Discover If Your State Protects Your Right to Hunt and Fish

Share and Follow

(NEXSTAR) – Ohio residents may soon have the opportunity to constitutionally safeguard hunting and fishing as a right within their state, following a trend already established by about half of the United States.

For this initiative to appear on the ballot next November, it must first gain approval from both houses of the state legislature. As reported by Nexstar’s WCMH, the proposed resolution echoes the language of similar legislative measures in other states, declaring the “right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife” as an integral component of Ohio’s cultural legacy. It also advocates for hunting and fishing as the “preferred methods for managing and controlling wildlife” within the state.

Vermont set the precedent back in the late 1700s, granting its citizens the ability to “hunt, fish and trap on open, private land,” as detailed by the state’s fish and wildlife department. Since then, all other states that have enshrined these activities as constitutional rights have done so starting in 1996, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Florida is the most recent state to follow suit. Last year, by a substantial margin of over 3.3 million votes, Florida voters approved a measure to protect these rights. This amendment also makes it more challenging for state legislators to impose bans or limitations on hunting and fishing.

Other states to enshrine the right to hunt and fish include Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

In California, the right to fish has been enshrined. Constitutional language in Rhode Island guarantees the same, while language in Alaska is said to “meet the test,” according to the NCSL.

The amendments guarantee the right to hunt and fish in the states but still restrict illegal activity, like trespassing, and allow for other regulations. In North Carolina, for example, there remain restrictions on hunting on Sundays despite an effort to relax the rules. A popular hunting show host found himself banned for life from hunting in Kansas earlier this year for two illegal hunts.

The National Rifle Association, which has backed several of these state constitutional amendments, has more recently put support behind pieces of legislation that cover hunting and fishing in Iowa and Maine.

The companion resolutions in Iowa were referred to committees in their respective chambers. In Maine, the resolution has been carried over to the next session of the state legislature.

Last year, a bill to enshrine the right to hunt and fish in Delaware was referred to committee, but no further action was taken. A New York bill faced a similar fate, as did a bill in Michigan earlier this year.

A 2016 effort in Colorado and a 2014 resolution in West Virginia made it through their respective state Senates only to stall out in the House. In 2024, a resolution was again brought forth in the House in West Virginia, but it remained in committee. In the early 2010s, bills in Hawaii, Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, and Pennsylvania stalled out.

Nevada lawmakers in 2015 cleared the way for the necessary legislation to amend the state constitution, but voters never got the chance to weigh in. The language did not receive final passage during the 2017 legislative session, marking the end of the resolution.

Arizona voters were the first to reject enshrining hunting and fishing in 2010, according to the NCSL.

While advocates of these actions say they were needed to protect beloved activities vital to the state’s outdoors and economies, other lawmakers have pushed back. Part of that is because hunting and fishing are already legal activities in the aforementioned states.

Ahead of Utah’s vote to enshrine, Representative Marsha Judkins said that while she supported the right, it was unnecessary to add it to the state’s constitution because hunting and fishing weren’t under threat.

“We need to be extremely judicious and careful about what we put in this most important and sacred document,” she said in 2020.