By Chris Dorsey | The Denver Gazette
For generations, Coloradans hunted elk, caught trout and managed wildlife without consulting a constitutional attorney. That was before wildlife management became a recurring statewide election issue, replete with consultants, national pressure groups and enough political mail to denude an aspen grove.
Now comes Initiative 302, the proposed “Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish,” driven by sportsmen who have concluded that activities legal today may require constitutional protection to remain legal tomorrow. Supporters submitted more than 180,000 signatures on July 8, well above the 124,238 valid signatures
required. The secretary of state has until Sept. 2 to verify them. Nothing says “settled Colorado tradition” quite like 180,000 signatures and a battalion of election lawyers.
The measure would recognize a constitutional right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife using “customary methods,” while excluding non-game species, endangered species and animals protected by federal law. It would declare hunting and fishing the preferred means of managing wildlife populations but would not authorize trespassing, ignore seasons, disregard bag limits or turn Interstate 70 into an elk-hunting unit.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife would retain authority to regulate harvest when necessary for scientific conservation, public safety or the long-term protection of hunting and fishing. Because it is a constitutional amendment, Initiative 302 would need at least 55% voter approval. Supporters call that insurance in a world where science-based wildlife management is now seen by some high in Colorado politics as little more than a loose guideline that is open to interpretation.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT THE DENVER GAZETTE