By Eric Washburn
Last week, Colorado Hunters & Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation, a hunter- and angler-led group committed to ethical harvest and science-based wildlife management, announced its opposition to the proposed ‘Right to Hunt’ amendment to the Colorado Constitution. The group says the measure solves no demonstrated threat to hunting and fishing. Title 33, the legal code governing parks and wildlife in Colorado, states, “The state shall utilize hunting, trapping and fishing as the primary methods of effecting necessary wildlife harvests.” C.R.S. Section 33-1-101 (2026).
But the proposed Right to Hunt Constitutional Amendment likely would overturn existing bans on certain cruel and unethical types of hunting, ultimately turning the public against hunting and threatening its future in Colorado.
“We are passionate hunters and anglers. We support hunting and fishing and hope those sports will continue on forever in Colorado. And that is exactly why we oppose the Right to Hunt Amendment,” said Charles Seymour. “Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado, and state law recognizes hunting, trapping and fishing as primary methods of necessary wildlife harvest. But once this vague policy language enters the Constitution, it will lead to endless litigation as some hunters try to reverse reasonable limits, supported by a majority of Coloradans, that have been established to achieve important wildlife conservation and management goals.”
The Right to Hunt Constitutional Amendment would explicitly protect “traditional methods” of hunting, which include:
• The use of steel-jawed leghold traps, which Colorado voters banned in 1996.
• Wildlife killing contests, which were legal in Colorado until the CPW Commission finally banned them in 2020.
• Baiting bears with jelly donuts and other treats, which was banned by Colorado voters in 1992 by an overwhelming 70% of the vote.
• Using hounds to hunt bears, a practice that was also banned by Colorado voters in 1992.
• Hunting bears in the spring, a practice that Colorado voters banned in 1992, because the spring bear hunts cause young bear cubs to become orphaned and eventually starve to death.
• Unlimited killing of beaver and other furbearers, which was finally limited by the CPW Commission in July of this year.
Moreover, the Right to Hunt ballot measure also states that hunting and fishing are the “preferred methods” of managing fish and wildlife. This means that killing wildlife would be given preference over all other forms of wildlife management like:
• Limiting hunting to recover overhunted species like beavers.
• Making investments to increase the extent and quality of wildlife habitat, rather than killing wildlife because there is not enough habitat.
• Relocating wildlife.
• Developing vaccines to prevent disease transmission.
• Deploying non-lethal coexistence measures to prevent conflicts involving species like beavers and gray wolves, rather than simply killing the animals involved in the conflict.
“Good wildlife management requires a full toolbox,” Gary Skiba, a sportsman and former state wildlife agency bighorn sheep biologist from Durango, said. “Hunting and fishing can be important and effective tools. But so are habitat conservation and restoration, preventing disease transmission, limiting hunting in some cases to recover wildlife populations, relocation, non-lethal coexistence measures and other management tools. The Constitution should not declare one wildlife management tool preferred above all the others.”
“The CPW Commission’s recent decision to establish daily bag limits for beaver and 16 other furbearer species shows why management flexibility matters,” said Eric Washburn, a big-game hunter from Steamboat Springs. “Commissioners reviewed CPW’s information, heard public testimony and acted through the established regulatory process. Sixty-nine percent of the Colorado public agrees with them about the need for these new bag limits. While some hunters may disagree, those decisions should be respected and not be subject to legal challenge under a Right to Hunt Constitutional Amendment.’”
Colorado law requires wildlife to be managed for the use, benefit and enjoyment of all Coloradans. That includes hunters and anglers, as well as the vast majority of the public that chooses not to hunt or fish, but who are citizens and who vote. The future of hunting and fishing depends on maintaining the trust of the public. Turning wildlife-policy disagreements into constitutional legal fights to try to overturn sensible, publicly supported hunting policies will weaken that trust.
“If hunting in Colorado is ultimately going to survive, then wildlife management needs to be able to evolve to meet the expectations of the majority of the public, said Eric Washburn. “This is not the Wild West of the 1800s, and we should not be locked into a system that prioritizes killing over all other methods of wildlife management. That is the quickest way to lose public support. Today, we know so much more about the importance of recovering our endangered wildlife, promoting biodiversity, curtailing the spread of disease, and ensuring that our ecosystems are diverse, healthy, and resilient – goals that can only be met using a wide range of management tools.”
Current Colorado campaign-finance records show that the committee supporting the Right to Hunt Amendment has reported $1 million in contributions and $800,000 in expenditures. The campaign’s own launch announcement said its initial $1 million commitment came from Wisconsin-based group T. Roosevelt Action. The Right to Hunt campaign has publicly projected that their broader effort could cost $10 million to $12 million. Like so many political campaigns in America these days, the proponents are trying to overwhelm common sense with money.
“In the end, this is a referendum on whether we should change the Colorado’s Constitution to overturn publicly supported rules about how Colorado’s wildlife is managed,” said Charles Seymour. “The voters should judge the Right to Hunt ballot initiative by whether it will lead to an ethical system of rules for wildlife management that are consistent with the expectations of the majority of the Colorado public or not. We are hunters and anglers who see this measure as inconsistent with public values and thus a threat to the future of the sport we love.”
Colorado Hunters & Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation supports Colorado’s hunting and fishing traditions, ethical harvest of wildlife, robust, healthy wildlife populations and professional, adaptable, science-based wildlife management. We oppose the Right to Hunt Constitutional Amendment because we recognize that it will lead to endless litigation, overturn established rules for ethical hunting and ultimately undermine public support for the traditions we love.
By Eric Washburn is President, Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation