This year, multiple states are voting on inserting language protecting the rights of hunters into the state Constitutions. Are hunters' rights threatened in these states? That probably depends on whom you ask, but most of these are preventative measures to forestall the scary (and probably unrealistic) fear that a PETA-supported anti-hunting law will be passed at some point in the future.
In Arizona, Proposition 109 would make "hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife a constitutional right" and "prohibiting laws that unreasonably restrict hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods." In Arkansas, Issue 1 would do virtually the same thing, as would Amendment 1 in South Carolina and the Tennessee Hunting Rights Amendment. Let's just be clear, hunters in these states already have the right to hunt. They just want it specifically in writing. The question is, what other specific activities need to be noted as legitimate? Where does this end?
On the other hand, voters in North Dakota will consider Measure 2, which would ban fenced-in hunting preserves, giving the animals a slightly more fair chance.
Image: Boar Hunter's Garage, a Creative Commons Attribution (2.0) image from randysonofrobert's photostream