You decide: should hunting and fishing be constitutionally protected acts?

FORT WAYNE, Ind. (WANE) – To some amending the right to hunt and fish into the state constitution means you’re commemorating the roots of the state. To some, it’s a bit more political.

Indiana voters will be able to vote on that very questions during this election. The first question on the ballot asks if the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife should be protected in the state constitution. IPFW Political Analyst Andy Downs said to have an amendment on a ballot it must be passed twice in the General Assembly with the exact same words.

Downs said if this were to be put into Indiana’s constitution people wouldn’t notice much of a difference. The same rules and seasons would apply to hunting and fishing.

For that reason, those who vote no on this tend to think since the rules are already in place it doesn’t need to be in the constitution. Those who vote yes often argue it’s to commemorate the state’s roots.

Either way, Downs recommends you do your research before voting.

“I would recommend to people to stop and read [the amendment] before you get to the polls,” Downs said. “Talk to people who do hunt and fish. Ask them if they think this is necessary to go into the constitution. Remember what is the role of the constitution? It’s the over arching set of rules by which we live.”

However, like a lot of things on the ballot, this issue can get political.

“Organizations like the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun organizations push this sort of legislation because what they see is enshrining in the constitution language that will make it difficult to limit someone’s ability to use a weapon for hunting and fishing,” Downs said. “Which means also difficult to limit your ability to buy a new gun, rifle.”

More than a dozen states already have similar amendments. Kansas is also voting on this issue this year.

To read the amendment click here.