Wildfire’s Edge in a Drought. Wildlife in Crisis. Time for “Right to Hunt”?

Although some vegetation rebounds quickly after low- or moderate-severity fires, habitat quality, cover, nesting areas, and stable wildlife populations often require years to recover, depending on fire severity and drought conditions.

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. Researchers have concluded that even modest increases in drought intensity can sharply reduce the viability of deer, elk, and other grazing species as food and water become scarce (USGS Publications). These are precisely the times when Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) must have the flexibility to reduce license numbers, delay hunting seasons, or temporarily close seasons so wildlife populations have the opportunity to recover before additional harvest pressure is added.

Proponents of the "Right to Hunt" initiative say CPW will retain its regulatory authority, but one spokesperson revealed the initiative's purpose, stating, "…down the road, you want to turn around and restrict it, we have the state constitution that denies you the opportunity to do that, and if you decide you want to do it, now we have legal standing and we can go to court."  Litigation that is sponsored by the Colorado taxpayers.

Wildfires add another layer of stress. Research shows today's fires are larger, last longer, and occur across a much longer fire season than in previous decades. Since the mid-1980s, the western United States has experienced nearly a fourfold increase in large wildfires, fire seasons approximately 78 days longer, and fires that burn up to five times longer than they once did (USGS Publications). Scientific reviews have also documented that wildfire smoke can cause respiratory disease, immune suppression, neurological impairment, cardiovascular stress, and behavioral changes, while burned landscapes leave wildlife displaced, nutritionally stressed, and more vulnerable to disease and predation. Recovery is not instantaneous. Although some vegetation rebounds quickly after low- or moderate-severity fires, habitat quality, cover, nesting areas, and stable wildlife populations often require years to recover, depending on fire severity and drought conditions (DOI).

That is why the "Right to Hunt" ballot initiative deserves careful scrutiny. Colorado's wildlife professionals have long relied on science—not constitutional rights—to determine when wildlife populations can sustain hunting pressure and when they need time to recover. If a constitutional "right to hunt" creates grounds for litigation whenever CPW delays or limits hunting because of drought, wildfire, disease, or other biological emergencies, adaptive wildlife management will become more difficult. Even if the agency ultimately prevailed, lawsuits would consume time and resources while creating inefficiency around urgent management decisions. At a time when Colorado faces severe drought, record-setting wildfires, and unprecedented stress on wildlife, is this the moment to weaken the ability of Colorado's biologists to respond quickly? Or should Colorado continue allowing its wildlife professionals—not out-of-state special interests or the courts—to make true science-based decisions that give wildlife the best chance to recover before additional hunting pressure is applied?

Proponents of the "Right to Hunt" ballot initiative are not asking for science—they are creating a basis to litigate alleged rights infringements. The out-of-state Wisconsin hunting organization funding this effort to amend Colorado's Constitution is not concerned with Colorado's drought, wildfires, or wildlife stress, but with preserving what it calls "heritage." What kind of heritage does that leave for our children and grandchildren who actually live in Colorado?

Don’t lock out Colorado’s future generations.