Colorado Already Has a Right to Hunting. 302 Adds Lawsuits.

Colorado already gives hunting, trapping, and fishing a major role in wildlife management. That is not a campaign line. It is already in state law.

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?

They are already protected. They are already used. They are already written into Colorado wildlife law.

So what does 302 add?

It adds constitutional muscle.

That is the part people need to look at hard. A regular law can be debated, adjusted, limited, fixed, or balanced against public safety, wildlife protection, habitat needs, voter-approved laws, and changing conditions on the ground.

A constitutional right is different. It gives lawyers a handle. It gives political groups something to grab. Suddenly a CPW rule is not just a CPW rule anymore. It can become a constitutional fight.

That is where the money starts burning.

302 is not a tax increase on paper. Nobody serious needs to claim that. It is a proposed constitutional amendment that could create costs later by giving people a new constitutional argument to sue over wildlife rules.

The cost comes the ugly government way: legal advice, staff time, rulemaking delays, court filings, appeals, agency defense, more lawyers in the room, more hours pulled away from actual wildlife work, more pressure on CPW budgets, and maybe pressure on license money later.

A lawsuit does not have to win to cost money. A weak lawsuit costs money. A political lawsuit costs money. A lawsuit filed just to spook an agency costs money. When the target is a public agency, the public pays somehow.

That part is not on the petition clipboard.

302 is not about putting hunting and fishing into Colorado wildlife management.

They are already there.

302 is about handing special interests a constitutional crowbar and pretending there will be no cost when they start prying things open.

The fiscal note is not the escape hatch they think it is.

Supporters are going to wave the fiscal note around and say, “See? No cost.”

Fine. Read the first part. It says no immediate state revenue or spending change is expected.

Now keep reading.

The same fiscal note says Colorado Parks and Wildlife may need legal advice from the Department of Law to figure out how to apply this new constitutional language. It also says if more parties challenge CPW rules and regulations under the new language, state expenditures will increase for litigation costs.

That is the part they want to bury.

The state cannot predict the cost right now because nobody knows how often this language will get used. Nobody can tell Colorado voters how many rules will get challenged. Nobody can tell hunters and anglers whether license money gets dragged deeper into legal defense. Nobody can tell taxpayers how much staff time gets wasted while CPW defends decisions that should have stayed in the normal public process.

And nobody can tell us what some judge will decide “traditional methods” means five years from now.

That should make people nervous.

Colorado already has the law they claim we need for a Right to Hunt

Most voters do not know this, and the 302 campaign is not rushing to tell them.

Colorado already says hunting, trapping, and fishing are primary methods for necessary wildlife harvest. That existing law has not wrecked wildlife management. It has not stopped CPW from setting seasons and limits. It has not stopped closures. It has not stopped habitat work, disease response, enforcement, or protections for species that need help.

It also has not stopped Colorado voters from making major wildlife decisions.

That is the difference. The current law leaves room for judgment. Hunting, fishing, and trapping are tools. Important tools in some cases, sure. But still tools. They belong in the toolbox. They do not belong above every other public value in the Constitution.

302 changes the weight of everything.

It takes those tools and wraps them in constitutional language. Then it throws in phrases like “traditional methods,” “preferred means,” and “reasonable and necessary.” Those are not just nice outdoorsy words. Those are future legal arguments waiting for somebody to use them.

A lawyer can work with that.

A political group can work with that.

Someone mad about a CPW rule can work with that.

And once the fight starts, Colorado pays to find out what the words mean.

Colorado voters already spoke

In 1992, Colorado voters said no to spring bear hunting, baiting, and hounds for black bears.

In 1996, Colorado voters said no to leghold traps, body-gripping traps, snares, and poisons, with exceptions.

People can agree or disagree with those votes. That is democracy. You make your case, the public votes, and the law changes.

What we should not do is let a new constitutional amendment create a fresh legal crowbar that can be aimed at the choices Coloradans already made.

