Select Page

Right to Hunt Amendments: a Solution in Search of a Problem

Feb 25, 2025 | State Wildlife Management

A hunter in a camo jacket with a matching camo print bucket hat and glasses stands with his back to the camera and aims a rifle at the sky. He is mostly silhouetted and the bottom portion of the image shows the start of a sunrise behind the dark outline of tall grasses. Text on the image reads, "Right to Hunt Amendments are a solution in search of a problem."

Right to Hunt amendments are a solution in search of a problem.

A hunter in a camo jacket with a matching camo print bucket hat and glasses stands with his back to the camera and aims a rifle at the sky. He is mostly silhouetted and the bottom portion of the image shows the start of a sunrise behind the dark outline of tall grasses. Text on the image reads, "Right to Hunt Amendments are a solution in search of a problem."

Why Right to Hunt constitutional amendments are a solution in search of a problem

Lately, we’ve been talking a lot about the power of language and the ways in which entrenched hunting interests manipulate narratives to maintain control over wildlife management. From the absurdity of calling grizzlies a “renewable resource” to the deeply flawed framing of predators as criminals, these rhetorical strategies all serve a larger goal: ensuring that our current, broken system remains intact. That brings us to one of the most blatant examples of this culture war in action—Right to Hunt amendments.

At first glance, these amendments might seem like a reasonable safeguard for a long-standing American tradition. But scratch the surface, and you’ll quickly find they are a solution in search of a problem. No state is threatening to outlaw hunting. No serious conservation group is advocating for an end to all hunting. So why the push to enshrine it in state constitutions? Because large pro-trophy hunting and gun organizations need a perpetual sense of victimhood to keep their audience engaged—and donating.

These amendments claim to “protect” hunting, but from what exactly? Hunting is legal in every state. So why push these laws? Well, it’s not about protection. It’s about fear. It’s about creating a false sense of crisis. Groups like the NRA and trophy hunting organizations use these fights to rally their base—convincing hunters they’re under attack while raking in donations.

And make no mistake, this is an ongoing battle. Right now, eight states are actively considering Right to Hunt amendments:

Right to Hunt amendments aren’t about securing access to sustainable food sources or ensuring ethical wildlife management. They are about codifying hunting as the dominant, unquestionable form of interaction with wildlife. They strip states of the ability to adapt management policies based on new ecological data, favor hunters over the general public, and, in many cases, explicitly elevate hunting and trapping above non-lethal solutions.

These amendments are also deeply political. They serve as a rallying cry to activate hunters with manufactured outrage, making them believe their way of life is under siege when, in reality, it’s being catered to at every level of wildlife governance. The real threat here isn’t to hunting—it’s to the possibility of reforming wildlife management to prioritize ecosystems over special interests.

If hunting organizations were truly interested in conservation, they would welcome nuanced discussions about wildlife policy. Instead, they rely on fearmongering and misinformation to push these amendments through, ensuring that they remain the loudest voice in the room. It’s time to call these efforts what they are: a political ploy designed to entrench an outdated and extractive approach to wildlife management under the guise of “rights.”

The real question isn’t whether hunting should exist. The question is whether our wildlife policies should continue to be dictated by those who see animals as nothing more than targets and trophies—or whether we should move toward a model that values entire ecosystems, biodiversity, and the broader public interest. These amendments aren’t about protecting a right; they’re about ensuring that the status quo never changes.

If we care about the future of wildlife, we need to move beyond this manufactured crisis. Our laws should reflect science—not political theater.

Take action: If you live in one of these states, contact your legislators and tell them to oppose these amendments.