Sunday hunting in Maine was constitutionally banned in 1883. In 2021, Maine citizens approved a constitutional amendment titled a “right to food.” Subsequently, litigants claimed the amendment made Sunday hunting legal. A Superior Court judge dismissed that contention. Presently, the matter is food for thought at the Law Court, re: the litigant’s appeal (“Maine Supreme Court ponders whether Sunday hunting ban violates constitutional right to food,” Oct. 4).

Maine law prohibits persons from, “hunting wild animals or wild birds on Sunday.”

Simultaneously, the “Right to Food” amendment seemingly honors the prohibition: “All individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being.” Thus, giving an intuition of rakes and hoes rather than guns and arrows.

The litigants’ ace in the hole, regarding their appeal, is the word “harvest” in the amendment. Viz, their assertion that hunting in the woods for food is akin to hoeing potatoes, that it mirrors collecting fall-time tree sap, or pulling salt-water lobster traps. Arguably, quite a stretch!

Why is the public in the dark regarding the Superior Court judge’s reasons for dismissing the case? Do any exist?

John Benoit

Manchester