OPINION: Animal Rights Folks Doing No Favors for People of NH

http://nh1.com/news/editorials-opinions/opinion-animal-rights-folks-doing-no-favors-for-people-of-nh

Thank you to the 10 members of the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR) that voted Thursday, unanimously, to approve the proposed biennial rules change for the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department.

The committee’s primary statutory duty is to review the proposed and the previously adopted rules of state agencies.

In giving their approval, they were not speaking to specific Fish and Game proposals on the hunting and trapping of foxes and coyotes, but rather if the department adequately took public comment into consideration when formulating the proposal. The unanimous vote reaffirmed that they did.

I believe it was JLCAR Chairman Sen. John Reagan who told those assembled for the vote that just because the vote didn’t go they way that some wanted, it didn’t mean that they weren’t heard.

And therein lies the rub.

Animal rights groups feel that somehow their voices should carry more weight than those of sportsmen and women in New Hampshire. Perhaps they feel that they’re on a higher moral or ethical plateau than the rest of us? So, even though they didn’t get their way, the story is not over.

Look for Legislative Service Requests, or proposed bills, in the next legislative session. But, that’s typical behavior for a spoiled child who doesn’t get what they want from one parent. They go the other parent, and if that doesn’t work, a sibling or grand-parent.

They just keep going until they find someone who will agree with them and they finally get what they want … or don’t.

I think the president of the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation, Jim Morse put the discussion in context.

“Some have complained fox take numbers were not reduced after an analysis of a very limited set of trapping data showed a decline in fox populations. Many believe the decrease in fox take is from a lack of hunting and trapping participation, not dreadfully low fox population levels. Sportspeople simply asked if more data could be collected before hunting and trapping rules were changed.

“Thankfully, the Fish and Game commissioners listened to reason and chose not to alter the seasons while biologists collected additional data. For example, last year’s red fox take was 115 animals across the entire state. Considering there are 221 towns and 13 cities in New Hampshire, I would hazard a guess each town might have more than approximately 0.5 fox.

“Recently a boy was bitten by a fox in the Meredith area that was later found to be rabid. Animal attacks, especially from predators such as fox, coyotes and bobcats, are occurring with more regularity. Rabies and distemper are ‘density dependent’ and often manifest in large condensed populations of mammals. This is arguably Mother Nature’s unpleasant way of controlling her animal populations. We do not know how many foxes have rabies in New Hampshire due to limited funding for testing. Perhaps those that wish to severely limit trapping and hunting could fund rabies testing, much the same way sportsmen and sportswomen fund the Fish and Game Department.”

So, in my simplistic, black and white logic – if you don’t want to hunt, fish or trap, for whatever reason (time constraints, ethical issues, cultural differences or lack of past experiences) … then don’t, but don’t tell me that I can’t because you have a problem with it.

JLCAR arrived at the logical conclusion. Fish and Game’s proposals were in keeping with their mission as the guardian of the state’s fish, wildlife and marine resources, to “conserve, manage and protect these resources and their habitats; inform and educate the public about these resources; and provide the public with opportunities to use and appreciate these resources.”

Sadly, the animal rights folks only see and hear what they want to see and hear. And that vision and selective hearing does no favors to the people of New Hampshire.

Columnist wants to know what you think about hunting, conservation

The column this week will be a little different – an invitation for readers, especially the hunters and fishers out there, to share your thoughts on a question I have been thinking about since college. It’s a topic that keeps popping up in the media again and again, most noticeably with Cecil the Lion but repeatedly since then as well. So here it is, the question in two parts:

1. Can hunting (or fishing) play a part in wildlife conservation?

2. And should it?

The reason I started thinking about this again was because this past weekend, I read a news article about an American woman, Tess Talley, who traveled to Africa to shoot a giraffe in a trophy hunt. The photo of this woman, standing next to this downed mountain of an animal with her rifle in hand, went viral and received immense amounts of backlash. Initially, some of the uproar was because the giraffe in question had a darker hide than normal and was being called a rare black giraffe. I didn’t research it too heavily, but it seems like the hunted animal’s coat color was largely because of age (with older individuals becoming darker). But that, I think, is beside the point. Once the photo went viral, the hunter would’ve received backlash regardless of the animal’s coat color. It was enough that it was a giraffe, and she killed it.

