The first thing you should know is that the biggest anti-hunting organization in the nation, the euphemistically named Humane Society of the United States -- which really is an anti-hunting lobby group -- is vehemently opposed to Proposition 109, which is all the more reason to support it.
The HSUS says Proposition 109 is a power grab by the legislature. The reality is the legislature has always had authority over wildlife in the state of Arizona. They choose, thanks to the never-ending effort of Arizona's hunters, to let an independent commission set wildlife management policy based on the recommendations of professional wildlife biologists. (See Arizona Revised Statues -- 17-201 -- for the truth)
The HSUS says Arizonans already have the "right" to hunt and fish. Nothing in state statute or the Arizona Constitution currently declares the ability to hunt and fish as a right. Unlike the right to bear arms, which the U.S. Constitution guarantees, there are no provisions that provide the same right to hunt and fish. It is a fact that the ability to hunt and fish has been threatened time and again. The president and CEO of the HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, is on record in Full Cry magazine saying, "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state."
The HSUS says Proposition 109 will end the use of sound science in wildlife management. Provision B of the proposition says, "laws and rules authorized under this section shall have the purpose of wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing." The Legislature could have, at any time, taken science out of wildlife management. This HSUS argument is another red herring.
HSUS then says the passage of Proposition 109 will cost taxpayers millions in lawsuits. In all the states that have passed similar constitutional amendments establishing the right to hunt and fish there have been no lawsuits. But, states have spent millions on lawsuits filed by anti-hunting groups and proposed HSUS driven legislation to end hunting. Hmmm. See any ulterior motive in the HSUS arguments against Proposition 109?
There are other nonsensical arguments against proposition 109 by other anti-hunting groups floating around.
The truth is Arizona's hunters fund 75 percent of the annual budget of the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the department receives none of your tax dollars.
The truth is Arizona's wildlife populations, game and non-game, are doing very well thanks to a system that works. Proposition simply strengthens that system for future generations of Arizonans, hunters and non-hunters alike.
Vote for Proposition 109.