'Right to hunt, fish' amendment is bad for Iowans and for wildlife | Opinion

• Preston Moore serves as the Iowa State Director for Humane World for Animals.

Iowa’s Constitution should not used as an arena for political theater. Yet, that’s exactly what the Legislature is doing with its “Right to Hunt and Fish” constitutional amendment, which seeks to enshrine hunting, fishing and even trapping into our state’s most sacred document as the "preferred means" of wildlife management, making it harder to regulate cruel and outdated methods.

This measure, House Joint Resolution 7 and Senate Joint Resolution 7, prioritizes special interests over science-based conservation and future wildlife protections. To state the case plainly, this proposal offers no actual benefit to Iowans. It's based on a lie and its language is meant to deceive.

A constitutional amendment should protect essential freedoms, not enshrine policies that face no threat beyond falling out of public favor. The right to hunt, fish, and trap is already firmly established in Iowa law, and the state actively favors these activities, expanding seasons and loosening restrictions despite dwindling participation. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, fewer than 7% of Iowans hunt or trap, so that the question nearly raises itself. Should Iowa’s policies really go so far in attempts prop up an industry that is losing big in the free market and the court of public opinion?

The language in this amendment is vague — and that’s not by accident. The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, a lobbying interest, directly encourages lawmakers to use vague language so it’s harder to pin down what these amendments will actually do.

That’s the reason why this proposal includes the term “traditional methods” without defining it. In other states, this phrase is used to shield controversial practices like baiting, hounding, and leghold trapping — methods that many Americans and Iowans oppose. The practices of using packs of hounds to chase down wildlife, dumping piles of smelly bait to attract animals for an easy kill, or using wire neck snares and steel jaw traps to capture and kill wildlife are considered inhumane and outdated and do not adhere to principles of fair chase. If this disingenuous amendment passes, any effort to regulate these outdated practices could face constitutional challenges.

The implications of such a reckless proposal could be more far-reaching, too. Private property rights are a cornerstone of individual liberty, yet this amendment threatens to make it harder for landowners to manage conflicts with wildlife on their own land. Local communities, too, could be stripped of their ability to determine what practices would best protect public safety and prevent wildlife conflicts before they occur.

Good conservation requires flexibility. Locking in hunting and trapping as “preferred” management tools ties the hands of wildlife professionals, making it harder for them to consider or use science-based, non-lethal approaches that could prove to be more effective. The Iowa DNR already bends policy to satisfy the 0.5% of Iowans who trap, rather than making decisions based on need or the broader public good. This amendment would only worsen that imbalance.

There’s something else. Iowa’s economy benefits substantially more from outdoor recreation than from hunting and trapping. In 2023, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports, hunting and trapping accounted for just 1.3% of Iowa’s $5 billion outdoor recreation economy. People spent 35 times more on travel, tourism, and outdoor recreation in the state than on hunting and trapping. Yet this amendment privileges the interests of a small, declining group at the expense of a growing tourism sector and other industries that bring jobs and revenue to our state.

A state constitution is meant to safeguard essential freedoms, not entrench policies that should be left to legislative. Once an amendment is passed, it’s nearly impossible to fix — even when it’s outdated or harmful.

The last thing Iowans need is government overreach dictating wildlife policy at the level of our state constitution. Iowans believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and transparency. This amendment delivers none of those.

We should reject it.

Preston Moore serves as the Iowa State Director for Humane World for Animals. A lifelong Iowan, Moore lives in Cedar Rapids, IA with his family.

This story was updated to add a video.