 1, 2005
FISHING FOR RIGHTS
Jeremy Bentham, the English philosopher, famously referred to the discussion of fundamental rights as "nonsense on stilts." He argued that actions should be determined as morally right or wrong based wholly on whether or not they maximize pleasure and minimize pain. He thought it ludicrous that anyone would consider rights independent of utility. As Americans, however, we believe we are entitled to certain fundamental rights irrespective of the general welfare, and as the second amendment illustrates, we really like our guns. So when Doug Jackson, an elected member of the Tennessee state legislature, recently proposed an amendment to his stateís constitution resolving that "the people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game," it garnered immediate bipartisan support.
Now, as a fisherman and a fishing guide, I'll admit this all seems a bit strange to me. It's not that I don't agree with him on some level that I have a right to hunt and fish on public lands that my taxpayer dollars support, it's just that I'm not sure I see the rational necessitating a constitutional amendment protecting such a right. Or put another way, I drink a lot of coffee, but I'm not asking the government to protect that right. Furthermore, I am happy to give up my "right" to fish for a certain species if the regulatory agency in charge of managing the resource tells me it's in the fisheries best interest. It would be a colossal waste of time for the government to protect my right to drink coffee with "a right to drink coffee amendment," and I'm inclined to think the same holds true when it comes to hunting and fishing.
Of course there is nobody who is seriously threatening my ability to drink coffee, but there are those who would tell you that animal rights advocates are a clear and present danger to hunting and fishing on public wildlands nationwide. Tennessee state Senator Jeff Miller is one such individual, and toward that end, he recently pushed through an NRA-inspired amendment to Doug Jackson's bill extending its scope to include "hunting and fishing for all game and fish species by all methods and means available to citizens under the laws, regulations, and restrictions of this state at any time during the ten years preceding the ratification of this amendment." Senator Miller, perhaps a suspicious man by nature, appears to believe it is his duty to use constitutional amendments to preemptively protect people from whatever he views as an immanent threat. For example, recently Miller was instrumental is the passage of another Jackson bill--the one that defines marriage as a contract between one man and one woman. "This fight was forced upon us by those who are seeking to redefine marriage in court by cozying up to activist judges," said Miller. I fear the slickness of the slope when every threat becomes a constitutional amendment.
So this isn't really about my right to hunt and fish, I guess. Rather it's an openly politicized and partisan preemptive strike masterminded by the pro-gun lobby and aimed at weakening the power of the animal rights lobby. Behind the politics, however, is a bill that could be disastrous to the state's wildlands and wildlife. What happens, for instance, when the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) needs to change hunting or fishing regulations in the best interest of conservation? What happens when an animal that was legally hunted in Tennessee sometime in the last ten years, suddenly winds up on the endangered species list? It's not hard to imagine where our litigious society could take us in these situations, and although TWRA officials are confident that a federally listed species would be protected by the state even if the amendment with the NRA language passes, they fear it would require significant funds to litigate such cases--funds that could and should be better spent on conservation and management.
Senator Miller recently said in regard to the defense of marriage amendment, "Activist judges liberally read their own thoughts and views into constitutions in order to 'find' rights which don't exist." But it seems to me, Mr. Miller, that the "right to hunt and fish amendment" is a fishing trip if ever there was one, or as Bentham would put it, it's nonsense on stilts. Anyway, I'll be maximizing my own pleasure while enjoying a cup of coffee when I leave the dock to fish tomorrow morning--it's my right after all.
-- Copyright 2005 by Ret Talbot, exclusively for the Beli-Blog
Posted by Mikal at June 1, 2005 5:37 AM
| TrackBack
I would agree that it would indeed be a colossal waste of time to protect one's right to drink coffee, yet other similar examples of protection of rights or more often rights removed would equally appear to be a colossal waste of time. Imagine in the 1950's restricting the use of tobacco products, particularly in tobacco-rich Tennessee, and the "need" to proactively protect its use via a constitutional amendment.
Fast food, in short order, has become the new scourge of society which will no doubt be restricted, gobbling up our "right" to a supersize soda.
Just 25 years ago, kids were bouncing around in the back of the family station wagon or up front in the middle of the bench seat yet today parents are separated forthwith from their cash at "police check points" if they are not strapped into an state-approved car seat. While the people fearfully comply, the government is not compelled to the same law, allowing those exact same children to ride in government owned buses sans car seats or even seat belts.
Upon conjuring up other historical examples of "rights" (more aptly described as "abilities" for the sake of this discussion), it is not unreasonable to presume that coffee or something equally as benign by today's standards will be outlawed in the future.
Theoretically, every possible behavior and every possible permutable outcome therefrom should be spelled out in each and every state constitution to avoid any gray areas and to provide the clearest of guidelines. Naturally, such a scenario is mathematically impossible yet lawmakers increasingly strive to reach that utopian coummunity.
However, their motives are more often specious in that new lawmakers, by definition, make new laws but rarely ever remove current ones crimping the populace every year into tighter spaces of lawfullness and compliance. Usually these new creations are inspired by legislators desperate to make a mark and/or to please critical constituents, but the constitutional amendments ("super statutes" if you will) have been proposed in an unreasonable reaction to unreasonable encroachments.
These are the precise reasons that lawmakers proactively spike the ball hard to the other side of the court leaving reason and the largess of our society on the sidelines either scratching our heads or mindlessly defending the latest irrational laws depending on which political party from which it was proposed.
Political agendas from both sides of the ideological scope sometimes get greedy wanting too much too quickly. Right-wing groups pushing the FMA in order to "protect the family" are no different than left-wing groups pushing for restrictions on land development, for example, in order to "protect the environment."
Hypocrisy is all too easy to find among legislators. It's more about power to control the people than about principle and doing what is right and reasonable.
Good luck fishing tomorrow and don't forget your rifle.
