What kind of Colorado will we leave to our children and grandchildren if wildlife management is decided in court instead of by science? Colorado's wildlife is facing extraordinary challenges from prolonged drought, extreme heat, and increasingly severe wildfires. Scientific studies have found that drought reduces forage and water, lowers reproduction, increases mortality, and can dramatically increase extinction risk for ungulate populations when prolonged or severe.

Hilgemann called these amendments “proven weapons in court and at the ballot box.” Outdoor Life talks about “case law,” “legal footing,” and making the fight “uphill and expensive.” So ask the normal question: who pays when the fight gets uphill and expensive?

I’m an angler, and I’m not against hunting. I’m not against responsible wildlife management, families putting food in the freezer, or hunters who care about habitat, fair chase, public access, and keeping Colorado’s wildlife healthy. That is exactly why Initiative 302 bothers me.

Colorado law says the state shall use hunting, trapping, and fishing as the primary methods for necessary wildlife harvest. Hunting is legal. Fishing is legal. Trapping is regulated. CPW already sets seasons, tags, bag limits, closures, methods, permits, and enforcement. So when the 302 campaign says this is about “protecting hunting and fishing,” voters should ask the obvious question. Protecting them from what?