A proposed constitutional amendment is pending in the Kansas House that would guarantee the public’s right to engage in hunting, fishing and trapping.

It’s a proposal that, at first blush, seems like a natural fit for a state like Kansas, where such outdoor activities are so ingrained in the culture that they feel like constitutional rights anyway. But some officials are warning that it could have far-reaching consequences that could put all of the state’s hunting and fishing regulations under heightened scrutiny by the courts.

The amendment would insert the following language into the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution:

Right of public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife. The people have the
right to hunt, fish and trap,
including by the use of traditional
methods, subject to laws and
regulations that promote wildlife
conservation and management and that
preserve the future of hunting and
fishing. Public hunting and fishing
shall be a preferred means of managing
and controlling wildlife. This section
shall not be construed to modify any
provision of law relating to trespass,
property rights or water resources.

The resolution was sponsored last year by Reps. Adam Lusker, D-Frontenac, and Travis Couture-Lovelady, R-Palco, who is no longer in the Legislature after resigning last year to take a job as a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

The House Federal and State Affairs Committee heard two days of testimony on the amendment this week.

Mike Murray, a lobbyist for the Kansas Rifle Association, said the amendment is needed because the right of people to hunt, fish and trap is currently threatened by “animal rights groups, off-road vehicle groups, urbanization and decreasing habitat.”

But Rep. Annie Tietze, D-Topeka, who said she supports hunting and fishing rights, questioned whether the state should put language in its constitution taking sides on those issues.

“This was to offset other groups who are anti-hunting,” she said. “Why should we protect their (hunters’) rights as opposed to rights of others who feel strongly enough to come together to oppose hunting?”

And while the Kansas Department of Wildlife Parks and Tourism did not oppose the amendment, its general counsel, Chris Tymeson, said there have been concerns about putting such a right into the constitution because it could subject any laws or regulations that restrict hunting, fishing and trapping rights to what the courts call “strict scrutiny.”

In short, that means the government has to show it has a “compelling state interest” in taking any action that restricts the right, and that the policy is “narrowly tailored” to achieve the government’s objective.

Rep. Dick Jones, R-Topeka, said he had concerns about any amendment that would weaken the state’s authority to regulate hunting and manage wildlife.

“The greatest threat to conservation worldwide is poaching,” Jones said. “We have laws to try and prevent that, but it’s extremely difficult. The prohibitions the state puts up have proven inadequate because of the overwhelming impact of poaching.”

Tietze also asked how that would affect the state’s ability to protect threatened or endangered species in Kansas, although Tymeson said he does not think the amendment would greatly interfere with that.

Tymeson said he does not think the amendment would create “a litigation machine.” But he said that when putting new language into the constitution, lawmakers should think about what kinds of issues the state may be confronted with 50 years from now.