I'm an Angler. I'm ok With Hunting. But I Don't Support The Right to Hunt Amendment.

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.

This thing is being sold as “save hunting and fishing,” but hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife already manage seasons, tags, licenses, bag limits, and method-of-take rules. Colorado law already says hunting, trapping, and fishing are used as primary methods for necessary wildlife harvest.

So, what are we actually being asked to do?

We are being asked to put broad, permanent language into the Colorado Constitution. Words like “traditional methods,” “preferred means,” and “reasonable and necessary” may sound harmless at a petition table, but those are not just outdoor words. They are legal words. Future lawsuit words.

Dan Gates has already told people what kinds of fights he is talking about. He said, “When you turn around and get into mountain lions and snow geese and trapping and all the other stuff, that's when the legislative session and the commission is. This is 365 days a year.”

That is not about helping the local elk hunter draw a tag. It is not about stream access for anglers, cleaner rivers, native fish, winter range, habitat, public access, or stopping regular Coloradans from getting priced and crowded out.

It is about leverage for the next fight, at Colorado’s expense.

Taxpayers, license buyers, hunters, anglers, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife all get pulled into the cost when vague constitutional language turns into legal threats, court fights, staff time, and money spent defending rules instead of doing the work people actually need. The official warning on 302 is not hard to understand: if people start challenging Colorado Parks and Wildlife rules under this new constitutional language, the state can face more legal costs. That means less time and money for access, enforcement, habitat, winter range, better wildlife data, river health, and actual work on the ground.

Gates also said, “We've chosen to be able to engage because they were threatening our way of life, our livelihood as a whole.” Then he got more specific: “And personally, they were threatening my way of life and business. I mean, from the pest control side, the ability to be able to turn around and do what I've done through my entire adult life.”

That is his quote, not mine. “My way of life and business.” “The pest control side.”

So yes, Colorado voters have every right to ask why our Constitution should be rewritten for that. Why should hunters, anglers, license buyers, and taxpayers be asked to pay for future legal fights over something Colorado already allows?

302 does not give resident hunters better draw odds. It does not give anglers stream access or cleaner rivers. It does not stop nonresident pressure, outfitter pressure, leased-up land, or the slow squeeze regular Coloradans feel every season.

What it does give is a constitutional weapon to the people who already told us they are fighting over mountain lions, snow geese, trapping, pest control, and “all the other stuff.”

That is not a rescue plan for local hunters and anglers. It is a power grab!

A lot of Colorado hunters are not asking to be dragged into every fight over banned or rejected methods under the soft little word “tradition.” A lot of anglers are not asking to be used as cover for a constitutional amendment that does nothing for rivers, native fish, water quality, streamflows, or public access.

Hunters are the emotional pitch. Anglers are the soft sell. The campaign says “hunting and fishing” because it sounds local, normal, and harmless. But the quotes point somewhere else. They point to lawsuits, method-of-take fights, predator fights, trapping, and one man openly talking about his livelihood, his business, and the pest control side.

I am an angler. I am not against hunting. I am against using hunters and anglers as bait for a constitutional fight Colorado does not need.

Don’t let a pest-control business fight become Colorado’s constitutional problem. Don’t let them drag hunters, anglers, license buyers, and taxpayers into future court fights and make the rest of us pay for it.

Decline to sign 302. The Right to Hunt doesn't belong in our State Constitution.