If future wildlife managers determine that changing ecological conditions require different management strategies, Initiative 302, The Right to Hunt, invites legal disputes over whether those decisions satisfy newly created constitutional standards. Questions that should be resolved through science and professional judgment could instead become questions of constitutional interpretation.

That is why Colorado’s Initiative 302, The Right to Hunt, is without question a Trojan Horse that seeks to preserve that status quo. More than three decades ago, the NAMWC was showing signs of failing to meet the moment. Wildlife is certainly facing unprecedented challenges today that I didn’t imagine decades ago as an undergraduate wildlife student.

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?

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?