Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commissioners Slam Amendment 83 as “Vague” and its Terms “Undefined”

Yesterday, Animal Wellness Action and Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Management released a statement revealing that a majority of Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commissioners oppose Amendment 83 and want it defeated on Nov. 3. Amendment 83 would create a constitutional right to hunt and trap, nullifying the role of citizens, state lawmakers, and wildlife commissioners. It would put the fox (the trophy hunting and commercial trapping lobby) in charge of the henhouse (our shared wildlife resources).

“On a personal level and as a professional wildlife biologist with more than 40 years of experience (and NOT as my role as an official Parks and Wildlife Commissioner, as the Commission does not take a stance on ballot initiatives), I oppose the proposed amendment 83 to the Colorado state constitution,” wrote Rich Reading, Ph.D., a wildlife ecologist, member and former chair of the CPW commission. “This amendment is NOT about the right to hunt, fish, and trap which are not under threat, but about who gets to decide wildlife management — likely the Courts if this vaguely worded amendment passes. That could roll back decades of management actions led by the wildlife professionals at Colorado Parks and Wildlife and by citizens through previous ballot initiatives. It would further handcuff future management options available to our wildlife professionals. I urge you to leave our constitution alone and vote NO on 83.”

Other commissioners taking a “No on 83” stance include current CPW chair Jay Tuchton, wildlife rehabilitation expert Jack Murphy, University of Denver professor Jess Beaulieu, Johnny Le Coq, and Colorado State University professor Rebecca Neimeic, Ph.D. CPW commissioners spoke out independently and made their views known through a variety of channels.

“We will have years of uncertainty until we actually know what’s going to happen, and that uncertainty will get resolved one lawsuit at a time,” said CPW chair Jay Tuchton. “It’ll be a lawyer bonanza, basically, which is a very ineffective way to manage wildlife.”

Amendment 83 is akin to creating a constitutional right to drive while ignoring speed limits, stop signs, and other rules of the road.  Since the development of modern wildlife management in the 1930s, hunting has been a rule-based culture with limits established by laws and regulations, such as prescribed season dates, bag limits, restraints on unfair weapons and hunting methods.  Amendment 83 trashes those principles and sets up a free-for-all on our public and private lands, exposing our wildlife to extreme risks.  The existing system, with all of its imperfections, is working and is subject to ongoing scrutiny like any other use of public resources.

Amendment 83 boosters purport to support biologists’ making rules for hunting and trapping, but what they really want is to revive use of steel traps, bear baiting, hunting bears in spring when sows are nursing cubs, and other inhumane and unsporting practices banned by Colorado’s policymakers, experienced scientists and voters. Under current law, commissioners consider all information advanced by professional staff. That’s been the system that has been so successful for Colorado wildlife.

“The central problem is not that the amendment protects hunting,” said Jess Beaulieu, an attorney and assistant director of the University of Denver Animal Law Program. “It is that the terms it uses are so open-ended that no one can predict how courts will apply them.” (Open letter to Colorado voters issued Sept. 23 analysis).

“Proponents frame Amendment 83 as protecting hunting and fishing. But these activities are already protected in statute in Colorado,” said Rebecca Neimeic, a CPW commissioner and associate professor in the Human Dimensions of Natural Resources department at Colorado State University. “The amendment would do something far more consequential: give hunting and fishing special constitutional priority while potentially undermining the public’s ability to adopt wildlife policies reflecting our shared values.” (Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Oct. 21)

“The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission has statutory authority and responsibility to set rules on hunting, fishing, and trapping,” said commissioner Jack Murphy. “That authority should be maintained, and Amendment 83 throws it into question.”

Because Amendment 83 does not apply only to future wildlife policies, but also to past measures, including ballot measures approved by Colorado voters. It could repeal repeal the 1992 citizen ballot measure to restrict bear baiting and hounding and spring bear hunting.  It would also put in jeopardy the 1996 ballot measure to restrict steel-jawed leghold traps, wire snares that strangle animals, and Conibear traps used for recreation or commerce in fur.

“Colorado voters should vote no on Amendment 83,” wrote commissioner Johnny Le Coq, who is the production agriculture representative on the CPW Commission. “Hunting and fishing are already legal and protected in Colorado, so this measure adds no protection that sportsmen and women don’t already have. The ballot language is deceiving. It’s presented as protecting a ‘right,’ but it also writes into our constitution a policy that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing wildlife.”

Le Coq added: “Wildlife management in Colorado already rests with Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the scientists who do that work every day. Locking a management preference into the constitution takes decisions out of the hands of the people with the expertise to make them. Voting no on Amendment 83 is the responsible choice to properly manage and protect Colorado’s wildlife and the current rights afforded to all hunters and anglers in the state.”

We have just a FEW DAYS to defeat Amendment 83! Opponents are spending millions. We need your help.