The Ohio Senate proposed establishing a constitutional right to fish, hunt and harvest wildlife through Senate Joint Resolution 8. SJR 8 would promote wildlife conservation and management and preserve the future of hunting and fishing.
The bill is currently sitting in the Senate General Government Committee. If the bill were to be passed and filed with Secretary of State Frank LaRose, SJR 8 would be submitted to the state's electors on the November ballot. SJR 8, or Section 23 of Article I, will go into effect immediately if the majority of Ohio voters vote in favor.
SJR 8’s primary sponsor, Republican Sen. Stephen Huffman of District 5, mentioned the initiative to ban hunting and fishing in Oregon and conversations regarding the same proposal in other states.
Due to those trends, Huffman said, adding the section to the constitution will ensure the permanence of the hunting and fishing rights in Ohio.
During SJR 8’s 3rd hearing in general government Feb. 10, 48 witnesses opposed the bill while six witnesses supported it.
“I don’t think they (opponents) were very valid,” Huffman said. “Basically, they said it would allow anybody to go hunt or fish any place they want, with anything they want, however they want. This is not the case.”
SJR 8 will regulate the spaces Ohioans are allowed to hunt or fish through the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Huffman said. Someone could not hunt or fish on another person's private property or inside most city limits, but rather on owned private property and public property.
An opponent speaking for Columbus Animal Advocates, Erica Davidson, believes the bill to be redundant and unnecessary.
“There is no clear evidence that existing laws in Ohio are eroding hunting and fishing rights or that voters are clamoring for constitutional protections,” Davidson said in her testimony. “Introducing an amendment without a well-established problem invites unintended legal and administrative challenges with little public benefit.”
Davidson argues hunting and fishing are recreational activities, not civil rights that should be protected by the state’s constitution.
“Elevating a recreational activity, including one already permitted by statute, to this level risks diluting the seriousness of constitutional rights and setting a precedent that could lead to future efforts to constitutionalize other leisure interests,” Davidson argued in her testimony.
A proponent, Travis Thompson, spoke on behalf of the International Order of T. Roosevelt at the third hearing. Thompson introduces the idea that fishing and hunting are not just recreational activities, due to their roots in Ohio’s heritage and economic growth.
“According to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, sportsmen contribute over $1.9 billion to Ohio's economy each year, with hunting alone generating $1.3 billion annually and supporting 15,500 jobs, while fishing adds another $2.5 billion and 18,850 jobs,” Thompson said in his testimony.
Thompson also argued that in a world with increasing food security, hunting and fishing offer a sustainable source of nutritious food.
“Ohio's rich wildlife and waterways allow families to supplement their diets with healthy, wild-caught or harvested protein,” Thompson said in his testimony.
ODNR regulates the number of animals a person can hunt and fish per day, depending on the species population and site regulations. For example, there is no limit to fish Channel Catfish under 28 inches in waters where no site-specific regulations are posted, while only one Channel Catfish over 28 inches can be caught per day.
“There are also concerns from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and other animals that we should not be hunting and fishing these animals,” Huffman said. “But when there are thousands of crashes into deer every year, there's a reason why we hunt and fish.”
The resolution would ensure the preferred method of traditional forms of hunting, which are hunting and fishing, would be guaranteed by the constitution rather than the revised code, Huffman said.
On the other hand, Davidson is concerned about the bill lessening the government's ability to manage economic changes.
"By declaring them the preferred means of managing wildlife,” Davidson said. “This elevation risks constraining future wildlife policy, even when science indicates alternatives — such as habitat restoration, disease control measures or population controls that differ from harvest — are necessary for public safety and ecological health.”
