relating to the right to hunt, fish, and harvest game and fish. Providing that citizens of New Hampshire shall have the constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest game and fish, subject to restrictions existing in law.
CACR 15 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would add a new article to the New Hampshire Constitution establishing an individual right to hunt, fish, and harvest game and fish. The amendment states that the right would include the use of traditional methods and would remain subject to laws enacted by the General Court and rules adopted by the Fish and Game Department. It also specifies that those laws and rules must promote wildlife conservation and management, keep resources in trust for public use, and preserve the future of hunting and fishing.
The proposal further declares that public hunting and fishing shall be the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife in New Hampshire. At the same time, it expressly says the amendment would not alter existing law on eminent domain, trespass, or property rights. If approved by voters at the 2026 general election, the amendment would take effect upon proclamation by the governor after receiving the required two-thirds approval of those voting on the question.
If adopted, CACR 15 would amend the state constitution and create a new constitutional right for all persons in New Hampshire to hunt, fish, and harvest game and fish, subject to existing statutory and regulatory limits. It would elevate hunting and fishing from a matter governed only by ordinary law to a constitutional protection, while preserving the authority of the legislature and Fish and Game Department to regulate wildlife conservation, management, and public use. The measure would not change trespass, eminent domain, or property-rights law, but it could affect future legal challenges to hunting and fishing restrictions by requiring them to fit within the constitutional framework.
The available vote history suggests the measure had meaningful support in committee, with an OTP recommendation passing 199-127. The bill text and voters’ guide frame the amendment as a protection of traditional outdoor activities and wildlife management practices, indicating a generally favorable presentation from supporters. No committee transcript is available here, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote margin suggests the proposal was supported by a majority while still drawing substantial opposition.
The main point of contention is likely the constitutionalization of hunting and fishing rights itself: supporters appear to view it as a safeguard for tradition, conservation, and wildlife management, while opponents may be concerned about elevating these activities above ordinary statutory control. Another likely issue is the amendment’s statement that public hunting and fishing should be the preferred means of managing wildlife, which could be seen as constraining future wildlife policy choices. The explicit preservation of trespass and property rights appears designed to address concerns from landowners and others worried that the amendment could weaken existing private-property protections.