Protect Colorado’s Constitution

08/12/2026

CAUGHT: THE “HARMLESS” “RIGHT-TO-HUNT”LANGUAGE IS ALREADY BEING USED AGAINST A CITY GUN RULE

Colorado voters are being told the “Right to Hunt and Fish” is harmless. They say it protects heritage, changes nothing, and will not threaten existing rules. Then Safari Club International stepped into a Tennessee court fight and showed exactly why Colorado should not put this language in our Constitution.

Six duck hunters were cited for firing shotguns inside the city limits of Sweetwater, Tennessee. They were not accused of poaching, trespassing, or hunting out of season. The issue was the city’s firearm-discharge ordinance. In plain English, the city had a rule about firing guns inside city limits, and the hunters got cited under it.

Now that local gun-rule case is in the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and Safari Club International is backing the hunters. Their quote is the whole story: “Wildlife management decisions belong with the Tennessee Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, not individual municipalities.” Safari Club’s CEO also said, “Cities cannot ban lawful hunting through local fi****ms ordinances.”

That is the gotcha. In Colorado, these groups tell voters constitutional hunting language will not touch local rules. In Tennessee, Safari Club is arguing that a city firearm rule should lose when it gets in the way of state-authorized hunting.

That is not heritage. That is leverage and power.

The “Right to Hunt and Fish” would put a new right to hunt, fish, and take wildlife into Colorado’s Constitution. It uses undefined “traditional methods.” It makes hunting and fishing the “preferred means” of wildlife management. It puts future wildlife rules under a new “necessary” test. And it does not clearly protect cities and counties when local safety rules collide with that new constitutional right.

That missing language matters. That is where lawsuits go.

Colorado communities already make these decisions locally. Colorado Springs looked at urban archery and said no after residents raised safety concerns. Cañon City said yes to a deer program, but only with strict local rules on property size, elevated stands, landowner permission, and weapons discharge. That is local control. One community says no. Another says yes with conditions.

The “Right to Hunt and Fish” puts those local decisions under a new constitutional weapon. Outside groups do not even have to win for taxpayers to lose. Cities still need lawyers. Residents still wait. Local officials still learn that protecting a neighborhood can turn into a court fight.

Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado. CPW already manages seasons, licenses, bag limits, and methods of take. This amendment is not saving hunting from a ban.

It is handing outside groups new constitutional power over Colorado communities.

Vote NO on the “Right to Hunt and Fish”!

Source:
https://foxchattanooga.com/news/local/sci-tennessee-wildlife-federation-join-the-legal-fight-over-sweetwater-duck-hunting-case

Donate, volunteer, or message us:

https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate

STOP THE OUT-OF-STATE POWER GRAB.

PROTECT COLORADO’S CONSTITUTION.

08/11/2026

They called it “grassroots.”

Records show something else.

A Wisconsin-based hunting and trapping group has poured more than $1 million into Colorado’s “Right to Hunt and Fish” campaign, and the committee has spent $1.5 million on paid petitioners through a Wyoming consulting firm.

Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado. This measure is not about saving them. It is about putting vague, permanent language into our Constitution, including undefined “traditional methods” that lawyers can use later.

So here is the question Colorado voters should ask:

Why does a “grassroots” Colorado movement need out-of-state money and paid petitioners to sell it?

STOP THE OUT-OF-STATE POWER GRAB.
PROTECT COLORADO’S CONSTITUTION.

Donate, volunteer, or message us:
https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate

Thank you, Science for Colorado Wildlife









#

Wealthy interests hold disproportionate sway over elections that should reflect the will of, you know, the people.

https://scienceforcowildllife.substack.com/p/pro-trapping-measure-spends-15-million

08/07/2026

Weekend Reminder: Before heading out on your weekend Colorado hike with your dog, consider what's at stake if the "Right to Hunt & Trap" passes in November. Your family dog.

Steel-jawed foothold traps, body-crushing instant-kill traps, and strangling snares—banned by Colorado voters in 1996—could find their way back into legal status if a court decides these outdated traps are "traditional methods" of hunting and trapping. The intentionally vague language in the "Right to Hunt and Trap" initiative could weaken Colorado's Amendment 14 through the legal doctrine of implied repeal.

Proponents of the initiative refuse to define "traditional methods," so voters should understand what implied repeal means:

Implied repeal occurs when a newly passed constitutional amendment conflicts with an older amendment, and courts rule that the newer expression of the constitution overrides and voids the older conflicting amendment, even though the new text did not explicitly mention erasing the older amendment.

