By Amanda Hardin | Rocky Mountain Voice
Critics across Colorado’s hunting, ranching, and wildlife management communities are sounding the alarm over a 2026 ballot measure they say could upend science-based conservation and rural land rights.
Initiative #82, called the Colorado Wildlife and Biodiversity Protection Act, would create a new regulatory body, the Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation Commission (WECC). The commission would hold far-reaching powers over endangered species protections, wildlife corridors, land use, and even Colorado Parks and Wildlife itself.
The WECC would have authority to enforce and develop rules on infrastructure projects, land use, private conservation programs, and wildlife protections. AGPROfessionals note that “This group will have enforcement authority with the power to inspect properties, conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, and refer landowners for prosecution by the Attorney General.”
Unlike Colorado Parks and Wildlife, which operates under the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and is staffed by career wildlife professionals and scientists, the WECC would be composed of nine appointed members chosen by academic and environmental organizations.
Individuals with ties to energy, agriculture, or development sectors would be explicitly barred from serving.
Opposition has emerged from groups including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, and several rural county commissions.
They argue that Initiative #82 weakens the authority of Colorado Parks and Wildlife, which has overseen wildlife management in the state for over five decades. Among their biggest concerns: predator control. They point to restrictions on mountain lion and bobcat hunting, along with new limits that could make it harder for ranchers to defend their livestock or stay afloat.
The proposed law also gives the WECC authority to step in if CPW or any ‘relevant agency’ is deemed ‘defunded or nonfunctional.’ AGPROfessionals also warned: “Once you enroll, you’re handing control of your land to a commission stacked with anti-agriculture interests. Traditional uses like grazing will likely be declared incompatible unless they pass WECC’s environmental test.”
One of the more controversial provisions would create a property tax reduction of up to 100% for landowners who dedicate large portions of their land to ‘wildlife corridors.’
Critics say this could stick other taxpayers with the bill—and possibly violate Article X of the Colorado Constitution. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation put it plainly: “The Colorado constitution does not allow for the creation of a new executive agency that exists ‘independently’ of the existing department structure.”
Additionally, Initiative #82 would give the new commission the authority to issue subpoenas and refer cases for prosecution. AGPROfessionals further noted that “Under this proposed ballot initiative, WECC is designed to fund itself through fines, penalties, and impact fees. That means the more violations they find or define, the more money they make.”
This is not the first time wildlife issues have appeared on Colorado’s ballot. In 2020, voters narrowly approved the reintroduction of gray wolves. In 2024, Proposition 127, which sought to ban hunting of big cats was defeated by voters statewide, after facing pushback over similar concerns about bypassing CPW’s role.
Grassroots leaders see it as part of a larger trend of policy by ballot box, driven by well-funded national groups with limited understanding of local realities.
If certified, Initiative #82 could appear on Colorado’s 2026 statewide ballot. Proponents are in the signature-gathering phase, but opposition is organizing quickly.
Those opposed to Initiative #82 warn that action must be taken early in the process to prevent the measure from gaining momentum or reaching the 2026 ballot.
They are also encouraging Coloradans to review the full text of the proposal, warning that many residents—particularly hunters, ranchers, and rural officials—may be unaware of what they describe as a drastic shift in wildlife governance away from scientific management and toward unaccountable activism.
Those pushing back on Initiative #82 say it’s not enough to wait and see. They’re calling on residents to talk with neighbors and local leaders, especially in rural counties where hunting and land use decisions hit close to home. They also highlight groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Colorado Farm Bureau as aligned with their concerns over conservation and oversight.
As petitioners begin collecting signatures, opponents say the best defense is early awareness. They’re urging people not to sign and to share their concerns in places where the initiative is likely to be promoted—whether at the farmer’s market or the trailhead.
Local leaders are also encouraging residents to report concerns to the Secretary of State’s office.
Reports of petitioners using misleading language should be submitted to the Secretary of State’s office, and grassroots groups are already preparing counter-campaigns with messaging like “Think Before You Sign, No to #82.”
Legal and procedural challenges are also being considered. Opponents plan to submit comments to the state Title Board during public hearings and encourage others—including ranchers, biologists, and rural residents—to participate in the process.
As signature gathering ramps up, opponents are urging voters to stand with local wildlife experts, not distant interest groups, and to speak out before Colorado’s conservation policies are handed over to an unelected commission.