Amendment 83: Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish
NCSL id typo "Initiaitive 302"
NCSL lists initiative number; official ballot designation differs (mapped by title)
CO has no rebuttals; Blue Book arguments are written by Legislative Council Staff.
Page numbers/running headers removed from extracted text.
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution creating a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife by traditional methods, including all species of fish and wildlife managed by the state except non-game species, endangered species, or any species that is illegal to hunt under federal law, and, in connection therewith, establishing hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations; and preserving the right of the state to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management if necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing opportunities for all species?
A “yes” vote on Amendment 83 establishes a state constitutional right to hunt and fish.
A “no” vote on Amendment 83 means that hunting and fishing will continue as allowed under existing state and federal law.
Not published by the state
State Spending The measure is not expected to significantly change state spending in the near term, but could result in increased legal costs for the state as the new right to hunt and fish is applied. Specifically, CPW may have increased workload and costs for legal advice when developing new rules and regulations to ensure that they comply with the measure. In addition, if legal challenges to the constitutionality of new or existing hunting and fishing regulations occur, CPW spending on litigation costs will increase. The exact amount of these potential costs cannot be estimated because they depend on the actions of private parties and decisions by the courts.
1) This measure provides lasting protection against future attempts to restrict or eliminate hunting and fishing, and Colorado should join the 24 other states that similarly protect the right to hunt and fish in their state constitutions. Additionally, hunting and fishing are part of Colorado’s heritage and cultural identity and are important to its tourism and recreation economy. Revenue from hunting and fishing licenses benefits habitat and wildlife management efforts in all areas of the state, with one-third of CPW’s current annual revenue, about $115 million, coming from license sales.
Colorado Legislative Council Staff (Blue Book; arguments are prepared by nonpartisan staff with public comment, not signed by proponents)
1) The state constitution should protect fundamental rights and not recreational activities. Colorado is already a leader in wildlife conservation and management. Enshrining a right to hunt and fish in the Colorado Constitution is unnecessary, and it promotes one method of managing wildlife above others. This measure may restrict the ability to place guardrails on hunting, fishing, and trapping. Further, the use of undefined, vague language could prompt costly legal challenges and undermine reasonable regulations that voters, state lawmakers, and CPW have already put in place.
Colorado Legislative Council Staff (Blue Book)
Both columns use the same layout. Text is quoted from the official state guide. Views expressed belong to the argument authors.