A recent move by our neighbors in Ohio to make hunting and fishing constitutionally protected activities has raised some questions here in the Keystone State. Is hunting and fishing constitutionally protected here? What does it mean to protect such activities constitutionally?

And what, if any, changes would such protection have on sportsmen?

Currently, 24 states have constitutional protections for hunting and fishing. Vermont was the first state to do so in 1777. None of the other states included this provision in their original constitutions, but instead added amendments to do so after 1996.

Pennsylvania is not one of the 24.

An attempt to amend our constitution, most recently in 2017, failed to reach the voters after dying in the legislature.

Despite the lack of a specific constitutional provision addressing hunting or fishing, Pennsylvania’s Constitution does address natural resources, including wild game and fish. Article 1, Section 27 — often referred to as the Environmental Rights Amendment — does establish that the Commonwealth’s natural resources are the common property of all citizens. It also establishes that the government has a duty to protect and manage those resources for all current and future citizens.

This is why private landowners cannot deviate from established environmental laws, including those regarding hunting or fishing.

Although Article 1, Section 27 does not explicitly mention hunting or fishing, it has been heavily relied upon by both the Fish and Boat Commission and the Game Commission as a basis for their authority to manage populations through licensing, seasons, and bag limits that apply to both public and private land. Multiple decisions by the State Supreme Court have strengthened the interpretation of this protection in the past five decades.

So why all the hype about a constitutional amendment? What would be gained by such an action?

The biggest reason for a constitutional provision explicitly protecting hunting and fishing is to ensure that future legislation will not negatively limit these activities. It would make it nearly impossible to limit or restrict hunting or fishing by legislative means, or by group pressure – such as we see in New Jersey every time a bear season is proposed.

Doing so would require that the amendment be repealed first, followed by passage of the negative legislation, which would take years.

As stated earlier, Pennsylvania has attempted to add a hunting and fishing amendment multiple times, most notably in 2017 and 2012. Although each attempt has died before gaining the necessary legislative approval, it was not due to a lack of support but to a lack of need. Many legislators recognized the importance of hunting and fishing to the Commonwealth and its deep tradition.

They did not believe an amendment to protect these activities was necessary, as they had never faced a serious threat.

The most common misconception regarding making hunting and fishing constitutionally protected activities is that citizens would then be able to do so as they please. No licenses, no season, no bag limits: nothing. It would be like freedom of speech or freedom to bear arms.

Not so. Each of the 24 states where such protection exists still has all the regulations that Pennsylvania enforces, and then some.

I suspect that future legislation will be introduced to amend Pennsylvania’s Constitution. I also predict that future attempts will also die before ever reaching the voters for the same reason as past attempts: we as a people already hold these activities near and dear, another level of protection would not change that.