A few facts: While it’s not legal to hunt giraffes everywhere, this particular hunt was perfectly legal.

Talley and the hunting company she worked with in Africa both say the trophy fee (about $2,000-$3,000) stayed in the local community.

The overall giraffe population in Africa has declined as much as 40 percent since the ’80s and is predicted to keep declining in the future.

In college, I took a course called Ethics of Conservation, which was easily one of my favorite courses. It covered everything from how we think of wildlife and natural areas, to bioprospecting to ecotourism. And, yes, there was a big section on trophy hunting in the middle, too. As with all other topics, my professor was very good at selecting readings and examples that highlighted both sides – those in favor of hunting for conservation and those against. As a result, I have a well-rounded view (I think). I see both arguments.

Responsible hunters are very careful to follow bag limits, quotas and other restrictions that limit them to manageable take. Tess Talley was, all evidence suggests, very careful to select a company in an area of Africa where it was legal to shoot giraffes. She even took an individual that was not, or so she claims, contributing to the breeding population (although I don’t know if there’s solid proof of that). If done correctly, a large part of the trophy money does stay in local communities and provides jobs and a source of income for residents, either as part of the hunting company or working in the mini-lodges and tourist shops that support guest hunters. Theoretically, in an ideal world, this would mean that locals would be less likely to feel inclined to develop wildlife areas or poach game unsustainably. Why go out and shoot all the giraffes yourself for your own subsistence when you can make more money and secure a better livelihood, hosting hunters who shoot maybe one or two at a time? Whether or not the money does contribute to local communities is another question, cases of corruption being common, but that’s the best-case scenario.

Hunters also say they enjoy spending time in nature, they respect the animals they take, and they have a personal and deep connection with the wild areas that still exist. They also often involve their children in the activity – embedding a love for the outdoors in them at a young age. I have a friend who entered the world of conservation biology only because of his childhood hunting experiences, or so he says.

On the other hand, to the nonhunter, it all seems a little contradictory. If you love something, say giraffes, why do you then kill it? Why not just donate the $2,000 dollars directly to one of the many organizations that work to preserve giraffes or giraffe habitat? This question cuts a little more sharply when it’s a known fact that giraffes are indeed declining across the African continent. They aren’t our mallards or wood ducks: they are big, charismatic mammals that are dropping in number and will continue to drop in number in the future. For a lot of the angry people commenting on the photos of the dead giraffe, it is impossible to make the connection between wildlife conservation and the dead animal center frame. They read Tess Talley’s comments about how magnificent a creature the giraffe is and don’t believe her. Again, how can you call something magnificent and mean it, and then put a bullet through it? How can you claim to want to save or conserve something, and then reduce it to meat?

I’m not a hunter myself, and I don’t come from a hunting family. I caught a sunfish once when I was a kid and that’s about the extent of my fishing. We even put it back. But like I said, I can see both sides of the conservation/hunting debate and have no problems with hunting myself. More than that, I am very interested in the questions that situations like this bring up.

If you have an opinion, a perspective, an insight into the world of hunting and conservation, I’d love to hear it. Shoot me a line at eshelly@gcbo.org with your thoughts.

Emma Shelly is the Education and Outreach Manager of the Gulf Coast Bird Observatory. The GCBO is a nonprofit organization dedicated to saving the birds and their habitats along the entire Gulf Coast and beyond into their Central and South America wintering grounds.

Gun control advocates stage ‘Wear Orange Weekend’ and NRA hits back

On the first day of “Wear Orange Weekend,” the National Rifle Association and gun controladvocates traded barbs on Twitter.

Interested in Gun Control?

Add Gun Control as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Gun Control news, video, and analysis from ABC News.

Add Interest

Wear Orange Weekend is an initiative started by Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization launched in 2014 by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg to lobby for more stringent gun control.

Supporters were encouraged to wear orange starting all weekend starting on Friday, June 1, which is National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

Early Friday morning, the NRA changed its logo on Twitter to orange, and tweeted that “Orange has always been ours.”

