A Legacy Worth Protecting

Step outside any Maine doorstep and you’re never far from water to fish or woods to hunt. Those dawn walks to the deer stand, July evenings on the Penobscot, and smelt shacks shining across the ice aren’t hobbies—they’re living threads in the state’s cultural fabric. Today that fabric faces an unprecedented tug-of-war between time-honored tradition and well-funded campaigns that treat hunting and fishing as political bargaining chips.

LD 820 (132nd Legislature) offers a clear answer: write the right to hunt and fish directly into the Maine Constitution. The proposed Article IX, §26 guarantees that “the right of the people to hunt, fish and harvest game and fish… may not be infringed,” while expressly keeping wildlife seasons, bag limits, and safety rules under the normal jurisdiction of the Legislature and the Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife (IFW) and Department of Marine Resources (DMR).

What LD 820 Does—and, Just as Crucially, What It Doesn’t

What it does:

• Constitutionally guarantees access. Mainers gain a permanent right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife with traditional methods, always subject to “reasonable laws and rules” that protect public safety and conservation goals.

• Puts science first. By naming hunting and fishing the preferred tools for wildlife management, the amendment ensures population decisions stay with IFW and DMR biologists—not with emotionally driven ballot campaigns.

• Complements the Right-to-Food amendment. Where Article I, §25 secures the right to grow and procure food, LD 820 secures the right to harvest wild food—two protections working in concert.

What it doesn’t do:

• No change to trespass or property laws. Posted land stays posted; landowners keep full authority to grant or deny access.

• No loss of agency control. IFW and DMR still set seasons, bag limits, gear restrictions, and safety rules based on current data.

• No eminent-domain expansion. The text explicitly bars any reinterpretation that could affect property rights.

• No carte blanche for unethical practices. If a method proves unsafe or biologically unsound, the Legislature or agencies can still restrict or ban it.

In short, LD 820 locks in the public’s stake in Maine’s woods and waters while leaving every existing safeguard for landowners, wildlife, and public safety firmly in place.

Dollars on the Ground = Habitat on the Ground

Maine’s sporting economy is more than bait shops and wool pants:

• 213,690 hunters spent $938 million in 2022, supporting 7,760 jobs and generating $84 million in state & local taxes.

• 367,120 anglers pumped $1.5 billion into local communities, sustaining 11,950 jobs and $143 million in tax revenue.

• Every license sold and every box of ammo or tackle purchased feeds Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson excise taxes—funneling millions into IFW hatcheries, land-acquisition projects, and brook-trout stream restoration.

Lose participants and we lose that conservation revenue overnight.

Science First, Politics Last

Opponents claim the amendment will “handcuff biologists.” The opposite is true. Section 26 is explicitly “subject to reasonable laws enacted by the Legislature and reasonable rules adopted by the agency designated for fish and wildlife management.” Maine State Legislature In other words, professionals still decide:

• When to tweak bear quotas.

• How many any-deer permits an ecosystem can handle.

• Gear regulations to protect declining groundfish or salmon runs.

What changes? Those decisions can’t be overturned by an out-of-state group pouring money into a misleading ballot initiative.

Lessons from Florida: Bipartisan Wins Are Possible

In 2024, Florida became the 24th state to adopt a right-to-hunt-and-fish amendment. Voters said yes by 67.3 percent—a landslide in a politically divided state. Campaigners registered 25,000 new sportsmen voters, sent 4.5 million texts, and mobilized urban anglers alongside rural hunters. New York Post The takeaway: when you frame this right around conservation, local food, and heritage, it appeals far beyond any partisan line.

Addressing the Big Questions

Will this open the door to irresponsible “trophy” practices?
No. Seasons, methods, and ethical standards remain under IFW/DMR authority. The amendment safeguards the availability of hunting and fishing, not any particular method that biologists deem unsustainable.

Could someone trespass and claim a constitutional defense?
Absolutely not. The text states the right cannot “be construed to modify any provision of law relating to… trespass or property rights.” Maine State Legislature

What about non-hunters?
They benefit, too. Excise taxes and license dollars fund hiking-trail maintenance, boat ramps, and species monitoring that enrich everyone’s outdoor experience.

Where Maine Stands in the National Trend

• 24 states already encode this right. Every one of those amendments passed by popular vote except Vermont’s colonial-era clause. Ballotpedia

• Anti-hunting referenda have surged—from Washington bear-hunting bans to Colorado’s forced wolf reintroduction. A constitutional safeguard is proactive, not reactive.

Call to Action: Keep Maine Outdoors Forever

Maine can either follow Florida’s lead today or fight to regain lost ground tomorrow. Here’s how you can help right now:

1. Email your legislators in under a minute via our Action Center → https://www.howlforwildlife.org/maine_hunt_fish

2. Share this blog 

3. Tell a friend—especially a non-hunter who enjoys Maine’s trails, waters, and wild foods—why this amendment defends their outdoor future, too.

Conservation isn’t a spectator sport. It’s our turn to safeguard the woods, waters, and way of life that make Maine, well… Maine.