Commissioners criticize Amendment 83 for “throwing into question” future ballot measures, state bills, and CPW rules placing reasonable limits on hunting or trapping, as well as existing policies adopted through these long-established, science-based decision-making channels
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS — Amendment 83 is an attempt to sideline the decision-making structures built to channel the voices of key stakeholders on wildlife policy, according to at least six Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commissioners urging voters to oppose Amendment 83. The commissioners are CPW chair Jay Tuchton, former chairman Rich Reading, Ph.D., Jack Murphy, attorney Jess Beaulieu, CSU professor Rebecca Neimeic, Ph.D., and Johnny LeCoq. CPW commissioners spoke out independently.
“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, a professional wildlife biologist and a 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.”
Amendment 83 proponents want to block ballot initiatives, state legislation and CPW commission action if it limits hunting and trapping. They claim that they want “biologists” to decide any limits on hunting, but what they really want is the ability to use steel traps and bear baiting and revive inhumane and unsporting practices despite what policymakers, experienced scientists and voters decide is best for Colorado. Under current law, commissioners are to consider all information advanced by professional staff, and that’s been the system that has been so successful for Colorado wildlife.
“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 Jay Tuchton, the chair of the Colorado Wildlife Commission. “It’ll be a lawyer bonanza, basically, which is a very ineffective way to manage wildlife.” (KUNC news story, Oct. 20)
“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.”
“Colorado voters should vote no on Amendment 83,” wrote commissioner Johnny LeCoq, who is the production agriculture representative on the wildlife board.“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.”
LeCoq added this: “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.”
Amendment 83 opponents claim that, because the amendment does not have an effective date and apply to policies under future consideration, it applies to past policies, such as the state’s restrictions on steel-jawed leghold traps and bear baiting.
“I am very proud to live in a state that has established an ethical system for regulated hunting that follows the Fair Chase rules pioneered by Theodore Roosevelt over a century ago by banning certain cruel and unethical wildlife killing practices like leghold traps, wildlife killing contests and bearbaiting,” notes Eric Washburn, a leader with Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation. “Amendment 83 would reverse this progress and bring back these cruel and unethical practices by putting them into our Constitution, undermining public support for hunting and endangering the sport that I and so many other Coloradans love. Washburn is a fifth-generation Coloradan who filled his moose tag in the state earlier this month.
“Amendment 83 is like wanting a constitutional right to drive that allows you to ignore speed limits and stop signs,” said Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action and an opponent of Amendment 83.