NRA

@NRA

🔶 NRA SOCIAL GOING ORANGE: While Everytown for Gun Safety has devoted close to no resources to making citizens safer, the NRA continues to be the world’s leading gun safety organization since 1871. 📸 Send us pics in your orange hunting and NRA gear to be featured.

“Orange has been hunters and sportsmen’s choice for decades,” the NRA said in a later tweet. “No organization in the world does more than the NRA to promote the safe and responsible use of firearms.”

NRA

@NRA

Orange has been hunters and sportsmen’s choice for decades. No organization in the world does more than the NRA to promote the safe and responsible use of firearms. Don’t forget to send us your orange!

Orange is the color traditionally worn by hunters because of its high visibility. In some states, hunters are required to wear at least some orange clothing in an effort to avoid hunting accidents.

Gun control activists tweeted back at the NRA, including Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jamie died in the February shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Fred Guttenberg

@fred_guttenberg

This is why we wear orange today. Our world is simply not complete but glad that you were able to join us in orange today. We miss you more than anything JT🧡

Matt Deitsch

@MattxRed

We wouldn’t have to wear orange if you weren’t actively blocking policy that could combat gun violence.

We wear orange because of organizations like you. https://twitter.com/nra/status/1002505041880772608 

Wear Orange Weekend continues through Sunday, June 3, and organizers say it will be marked by hundreds of events nationwide.

Killing the myth of hunting as conservation

http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-myth-hunting-conservation.html

by Fran Silverman, FOA Friends of Animals
March 2018

The Trump administration is making it easier for Americans to go to Africa, shoot elephants and lions and bring their body parts home as trophies to mount on walls – all in the name of conservation….

Hunter supporters use unscientific bear sightings to inflate numbers and livestock conflicts to scare the public to justify bear hunting.

elephant and calf
Image from Memories of Elephants

If it sounds ridiculous, it likely is. So say this out loud and tell me how it sounds.

Shooting endangered and threatened species will help save them.

Here’s another one.

Hunters are helping keep you safe by killing black bears.

In honor of National Wildlife Week, let’s parse these statements.

Supporters of black bear hunts assert that the bears are a nuisance at best and a safety hazard at their worst. They point to unscientific bear sightings to inflate numbers and livestock conflicts to scare the public. Killing them will solve this, they say. And the hunters then get to take home the bears to mount or use as rugs. Nice reward for saving all of us.

On a national level, the Trump administration is making it easier for Americans to go to Africa, shoot elephants and lions and bring their body parts home as trophies to mount on walls – all in the name of conservation.

The thing is, the science doesn’t back any of this up. This month a new study published in Science Advances found issues with the science cited in the “North American Model of Wildlife Conservation,” which guides hunting policies. The study found that what counts for science is rarely defined. In fact, a majority of the science in management plans surveyed — 60 percent — contained fewer than half of criteria for the fundamental hallmarks of science, which include measurable objectives, evidence, transparency and independent review. The report reviewed 62 U.S. state and Canadian provincial and territorial agencies across 667 species management systems.

“These results raise doubt about the purported scientific basis of hunt management across the U.S. and Canada,’’ it concluded.

The claims of hunting as conservation of endangered and threatened species also don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny. There aren’t any documented, peer-reviewed studies that show that lawful hunting does not overall disadvantage the species being hunted. Emerging studies, in fact, indicate that legal hunting can increase demand, promote black-market trade of sport-hunted animals and reduce the stigma associated with killing wildlife.

The African elephant population has plummeted by 30 percent in seven years, with just 350,000 left in the world where once there were millions. The population of lions has declined by 42 percent, with just about 20,000 left. Additionally, a new study by Duke University found that poaching and habitat loss have reduced forest elephant populations in Central Africa by 63 percent since 2001.

Yet, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it was lifting a ban on trophies from several African nations and will allow them on a case-by-case basis. This action, coupled with the Department of Interior’s creation of an International Wildlife Conservation Council comprised of hunting industry representatives whose stated goal is to advise the agency on the benefits of international hunting, removing barriers to the importation of trophy-hunted animals, and reverse suspensions and bans on trade of wildlife, sends the message that the only way to save these majestic creatures is to make sure it’s easier to shoot them to death.

