This November, Colorado voters will decide on Amendment 83, a proposed change to the state constitution regarding wildlife management and harvesting. The amendment seeks to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish and extend the right to manage or remove wildlife using methods deemed “traditional.”
Supporters present the amendment as a straightforward measure that reinforces Colorado’s established hunting and fishing culture. However, critics argue that it introduces significant complications for wildlife management. They contend that if Amendment 83 were primarily aimed at protecting hunters and anglers, it would be more clearly defined and limited in scope.
The amendment’s vagueness is a major concern. It lacks a clear definition of what constitutes “traditional methods.” Such ambiguity raises worries that it could permit controversial practices like poisoning or trapping, which provoke public safety and ecological concerns.
Colorado currently relies on regulations from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to restrict certain methods in response to evolving scientific knowledge and public expectations. Amendment 83 could hinder the state’s ability to adapt its wildlife management strategy in the future. It may complicate efforts to regulate methods like spearfishing and gill netting, which some residents may oppose.
Furthermore, the amendment could obstruct wildlife biologists’ existing management tools, particularly in addressing emerging threats. Conditions such as chronic wasting disease in deer and invasive species like zebra mussels require flexible responses that are not limited to hunting or fishing.
Amendment 83 proposes that hunting and fishing become the preferred methods for managing all wildlife species, a concept critics say is overly simplistic and undermines the expertise of trained wildlife professionals. This one-size-fits-all approach could impede effective responses to both disease outbreaks and species recovery efforts.
According to opponents, the amendment would curtail CPW’s authority and make it difficult for the state to implement necessary regulations for conservation and public safety. Regulatory changes would need to demonstrate they are “necessary” for scientific conservation or for preserving hunting and fishing opportunities, yet the amendment does not specify who would evaluate what is considered necessary.
Proponents of wildlife conservation emphasize the importance of clear and scientifically sound policies for managing wildlife. They argue that vague constitutional language could lead to years of legal challenges and uncertainty, affecting Colorado’s ecological health and impacting communities dependent on natural resources.
Stefan Ekernas, vice president at Defenders of Wildlife, highlights the risks associated with enshrining such ambiguity in the constitution. He cautions that Amendment 83 trades away adaptability, scientific guidance, and a democratic policy process for an undefined constitutional guarantee. He asserts that such a change is not in the best interest of Colorado voters.
As November approaches, the implications of Amendment 83 will continue to stir debate among Coloradans about the future of wildlife management in the state.
