"Right to Hunt" Is Not About Protecting Grandpa's Fishing Trip: It's a Weapon

They want your signature now so your kids lose power later

The petition pitch for 302 sounds harmless. Protect hunting. Protect fishing. Protect tradition. Most Coloradans hear that outside a store and think, “Sure, I’m not against hunting.”

That is why the pitch works. It skips the part voters need to hear.

Colorado already has strong hunting and fishing law on the books. Hunting and fishing are already legal here. State law already gives hunting, trapping, and fishing a primary role in necessary wildlife harvests.

So why are out-of-state political groups trying to push stronger, permanent language into our Constitution?

Because 302 is not the simple “right to hunt and fish” idea supporters want people to picture when they say 24 other states have done this. 302 uses harder language: “traditional methods” and “preferred means.” Those words give lawyers, lobbyists, and national groups more to work with later.

That’s the trick. They sell it as protection, but the text gives them power later.

Luke Hilgemann’s Outdoor Life column says a lot more than the petition pitch does. He walks through how these right-to-hunt amendments get used after voters pass them.

Wisconsin wolves. Maine “harvest.” Florida bears. Marco Island fishing. Nebraska mountain lions.

In Wisconsin, the constitutional right was used in a wolf hunt fight. In Maine, “harvest” language was argued to include hunting. In Florida, his group filed in a bear hunt case using Florida’s new right-to-hunt amendment. In Marco Island, fishermen used Florida’s new right to fish against a city council proposal. In Nebraska, a mountain lion season fight changed after the governor warned repeal could bring costly litigation.

That is not just about protecting grandpa’s fishing trip.

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 Parks and Wildlife can get pulled into legal advice. State money pays for lawyers. Wildlife money can get burned fighting over words voters were told not to worry about.

Nobody needs 302 to hunt next season. Nobody needs 302 to take a kid fishing. Hunting and fishing are already legal.

They want the Constitution because regular law can be changed by future Coloradans. Constitutional language is harder to change. Today’s voters sign once, and tomorrow’s voters, including our kids and grandkids, have less room to act later.

The Gazette reported the group backing 302 is based in Wisconsin. Hilgemann said they had already collected about 90,000 signatures in Colorado. He also called 302 a proactive measure that lets them be “offensive.”

This is not a small Colorado hunting club passing a clipboard because hunting got banned. It did not. This is a national campaign trying to plant permanent language in Colorado’s Constitution.

The Florida bear hunt example should wake people up. After Florida passed its right-to-hunt amendment, IOTR used that new language in a bear hunt lawsuit. That is how this works. Pass the soft language first. Call it heritage. Use it later in court.

Then read the actual 302 text. 302 says hunting and fishing would be the “preferred means” of managing fish and wildlife populations. Supporters keep saying that means “trust CPW biologists,” but it does not. Trusting biologists means letting them choose the right tool for the facts in front of them.

Sometimes that tool is hunting. Sometimes it is habitat work, disease control, road crossings, fencing, relocation, conflict prevention, or leaving an area alone. 302 puts one preference into the Constitution before the facts are even on the table.

This is not a shot at regular hunters. They are our neighbors. A lot of them care about fair chase, habitat, clean water, and healthy wildlife.

The problem is a national political machine hiding behind local hunters to push permanent language Colorado does not need.

302 is not about next season. It is about who controls the next generation of wildlife fights.

Do not sign away your family’s future voice on Colorado wildlife.

Keep Colorado wild, beautiful, and free for generations to come.

Decline to sign 302.