On a local level, here in my home state of Connecticut where FoA is headquartered, I listened intently as supporters of a bill to kill 5 percent of the black bear population in the lovely Litchfield County region insisted it was necessary to prevent bear-human conflict. Bears are killing livestock! Bears are getting into garbage cans! Knocking over bird feeders! Scaring hikers on trails! Lions and tigers and bears. Oh my!

I’m not making light of a bear encounter. They are formidable. But the science and the math for a shoot-first approach doesn’t add up. First, bears are shy and attacks are more associated with human behavior than the population of bears, studies show. To ward them off if you are a hiker, wear bear bells, carry bear spray. Worried about your backyard farm animals? Install an electric fence. Certainly, don’t feed bears, keep your doors shut and remove bird feeders in the spring.

The truth is black bear attacks are super rare. In the past 20 years, there’s been 12 fatal black bear attacks in the U.S, yet thousands of black bears have been slaughtered in legal hunts. More than 4,000 bears were killed in New Jersey alone since bear hunts were legalized there under Governor’s Christie’s reign before the new governor halted them. In New York, more than 1,000 black bears were killed in hunts last year.

Yet, along with that news in New York about the success of its 2017 bear hunt, there was this item buried in a press release from the N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation: 19 humans were injured by hunters last year and one was fatality shot, a woman who was just walking her dogs in the woods by her house. In fact, between 2011-2017, there’s been 14 humans killed by hunters and 131 injured in New York. In Connecticut, hunters have killed one human and injured 13 between 2011-2016. The number of bear fatalities in both these states? Zero.

The more I dug into fatal black bear attacks verses fatal hunting incidents, the more alarmed I became. In just six states I reviewed where bear hunting is allowed or being considered, there have been 500 humans injured by hunters and 63 killed. The stories are sad. People who were fishing when they got shot by an errant hunter’s bullet. Hunters shooting each other and themselves. And there was Rosemary Billquist, a 43-year-old hospice volunteer who was the woman from upstate New York shot dead last fall by her neighbor.

When FoA testified against a black bear hunt in Connecticut, pointing out the hundreds of injuries and startling number of humans killed by hunters, dispelling the myth that bear sightings at all indicate bear populations and showing there is a weak correlation between the number of bears in a region and bear-human conflict, the majority of lawmakers on the state’s environment committee saw the light and voted down the hunt.

But black bear hunts are still legal in a majority of states. It’s estimated that 40,000-50,000 black bears have been killed in hunts. But the fact is the number of fatal black bear attacks are rare.

Human hunting related deaths and injuries – not so rare.

The number of U.S. residents who hunt is dwindling every year. Yet, the damage they are doing to wildlife and other humans is astounding.

Elephants are becoming rare. So are lions. Shooting them to hang on walls doesn’t conserve them.

The math is the math and the science is the science.


Friends of Animals’ Communications Director Fran Silverman oversees FoA’s public affairs and publications. Her previous experience includes editor of a national nonprofit consumer advocacy site, staff writer and editor positions and contributing writer for The New York Times.


Return to Animal Rights Articles

Why I Choose Not to Hunt

FreeImages.com/Kenn Kiser 

https://www.peta.org/living/for-men/choose-hunt/?utm_campaign=0315+Why+I+Choose+Not+to+Hunt+Post&utm_source=PETA+Facebook&utm_medium=Promo

I consider myself an outdoor enthusiast and will gleefully take on any challenge that nature can throw at me: scaling ever higher mountain peaks, hiking across continents or whitewater rafting. Overcoming my fears and pushing the limitations of my body past what I thought was possible—that’s the best feeling of victory that I can imagine. My trophies are the blisters on my feet and the sight of a sunrise from 14,000 feet above sea level captured on my iPhone. I don’t need a head on my wall or to watch an animal needlessly bleed to death in order to feed my ego.

