BOB HODGE Keep right to hunt out of politics

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. -- Rights are, by definition, immune to the whimsy of lawmakers and interest groups. That's why I'm suspect of the flurry of "right to hunt and fish" amendments being added to state constitutions.
Alabama and Virginia already have right-to-hunt amendments and Georgia has one in the works. Tennessee State Rep. Jason Mumpower, a Republican, has introduced legislation that could lead to a right-to-hunt amendment being added to the Tennessee constitution.
Like meringue
Unfortunately, right-to-hunt amendments are a lot like meringue: They look good, but what you have is mostly fluff.
People who watch the Tennessee Legislature say Mumpower's bill is probably going nowhere. At first glance that would appear to be a defeat for Tennessee hunters and fishermen, but in an oddball well-this-is-politics sort of way it could be a win.
Right-to-hunt amendments are presented to the public as a way of stiff-arming the animal rights movement. In many of the states where the amendments have passed -- Montana, Wisconsin and Minnesota, to name a few -- the public gave them overwhelming support.
But would Tennessee's amendment really stop a group that had enough legislative clout at its disposal to outlaw hunting and fishing? Not likely.
Mumpower's resolution would amend Article XI of the constitution to say: "The people of the state of Tennessee have a right to hunt, fish and harvest game within the state, subject to the regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law."
In other words, the General Assembly could have the final say. In other words, the "right" to hunt and fish would be exercised at the pleasure of politicians.
A remedy
The way to remedy that would be to take out the "regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law" provision. But do that and you pave the way for lawyers to say you don't need a license and hunting seasons and bag limits are simply suggestions.
One pundit described the Georgia proposal as "a solution in search of a problem."
Constitutional amendments aren't easy to come by in Tennessee. Mumpower's proposal would have to pass the House and Senate, then come back in 2005 and pass by a two-thirds vote. After that it would be put on the ballot and voted on, which probably wouldn't happen until 2006 at earliest.
My guess is Mumpower's heart is in the right place. He said he introduced his bill at the urging of some constituents, and it's likely the folks in Bristol, Tenn., have been influenced by some of the folks in Bristol, Va.
Virginia passed it in 2000, winning 60 percent approval when the measure came up for a vote. To get that far, sportsman's groups supporting the amendment spent thousands of dollars and worked countless hours in fighting off a counter campaign from animal rights groups, which included everything from misinformation to lawsuits.
Mumpower's plan would likely run into the same kind of resistance. Sometimes you have to fight for your rights, but right now this seems be the wrong fight at the wrong time.
XBob Hodge is a sportswriter for The Knoxville News Sentinel in Tennessee; http://www.knoxnews.com.
hodge@knews.com