Natural resources: hunting; right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife; recognize in constitution. Amends the state constitution by adding sec. 29 to art. I.

Michigan House Joint Resolution C (HJRC) proposes an amendment to the state constitution to explicitly recognize the rights of citizens to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest wildlife. The amendment aims to preserve Michigan's heritage and promote the health of its natural resources. It stipulates that these rights are subject only to regulations that promote sound wildlife conservation and management. Additionally, it designates public hunting, fishing, and trapping as preferred methods for managing and controlling non-threatened species, allowing citizens to use traditional methods for harvesting wildlife. The amendment clarifies that it does not alter existing laws related to trespass, private property rights, eminent domain, public ownership of property, firearms unrelated to hunting, or the state's sovereign immunity.

Supporters of HJRC argue that enshrining the right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest wildlife in the state constitution is essential for preserving Michigan's rich outdoor heritage and ensuring that future generations can continue these traditional activities. They believe that recognizing these rights constitutionally will provide stronger protection against potential future legislative or regulatory changes that could restrict these activities. Proponents also emphasize that the amendment promotes sound wildlife conservation and management practices, ensuring that hunting and fishing are conducted responsibly and sustainably.

Critics of HJRC express concerns that embedding specific rights related to hunting, fishing, trapping, and harvesting wildlife into the state constitution could limit the state's ability to adapt wildlife management practices in response to changing environmental conditions or scientific understanding. They worry that such constitutional protections might hinder the implementation of necessary regulations to protect endangered species or address ecological imbalances. Additionally, some opponents argue that the amendment could lead to conflicts with private property rights and raise questions about the balance between individual rights and public interest in wildlife conservation.