Vote NO on Amendment 83

Big out of state trophy hunting organizations are working to pull the wool over the eyes of Colorado voters through a ballot initiative that would create a “right to hunt and fish” in the Colorado constitution.  There are lots of problems with the initiative, including: 

1. Vague and subjective language. The Legislative Council, reviewing the initiative language, noted that the terms “necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation” and “traditional methods,” are vague and invite legal challenges to any rules, regulations, and statutes, including those already in force, increasing both contention and litigation costs for the state and taxpayers. 
2. Could allow hunting and trapping methods that Colorado voters previously prohibited. The right to hunt and fish constitutional amendment states: “The right includes hunting, fishing, and harvesting fish and wildlife by the use of traditional methods.” “Traditional methods” is undefined and could include methods that Coloradans have already banned, such as use of steel-jawed traps, neck snares, body gripping traps, hounding and baiting, and wildlife killing contests. In 1996, Coloradans voted to prohibit the use of those traps, via a constitutional change through a ballot initiative.  The possible effects of another constitutional amendment on those prohibitions are unclear but concerning; legal action would determine the impact. Spring black bear hunting, hunting bears with hounds, and hunting bears over bait were prohibited in 1992 via a citizen initiative. These prohibitions are statutory and could be challenged or nullified if  this initiative passes. 
3. Local control.   The amendment clearly states that only the legislature and state agencies could create wildlife regulations.  Real impacts of aggressively using the right to hunt and fish have occurred in states that have passed similar laws, for example”
   1. On the advice of state authorities, the town of Marco Island Florida backed off on a local ordinance that would have prevented night fishing off a beach to protect nesting sea turtles because the ordinance was challenged by a fisherman. 
   2. In Nebraska, the governor vetoed a bill from the legislature that would ban mountain lion hunting due to very low populations in the state. The governor cited the constitutional right to hunt in his reasoning.
   3. In Sweetwater Tennessee, a municipal safety ban on discharging firearms in the city limits resulted in charges to 6 duck hunters, those charges were overturned.  While not based on a constitutional right to hunt, it indicates the possible impacts on local control.
4. Eliminating public rights. The initiative’s wording restricts authority for regulating wildlife to state agencies and the legislature; it is specifically intended to prevent future ballot initiatives affecting wildlife, eliminating a method for the public to influence wildlife management.  Oddly, the proponents of Amendment 83 are using the ballot initiative process to prevent future ballot initiatives. 
5. There is no threat. Hunting and angling are legal and valued in Colorado, there is no effort underway to ban those activities in Colorado. 

DON’T BE FOOLED…AMENDMENT 83 IS A TROJAN HORSE THAT WILL HAMSTRING PROFESSIONAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN COLORADO.

Questions? Reach out to Gary Skiba here.