Representatives exchanged stories about the first game hunted by their children and grandchildren while discussing two bills that would introduce a constitutional amendment to protect Missourians' right to hunt and fish.
The bills introduced by Rep. Ron Hicks, R-St. Peters, and Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankford, would not impede the Missouri Department of Conservation from protecting wildlife. There are 17 other states that have a similar constitutional amendment.
Both representatives said the amendment would protect the $1 billion hunting industry from interest groups like the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA.
"They're affecting a way of livelihood that has been there since the start of time," Hicks said in the committee meeting.
Rep. Ed Schieffer, D-Troy, said Missourians who still live off the land need these sort of protections of their hunting and fishing rights from animal activists whom he called "hyped-up vegans."
"In rural Missouri, there are a lot of people that still need the food and income that our wildlife provides," he said.
Rep. John Wright, D-Rocheport, raised concerns that since there haven't been many activists making an issue of hunting in Missouri that it may be unnecessary to amend the Constitution.
Aaron Jefferies, assistant director for the Missouri Department of Conservation, agreed, saying he didn't think the bills were necessary. He said the Department of Conservation wasn't worried about any outside groups attacking Missourians' rights to hunt.
"It's almost non-existent," he said. "When it has occurred, the courts have upheld the commission's constitutional authority to regulate hunting and trapping."
Even though the department hasn't lost a lawsuit yet, Hicks still thinks these bills are necessary.
"What's to say we're going to win them all?" Hicks said. "It only takes one lawsuit to open the door ... It could be our own government that could shut us down. Look at the firearms debate."
Jefferies also said the bills don't protect the approximately $7 billion timbering industry in Missouri. Hicks said he was planning on adding the timbering protection into later drafts of his bill.
The two bills, while the same in principle, differ in wording. In committee, Hicks said his bill would give the Department of Conservation more protection, and Hansen said his bill would protect the individuals more.
Hicks said he doesn't oppose Hansen's bill, saying he would be happy if either bill got to a vote of the public.