Outdoor Insights: A right to hunt and fish… with teeth?

Minnesota passed its right to hunt and fish amendment back in 1998, and its biggest effect on the state’s natural resources scene was the passage of the Legacy Amendment a decade later.

The momentum and confidence that Amendment 2 generated 28 years ago allowed the sporting community and its allies to push a sales-tax dedication over the finish line in 2008. Amendment 2’s accomplishments in actually protecting hunting and fishing rights have been harder to quantify.

The state hasn’t lost any hunting or fishing seasons as a result of lawsuits, probably in part because of the language in our state constitution protecting those rights. Any such litigation probably would go down in flames pretty fast. So that’s a win for everyone who advocated for its passage.

Only Alabama had similar constitutional language on the books prior to Minnesota, and now 24 states have it, with Florida the latest, in 2024. Wisconsin passed its version in 2003, and Colorado is working to pass its own (Initiative 302) on Election Day, Nov. 3.

That’s great, but I’ve never been able to shake the feeling that all these amendments have lacked serious legal teeth. We feel good about their passage, but what have they accomplished? Last week, my USMC brother in North Carolina and some sources here in Minnesota sent me a news story that casts right-to-hunt-and-fish constitutional language in an interesting light.

In August, a Wake County judge ruled that North Carolina has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to protect state fisheries. Tar Heel State voters added a section (Article I, Section 38) to their state constitution protecting the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife in 2018.

The Carolina Journal reports that Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins’ ruling arrived six months after he conducted a multi-week trial in a lawsuit led by the Coastal Conservation Association of North Carolina. That association led a group of more than 80 plaintiffs that sued the state in 2020, alleging a breach of its obligation to manage and protect fisheries for the benefit of the public.

The plaintiffs said they have a right to hunt and fish, but N.C. fisheries managers weren’t holding up their end of the bargain in maintaining healthy Atlantic fisheries. After a lengthy judicial process, the judge agreed.

MORE COVERAGE FROM MINNESOTA OUTDOOR NEWS: 

Meet Jason Moeckel, the Minnesota DNR’s new Fish and Wildlife Division leader

How far is too far to shoot in waterfowl hunting? Answer these three questions

Feds say waterfowl numbers drop in ’26

Collins wrote that North Carolina has failed to “keep fisheries safe from injury, harm, or destruction for all time” as required under Article I, Section 38, and failed to “protect the harvestable fish population for the benefit of the citizenry.”

The issue in North Carolina involves commercial fishing trawlers, bycatch, and its resource commissions, so this is not an apples-to-apples comparison with poor walleye fishing in your Minnesota local lake, but nonetheless, it’s new legal ground for any state with similar language in its constitution. I have to wonder if some attorneys general and natural resources leaders around the country are nervously tugging at their collars over this ruling.

Collins has given the parties 45 days to prepare a report to address the remedy phase of the case challenging state fisheries policies. It’ll probably end up meaning a commission gets overhauled, but big picture: What kind of door does this case open?

It appears to be a new legal lever for those who care about natural resources management and the recreational fish and game it supports. One also wonders if right-to-hunt-and-fish language will be harder to pass in other states as a result of this ruling.

Legislators and AGs may be less friendly to the concept if it means legal headaches like what’s cooking in N.C. right now.

Got time on your hands? You can read the entire 190-page ruling here.