3 ms·
Curious question. About half of states have voted a constitutional amendment specifically calling out a right to hunt and fish. F.ex., Georgia's reads "The tra
by ethbro 10y ago
Curious question. About half of states have voted a constitutional amendment specifically calling out a right to hunt and fish.
F.ex., Georgia's reads "The tradition of fishing and hunting and the taking of fish and wildlife shall be preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good."
Could a state resident sue their government for transferring state land to private ownership under the clause?
- TallGuyShort 10y agoI would bet if they could prove that that sale materially harmed the preservation and management they could possibly sue successfully. That said, there are states where the public grounds that allow hunting and fishing suck due to mismanagement, and people go to private bodies of water and fields instead. Just because it's public doesn't mean taxpayers actually get what they're owed.
- ethbro 10y agoTrue. Which harkens back to the active or effective management vs passive or ineffective. I was just struck that it would seem logically difficult to make a case that sale of public land (able to be hunted or fished) to a private party is "for the public good" in the sense of "preserving the traditions."