Here's the question:
If "traditional methods" makes it into Colorado's Constitution, will implied repeal put Amendment 14 in a yard sale? Is it worth the risk?

This isn't just about wildlife. Family dogs have been caught in steel-jawed foothold traps set near popular recreation areas, including widely reported incidents near Utah's Bonneville Shoreline Trail earlier this year. Traps don't always catch their intended target. They maim and kill family pets too.

Colorado families deserve trails where children, dogs, and wildlife can safely enjoy the outdoors together. Protecting our shared public landscapes means making thoughtful choices about the future—not turning back the clock.

Learn the facts before you vote. Don't lock out our kids and pets.

Please donate to help us spread the word:
https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate

08/04/2026

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

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.

Please Donate to help spread the message:
https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate

https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/



Sources: https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/cir1493/full?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2656.13810

08/03/2026

THIS IS AN OUT-OF-STATE POWER GRAB

It is a coordinated attempt by outside political interests to override Colorado voters and rewrite our Constitution from the outside.

Colorado has the strongest statutory hunting-law language in the United States.

C.R.S. § 33-1-101(4) says Colorado shall use hunting, trapping, and fishing as the primary methods of necessary wildlife harvests. That is already state law.

So why are out-of-state political groups trying to change Colorado’s Constitution?

Hunting and fishing are already legal. This amendment does not create habitat. It does not create conservation funding. It does not give anyone a new license. It does not open a new season. It does not give Colorado residents more hunting and fishing rights.

It adds permanent constitutional language with undefined words like “traditional methods,” “preferred means,” and “necessary.”

They sell it as heritage. Colorado inherits the cost. Lawyers get the standing.

Vote NO on the “Right to Hunt and Fish” amendment.

Protect Colorado’s Constitution.

Call it what it is: an out-of-state power grab over Colorado’s voters!

Help us reach Colorado voters. Donate if you can, share this post, and ask your friends to stand with Protect Colorado’s Constitution.

https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate

07/31/2026

STOP THE OUT-OF-STATE POWER GRAB!
WE NEED YOU!

If you have not heard about Colorado’s proposed “Right to Hunt and Fish” amendment, here is what you need to know.

Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado. This amendment does not create any funding to conservation. It adds a new constitutional right using vague words like “traditional methods,” “preferred means,” and “necessary” without defining what those words will mean later.

Dan Gates, a leader of the campaign promoting the amendment, explained what constitutional language would give its supporters: “Now we have legal standing and we can go to court.”

This is not about protecting a family fishing trip. It is about gaining more legal power over future wildlife laws and regulations. Decisions involving habitat loss, drought, disease, fisheries, trapping, and public safety would end up in court. Colorado taxpayers will pay the bill.

Out-of-state groups are already pouring in money. More than one million dollars has already been funneled into the campaign, and Dan Gates has said they expect another 10 to 12 million dollars to come in from out of state. That level of outside funding is what is driving this effort forward.

We are Colorado hunters, anglers, biologists, parents, taxpayers, and regular citizens standing together against this power grab.

We need volunteers and donations to reach voters before ballots arrive. Donate $10, $25, or $50. Give us an hour. Share this post or talk to five people.

Colorado is not somebody else’s political trophy.

Donate, volunteer, or message us:

https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate

STOP THE OUT-OF-STATE POWER GRAB.

PROTECT COLORADO’S CONSTITUTION.

07/31/2026

ONE MILLION DOLLARS TO CHANGE COLORADO’S CONSTITUTION

Colorado campaign finance records show that the committee supporting “Right to Hunt” has received $1 million from a group using a Marshfield, Wisconsin address. It has already paid $800,000 to a Wyoming company for professional signature collection.

Dan Gates, one of the campaign’s leaders, estimated what the entire effort could cost:

“We’re figuring from start to finish, 10 to 12 million dollars.”

That is an estimate, not money already raised or spent. But it tells Coloradans how big this campaign is expected to become.

Supporters claim Initiative 302 changes nothing. If that is true, why spend $800,000 getting it onto the ballot? Why could the full campaign cost as much as $12 million?

Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado. Initiative 302 would add a new constitutional right to hunt, fish and take wildlife. It would protect undefined “traditional methods” and make hunting and fishing the “preferred means” of managing wildlife populations.

The state’s official fiscal analysis says Colorado Parks and Wildlife may need more legal advice and that litigation costs could increase if wildlife rules are challenged under the amendment. Colorado could end up paying to find out what the campaign’s words mean.

The records show outside money, an out-of-state petition company and a campaign expected to cost millions. They are paying to place permanent wildlife policy into Colorado’s Constitution.

