These amendments are not uncommon, currently the right to hunt/fish is guaranteed by ~17 states.
Here's my take: this is a defensive amendment aimed at putting something in place that would be hard to get rid of much further down the road. It doesn't really do anything now. I'm voting yes. The extreme opposite of a place like Kansas would be a place like California, where anti-hunters have successfully chipped away at the edges of hunting. For example, they've outlawed mountain lion hunting, and now deer populations are at all-time lows, and the state spends many millions of dollars hiring professionals to take out problem lions. Same with some forms of bear hunting there.
The wildlife belongs to the public, the state is charged with managing the wildlife according to sound and proven conservation science. Without hunting, you'll end up with lots of very controversial deer shoots like what has happened at Shawnee Mission Park. No one wants that. Vote yes Mrs Gooch.