We should not have to spend public money defending Colorado’s past wildlife votes from a new constitutional crowbar.

That should make people angry. Actually angry.

Because this is not just a wildlife fight. It is a power fight.

Who gets to decide Colorado wildlife policy? Colorado voters? CPW through public rulemaking? Or lawyers using vague constitutional language pushed through by political campaigns?

Haven’t Colorado voters had enough of this?

Outside money shows up in Colorado politics. Fine. Nobody should pretend otherwise.

The problem with 302 is bigger than a campaign.

It asks voters to put one side’s wildlife language into the Colorado Constitution.

Campaigns end. Ads disappear. Consultants leave.

Constitutional language stays.

And if that language gives lawyers a new way to challenge CPW rules or voter-approved protections, Colorado is the one left paying for the fight.

That is not Colorado pride. That is getting played.

Our Constitution should belong to Coloradans, not campaign machines looking for a permanent advantage.

“Traditional methods” is where the trap sits

The phrase sounds harmless. That is why they use it.

People hear “traditional methods” and picture a fly rod, an elk camp, a kid catching trout, somebody’s granddad in an old coat.

But laws are not memories. Laws need definitions.

What counts as traditional? Rifles? Bows? Hounds? Bait? Snares? Steel-jaw traps? Body-gripping traps? Poisons?

302 does not settle that for regular people. It leaves the fight sitting there for later. Later usually means lawyers.

Old does not mean good. Cruel does not become acceptable because somebody wraps it in the word “traditional.” Colorado voters already rejected some methods for a reason. They did not want hidden traps, poisons, and cruel devices treated like normal recreation across the landscape.

To be clear, 302 does not automatically repeal those laws the next morning. That is not the claim.

The claim is more basic: 302 could create a new constitutional argument against current or future wildlife protections, and defending against that argument costs money.

Other states are already giving us the warning

North Carolina added a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife in 2018.

Later, that right became part of a major lawsuit over fisheries management. North Carolina also had a hunter challenge Sunday hunting restrictions under the constitutional right to hunt and fish. He lost, but the state still had to defend the law.

Winning does not make the legal bill disappear.

Florida passed a similar right-to-hunt-and-fish amendment in 2024. In 2025, Florida reopened a black bear hunt for the first time in a decade. Florida’s wildlife agency has said the amendment did not force the bear hunt. Fine. But the sequence is still a warning for Colorado voters. The amendment passed. The bear hunt came back. A conservation group sued. The agency had to defend the decision. The hunt went forward, and 52 bears were killed.

This is what these fights look like once wildlife gets constitutionalized.

It gets expensive. It gets ugly. And it does not stay on the campaign flyer.

CPW has enough real work

Colorado wildlife is already under pressure from things nobody can slogan away.

Habitat loss. Drought. Chronic wasting disease. Roadkill. River health. Native fish decline. Subdivisions chewing into winter range. Human-wildlife conflict. Fencing. Fire. Trash. Crowded public lands.

That is where CPW’s time should go.

Not into courtroom fights over “reasonable and necessary.” Not into paying lawyers to define “traditional methods.” Not into rewriting every controversial rule like it has to survive a constitutional challenge. Not into defending vague language that was never needed because hunting and fishing were already legal.

The people pushing 302 want this to sound like protection.

It is not protection. It is leverage.

It gives one side a stronger hand in every future wildlife fight. If Colorado voters hand them that leverage, getting it back will not be easy.

Do not put this in the Constitution

I am not against hunting. I am not against fishing. I am not trying to take away somebody’s elk camp, turkey tag, trout stream, or family tradition.

I am against being played.

I am against changing the Colorado Constitution to solve a fake emergency.

I am against handing special interests a lawsuit tool and pretending it will not cost us anything.

Colorado can protect hunting and fishing without giving lawyers a new constitutional weapon.

What we do not need is 302.

Do not sign it.

Do not let them turn our Constitution into a courtroom weapon.

No on 302.