I’m tired of hearing the same defensive arguments from hunters, who actually constitute only 5 percent of U.S. adults. (They’re just really loud.) Look, if killing cornered animals with enough firepower to take out a small nation compensates for the lack of power that you feel in the rest of your life, just say so. But don’t perpetuate myths about hunting that don’t hold up. My favorites of the bunch include the following:

  1. It’s better to eat animals who lived in the wild their entire lives than it is to eat animals from a factory farm.

    This argument confounds several issues. First, anyone with a brain knows that the factory-farming system is a problem for the animals, the environment, and our health. Eating almost anything is a better option. But let’s drop the BS: Hunters are not killing animals primarily to feed their families. Meat from a kill is a byproduct, yes, but hunting is a “sport”—and an expensive one at that. And I’m not just talking about the $10,000-a-head safari hunters—big-game hunters actually spent more than $4 billion in 2011 on “special equipment” (items such as dune buggies and snowmobiles) and another half-billion on taxidermy alone. Tell me that’s all in the name of putting good-quality food on the table. A third of all hunters go for small game, as in squirrels and raccoons—and I just don’t believe that grilled ‘possum is being served at 4 million dinner tables.

  2. Hunting is necessary to keep down the population of “pests.”

    Let’s not forget that we are encroaching on land that was the home range of those “pests” in the first place by building highways, developments and strip malls. When we take more and more land away from animals, of course they’re going to venture onto “our” roads and farms. A much more humane way of dealing with the problem is through sterilization, which has been proved to work by ecologists. Hunting actually increases the population problem by killing off the oldest male animals for their trophy quality while leaving the females and young to—guess what?—expand the population.

  3. Kids should learn early that nature is harsh.

    Yes, animals experience pain and suffering. But they also have complex lives that include time for play, tenderness, and care. Watching dolphins leap into the air from a kayak just a few feet away can teach far more about the natural world than shooting a frightened animal with a high-powered rifle can. I want to teach my kids about respecting all life and not taking what isn’t theirs just as much as I want to teach them about keen observation and physical endurance. Besides, killing animals doesn’t teach kids that nature is cruel—it teaches them that humans are cruel. And sadly, that’s a lesson that kids will learn all too soon anyway.

Inhofe Ends Pigeon Shoot, Animal Rights Group Celebrates

http://www.news9.com/story/36196913/inhofe-ends-pigeon-shoot-animal-rights-group-celebrates

Inhofe Ends Pigeon Shoot, Animal Rights Group Celebrates

Posted: Aug 23, 2017 3:47 AM PDT Updated: Aug 23, 2017 5:00 AM PDT

Senator Jim Inhofe announced the end of his annual wild pigeon, a cause for celebration for an animal rights group. The outdoor fundraiser had been the target of a multi-year campaign by Showing Animals Respect and Kindness, or SHARK, which alleged the event was cruel.

In a series of emails obtained by the group, a staffer from Sen. Inhofe’s office wrote in January to Oklahoma Department of Wildlife game wardens, “I am happy to let you know that this year, and going forward, we are going to halt the ‘old world pigeon shoot.”

Another email read, “I know this event has caused some tension in the past, so I hope this move will allow us to rebuild those relationships.”

The shoot had come under criticism for allegedly using tagged pigeons that were hand thrown in the air, instead of hunting wild ones.

In a statement, Inhofe campaign spokesman Luke Holland said:

The Inhofe campaign has long held a very successful dove hunt event each year. In a few recent years, the event has included a pigeon shoot. This year we will not have that component of the event and will return to our traditional format; we expect it to be a record year and hope everyone who attends has a wonderful time.

More consider the source…

Gun Sales Are Plummeting and Trump Wants to Help

https://www.thenation.com/article/gun-sales-are-plummeting-and-trump-wants-to-help/

The NRA’s new playbook includes guns for kids and open carry in every state.

The right to hunt and fish is called barbaric

http://georgesoutdoornews.bangordailynews.com/2017/04/27/environmental-issues/the-right-to-hunt-and-fish-is-called-barbaric/

April 27, 2017

A proposed Constitutional amendment to “Establish the Right to Hunt and Fish” drew angry testimony from the anti-hunting and anti-trapping crowd.

“This bill is barbaric,” testified John Glowa of China, who called LD 11 “the worst piece of legislation I have seen in more than twenty years of coming before this committee, and I have seen some bad ones.” Glowa also called the bill “the poison fruit of the paranoia seed planted by the out-of-state gun lobby and by radical extremist consumptive users.”

