Open letter from leading bear biologists, wildlife scientists and conservation professionals says bear baiting is reckless and unsporting and should not be made legal
DENVER — Twenty-one leading bear biologists, wildlife scientists and conservation professionals are warning Colorado voters that Amendment 83 could put longstanding wildlife protections at risk, including the state’s bans on bear baiting, hunting bears with hounds and spring bear hunting.
In an open letter to Colorado voters released today, the experts explain how Amendment 83’s undefined language guaranteeing a constitutional right to hunt and fish using “traditional methods” could invite legal challenges to existing wildlife protections and complicate future wildlife management decisions.
The letter emphasizes that the amendment would not automatically repeal Colorado’s existing restrictions. However, the signatories warn that placing hunting rights and methods in the state constitution could give proponents of previously prohibited practices new grounds to challenge those protections.
“Passage of Amendment 83 would not automatically repeal the 1992 restrictions,” the experts write. “However, its broad, undefined language and elevated status as a constitutional provision, rather than an ordinary statute, raise concerns about its potential to limit future legislation or ballot measures, affect hunting regulations, and invite costly legal challenges to existing wildlife protections.”
Colorado voters approved a 1992 ballot initiative prohibiting spring bear hunting, bear baiting and hunting bears with hounds. Approximately 70% of voters supported the measure, which was intended in part to protect female bears with dependent cubs and preserve fair-chase hunting. A separate 1996 voter-approved measure prohibited steel-jawed leghold traps and snares.
The new letter explains that bear baiting raises concerns beyond hunting ethics. Baiting draws bears repeatedly to predictable locations with human-supplied food, including calorie-rich foods such as pastries, candy and animal fat. The practice can alter bears’ feeding behavior and condition them to associate people with food, potentially increasing dangerous encounters between bears and humans.
The signatories point to a 2024 scientific assessment identifying food conditioning, defensive behavior at bait stations and increased human-bear conflicts as important risks. They also cite a 2024 National Park Service decision prohibiting bear baiting for sport hunting in Alaska’s national preserves, following consultations with wildlife professionals and bear specialists.
Tom Beck, a former Colorado bear biologist and lifelong hunter who helped lead the effort against bear baiting, questioned the ethics of shooting a bear attracted to bait.
“How sporting is it to shoot a bear with its head in a bucket of jelly donuts?” Beck said. “I don’t believe anyone who says you can’t hunt bears in the fall when they’re on berries or nuts. You can predict where they’re going to be, and if you’re a woodsman, all you have to do is scout those places.”
Acclaimed outdoor writer and lifelong sportsman Ted Williams also questioned the rationale behind Amendment 83 and the effort to restore practices that voters previously rejected.
“Groups pushing Amendment 83 condemn all ballot initiatives except, of course, this one,” Williams said. “And they recycle the ancient superstitions that predators need to be ‘managed’ — id est, killed — to generate more game.”
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis has warned that the measure “would invite lawsuits,” while Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser has described it as an “invitation to litigation, to uncertainty and confusion.”
The full open letter, including the names and credentials of the 21 signatories, is available here.