This is not about protecting something that is illegal. Hunting and fishing are already legal.

This is an out-of-state power grab.

Colorado’s Constitution belongs to Coloradans. Vote no.

Sources: Colorado Secretary of State campaign finance records; Hunt Talk Radio Episode 287, 29:16; official Initiative 302 ballot language; Colorado Legislative Council Staff fiscal impact statement.

They have millions. We need Coloradans willing to stand up before that money buys the story voters hear.

Help us reach Colorado voters. Donate if you can, share this post, and ask your friends to stand with Protect Colorado’s Constitution.

https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate

07/28/2026

One of the most revealing moments in the Hunt Fish Freedom podcast came from Florida Representative Lauren Melo.

She talked about hunting quail in her backyard, fishing with her father, running airboats in the Everglades, and watching the places she grew up change as development spread.

So what destroyed her heritage?

Not anti-hunters.

Not wildlife commissioners.

Not voters.

Not the courts.

By her own account, it was development and the loss of habitat.

That is exactly why locking hunting into a constitution is so reckless.

What happens when wildlife has less habitat, smaller populations, more disease, or less water? Wildlife officials may need to shorten seasons, reduce harvest, close an area, or change how a species is managed.

Then what?

Do hunters get to say their constitutional “right” comes first?

Do wildlife officials have to defend every restriction against people demanding the same hunting opportunities they had before the habitat disappeared?

Supporters keep calling this “science-based wildlife management,” but they cannot tell us how science is supposed to work when the answer has already been locked into the Constitution.

Science changes when conditions change.

A constitutional right does not.

If they truly cared about preserving this heritage, they would be fighting to protect the habitat that makes it possible, not creating a permanent right to hunt wildlife after the habitat is gone.

DON’T LOCK IT INTO COLORADO’S CONSTITUTION.

Help us stop this out-of-state power grab. Join the fight and donate:

https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate

07/27/2026

“Right to Hunt and Fish” What Colorado voters are actually deciding

You can support responsible hunting and fishing and still say no to putting this language in Colorado’s Constitution.

• Hunting and fishing are already legal. Voting no does not ban either one, end hunting seasons or take away anyone’s fishing license.

• Colorado law already gives hunting, trapping and fishing a major role in wildlife management. The state already uses them as primary methods when wildlife harvest is necessary.

• This amendment adds something new. It creates a constitutional right to hunt, fish and take wildlife using “traditional methods,” but the language never defines what those methods are.

• It reaches farther than deer hunting and fishing with your kids. Colorado law defines hunting broadly enough to include trapping and taking wildlife. Existing trapping restrictions would not disappear overnight, but future fights over trapping and hunting methods would now involve a constitutional right.

• It gives hunting and fishing a constitutional preference over other wildlife tools. Habitat protection, disease response, relocation, research, wildlife crossings and conflict prevention receive no similar protection.

• The final language makes future rules harder to defend. The first draft said regulations could be “reasonable and necessary.” The final version removed “reasonable” and kept only “necessary.”

• Supporters have said what they want from it. They want legal standing, a path to court and a “lock” against future laws and regulations. Colorado’s own fiscal analysis warns that the state may face more legal work and litigation costs when those rules are challenged.

• Other states show how this language gets used. Our full-record review found 42 documented disputes or formal uses across 13 states. They are not 42 lawsuits. They include court cases, vetoes, agency fights, legal opinions and local proposals that were changed or withdrawn.

• The examples are real. Similar language was used in litigation that helped force a Wisconsin wildlife hunt and in a Nebraska veto involving mountain lions. In Florida, the new constitutional right was used in black bear litigation and became part of the pressure surrounding a local nighttime fishing proposal during sea-turtle nesting season.

• This is being pushed by a national political network. T. Roosevelt Action supplied the campaign’s initial $1 million. Luke Hilgemann, Dan Gates, Howl for Wildlife and The 76 Group are among the people and organizations behind the Colorado effort.

• It does not protect one acre of habitat. It builds no wildlife crossings, hires no biologists, funds no research and creates no new public access. It changes legal power, not conditions for wildlife.

Once vague language is placed in the Constitution, lawmakers cannot simply fix it. Colorado voters would have to amend the Constitution again.

This amendment does not save hunting. Hunting is already legal.

It gives organized hunting groups permanent constitutional leverage over future Colorado wildlife laws and regulations.

Keep hunting and fishing legal. Keep special-interest language out of Colorado’s Constitution. Vote no on the “Right to Hunt and Fish.”

Join the fight. Donate here:
ProtectColoradosConstitution.org/donate

Vote no! Not in Colorado!