Maine voters made history on November 3, 2021, by approving a state constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to food. As anticipated, a discussion arose regarding the term “harvest” used in the amendment’s wording.
The debate centered around whether the term “harvest” in the constitution encompasses recreational hunting.
As passionate members of the hunting community in Maine, we cherish our legacy and firmly believe in our right to hunt. It is no surprise, then, that we were relieved to learn that the state constitution now includes a provision that specifically protects hunting.
In recent years, several states have taken steps to incorporate a comparable right to hunt into their state constitutions. This includes states like Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, and Kansas. Furthermore, Florida will also have the opportunity to vote on a similar provision this year.
Hunting has been a constitutional right in Vermont since 1777.
However, not everything that shines is gold. In an attempt to counter a legal challenge by a couple from Readfield who sought to utilize the Right to Food amendment to overturn Maine’s prohibition on Sunday hunting, the state of Maine contended that the amendment does not actually provide constitutional protection for hunting in our state.
The Readfield couple faced disappointment when the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled against them, stating that the Sunday hunting ban was not in violation of the amendment. However, it is commendable that the court acknowledged that the amendment does safeguard legal hunting.
The hunting community’s perspective has been validated by the recent constitutional amendment in Maine. The 2021 referendum, supported by residents, affirms that the term “harvest,” as stated in the amendment, encompasses hunting.
The recent ruling by the Maine high court is a significant milestone for hunters and those who support the value of hunting.
Let’s pop the champagne and give a big thank you to Virginia and Joel Parker, the Readfield couple who worked tirelessly to resolve the lingering legal question.
The Parkers were determined in their efforts to overcome the ban on Sunday hunting, and Maine is still one of just two states in the nation that uphold this law. Based on historical patterns, it is likely that we will continue to see this issue resurface year after year in the legislative chambers of Augusta.
The court decision may have disappointed the Parkers, but regardless of whether they anticipated it or not, they have undoubtedly made a lasting impact and brought about change, even in the face of defeat.
In relation to this court decision, which partially challenges the state’s argument that hunting was not covered by the food amendment, there is still an unresolved and unexplored question.
Why didn’t the state’s legal argument focus on the more narrow issue of the Parker’s lawsuit challenging the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s Sunday hunting ban and the high court ruling that the Right to Food amendment does not protect illegal hunting?
According to reports, the state has implemented a comprehensive legal measure in an attempt to maintain the ban on Sunday hunting. Their argument is based on the interpretation that the constitutional term “harvest” does not encompass hunting activities.
The state attorney general and our fisheries and wildlife officials, whether knowingly or unknowingly, were involved in a legal stance that had the potential to unleash unforeseen consequences and leave our hunting heritage vulnerable without any constitutional protections.