And yes, that was way over the top. Katie Hansberry of the Humane Society of the United States, who is always well-prepared and courteous in her work at the legislature, testified “The Humane Society of the United States has worked with wildlife management agencies across the U.S. to combat poaching. And in recent years, we joined sportsmen and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to crack down on poaching by helping Maine become the first state in New England to join the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact.

“We are concerned that putting a right to hunt in our constitution could amount to an open invitation for poachers to exploit it to their advantage, and could subject longstanding conservation laws to legal challenge from those arguing that this constitutional right exempts them from existing restrictions like bag limits or prohibitions on spotlight or road hunting. Unnecessarily putting this existing right into our constitution could invite lawsuits from individuals who want to argue that conservation laws on quotas, season closures, or land area closures could infringe upon their constitutional right to hunt and fish,” said Katie.

Karen Coker of WildWatch Maine joined in the criticism of the bill, testifying that, “It’s intent… is to silence Maine citizens concerned about unethical practices and to prevent citizens from initiating ballot initiatives on wildlife issues.” She said “This proposal’s vague terms open the door to inhumane, unethical trapping and hunting practices,” and called the bill “a legal nightmare.” She also insisted that “hunting and trapping and fishing are not fundamental rights.”

She might have a disagreement with Katie Hansberry on that, because Katie testified that “Mainers already have the right to hunt and fish.”

DIF&W’s Testimony

Tim Peabody, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, surprised some supporters by testifying “neither for nor against” the bill. He called hunting and fishing “significant privileges” here in Maine.

Tim also noted that last year the legislature amended the Department’s mission statement to include the direction to “use regulated hunting, fishing and trapping as the basis for the management of these resources whenever feasible.” That was a significant victory for hunting, trappers, and anglers.

Tim questioned “How would this bill, and the resulting constitutional rights affect existing hunting laws, landowner’s rights, or the Department of Health and Human Services ability to enforce child support obligations by suspending licenses? The precise answer to these and many more unanticipated questions likely will not be supplied until these issues are tested in court. In the face of the unknown, I hope the Committee and the Legislature as a whole proceeds with caution.”

He summed up his testimony with this statement: “We urge careful consideration of the possible impacts of the current privilege enjoyed by all law abiding sportsmen and women. There is a distinct difference between a privilege and a right,” he said.

Supporters

Supporters of LD 11 including the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, National Rifle Association, and Maine Professional Guides Association.

Rep. Steve Wood, a member of the IFW Committee, sponsored and spoke for the bill, testifying “I’ve proposed this bill as an attempt to join 21 other states around the country which guarantee the right to hunt and fish in their constitutions; most recently Kansas and Indiana.”  Steve distributed a fact sheet about state constitutional amendments and the right to hunt and fish.

Dave Trahan emphasized that LD 11 is a SAM bill, not an NRA bill as some opponents charged. He took the committee through a bit of history of wildlife management in this country, noting that “conservationists and sportsmen of conscience” supported the Pitman-Robertson Act which established an excise tax on outdoor gear, a tax that has directed $3 billion to wildlife management agencies including Maine’s Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Department.

“Hunting, trapping and fishing regulations have existed for less than half the life of this country,” testified Dave. “They were not put in place by the courts or a constitutional ruling and certainly not established to give governments the sovereignty over wild creatures; to the contrary, sportsmen and conservationists willfully placed these limits on wildlife consumption because they recognized the value in our natural world and wanted to insure that they would be around for future generations.

“This Constitutional Proposition is before you because animal rights organizations are trying to change that narrative and history… They believe hunting and fishing are cruel and inhumane, but readily accept the slow, vicious and terrifying death of wild animals through starvation, disease or to be torn apart by wild predators.” Said Dave.

Rep. Karl Ward testified for the bill, reporting that, “As of today, twenty two states now guarantee the People’s Right to Hunt and Fish in their State Constitutions. Vermont enacted this in 1777. The other seventeen – Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have passed amendment to their Constitutions since 1996. Indiana and Kansas passed this amendment last year. Texas and Nevada the year before.”

What’s Next?

It will take a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate to place this Constitutional amendment on the ballot, and the people will make the deciding decision.

I am concerned about the amount of money that will need to be raised to win this ballot fight, but there’s a long way to go before we have to be concerned about that.