by zebedee_177 — no

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or its amendments is there a ‘right’ to kill the public’s wildlife.  Wildlife is supposed to be held in the public trust for all of the general public’s benefit, not just for the benefit of a relative handful of Nevadans..  No threat exists anywhere in the 50 states that lawfully-licensed hunters won’t be able to continue killing wildlife they see as a bonafide recreational activity.  So why was this bill even proposed?  It is a case of a noisy subset of 5% of all Nevadans wasting time with legislation that is a solution in search of an imaginary problem.  No one has tried to ban hunting in Nevada, but 95% of its residents choose not to buy wildlife killing licenses.  Don’t these facts say something compelling about the absent public policy need for such legislation?  Let’s not clutter the state’s Constitution with useless issues such as this one.

by janine — yes

Vote YES on SJR11. Protect Nevadans rights to hunt, fish and trap.Give us the opportunity to vote.

This is a proposed Constitutional Amendment that passed last session, must pass again this session and if it does it goes on the ballot. Read the bill here:

by peter5427 — no

With mankind overrunning the planet at a geometrically accelerating rate, animals are driven to extinction just from the loss of habitat. So I don’t see why we’d have to hunt them, too. We provide for our own food by engaging in agriculture. If it were not for that, immeasurable convenience as it is for all of us, I would most likely try to survive on plants. To the extent that I understand the primal thrill in a hunt, I would just as soon shoot animals with a paint gun. Great fun, ha, ha. So OK, I’m just a … whatever. I had my share of helping my mother kill chickens and rabbits for dinner, but by the time I was 12 , I had to tell her, no more. Couldn’t even go to the poultry shop anymore where you picked out the bird and the seller killed and cleaned it. As you watched him do it.

I wish this bill were NOT on the agenda, or eventually on the ballot. Why would we even need a constitutional guarantee of the “right to hunt.” Of course we have a right to hunt. Well, not a right, but a privilege; you can’t hunt within city limits, or without a license, without the land owner’s permission, etc.

The calamity will come as another nail in the coffin of liberty, when all the city folk in Clark and Washoe vote it down. Then what? We will jail all the hunters? What about culling the herd to ensure its health? Should have left it alone. What prompted this nonsense in the first place?