Let’s start with a simple truth: CACR 15 does not expand government power, weaken property rights, eliminate licenses or lock any hunting method into the Constitution. What it does is protect the conservation system that has quietly worked for generations in New Hampshire.
Yet opponents have chosen to describe it with phrases like “codifying abhorrent practices,” hoping emotion will replace facts. When the actual text is read and the law is understood, those claims fall apart. CACR 15 is not radical policy. It is practical housekeeping that safeguards funding, preserves regulation and keeps wildlife management grounded in science instead of politics.
At its core, CACR 15 recognizes the right of the people to hunt and fish while making clear those activities remain fully subject to laws passed by the Legislature and rules adopted by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. In other words, it protects the activity while preserving regulation. The state retains the same authority it has today to set seasons, require licenses, impose bag limits and regulate how wildlife is managed. Nothing about enforcement or public safety changes.
Let’s address the loudest accusation directly, because it has been repeated often enough that some people understandably worry it might be true. Opponents claim CACR 15 would “codify trapping and hounding” or permanently constitutionalize particular hunting practices. That is simply incorrect. Trapping, hounding, archery, muzzleloaders or any other technique are not rights in themselves. They are “methods of take,” which exist entirely within administrative rulemaking, not constitutional or statutory law.
That distinction matters. Methods of take are controlled through Fish and Game rules. Those rules can be updated, restricted or eliminated when science or public input calls for change. The process is deliberate and transparent. It requires three public hearings before the Fish and Game Commission, a vote of the commission and review of the proposed rules by the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules. If the public wants a method changed, there is already a clear, democratic pathway to do so. CACR 15 does not touch that process.
So when critics say this amendment “locks in” trapping or hounding, they are describing something the amendment does not do and legally cannot do. The Constitution would protect the right to hunt and fish generally, while the details of how that occurs remain exactly where they belong: in rulemaking that can evolve with science, ethics and public input. The same framework that exists today would exist tomorrow.
It is also worth noting that labeling these practices as “abhorrent” or “crude” may generate headlines, but it ignores both history and biology. Trapping and the use of dogs are longstanding wildlife management tools used across North America, often for targeted control, research or population management. They are regulated, professionalized and subject to strict standards. Whether someone personally chooses to participate in those activities or not, they are tools within a broader conservation system, not acts outside the law.
Just as important, CACR 15 does not affect property rights. It does not grant access to private land. It does not override trespass law. It does not allow anyone to hunt where they do not have permission. The amendment explicitly preserves existing property protections. If you could not legally enter someone’s land yesterday, you still cannot tomorrow. Landowners remain fully in control of their property.
It also does not eliminate licensing. You still need a license. You still must follow seasons and limits. Conservation officers still enforce the law. All of those requirements remain intact because the amendment expressly keeps hunting and fishing subject to statute and regulation.
What CACR 15 actually accomplishes is far more practical. It protects the funding model that makes conservation possible in the first place. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department is largely self-funded through license sales, which in turn qualify the state for substantial federal matching dollars. Those funds support habitat work, fisheries, wildlife research and conservation of countless nongame species that many people never see but benefit from every day. If license sales disappear, those matching funds disappear with them, and conservation programs are the first to suffer.
This approach aligns directly with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, the framework used by every state wildlife agency and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That model recognizes wildlife as a public trust resource, managed using science and funded largely by hunters and anglers. Regulated harvest is identified as the preferred management tool because it works and it pays for itself. Preferred does not mean exclusive. When relocation, habitat modification, fertility control or other methods are appropriate, Fish and Game already uses them and will continue to do so.
Finally, CACR 15 is hardly radical. Two dozen other states already have similar constitutional language. Their agencies still regulate methods. Their landowners still control access. Their conservation systems still function normally. The sky has not fallen anywhere else, and it will not fall here.
In short, CACR 15 does not codify methods of take, weaken regulation or touch property rights. It simply safeguards a conservation system that has served New Hampshire well for generations and keeps wildlife management grounded in science rather than political swings.
If you believe in practical conservation and honest policymaking, contact your state representative, your state senator and the governor’s office and ask them to support CACR 15.
Protect the funding. Protect the process. Protect the wildlife.