Outdoor Life headlines Amendment 83 opposition Anti-hunting group

[bayoublaster7527]

I have long enjoyed reading Outdoor Life and Andrew McKean’s work. But their recent article on Colorado’s Amendment 83: Right to Hunt and Fish was very disappointing. McKean chose to headline and give prime billing to leading anti-hunting Hunter and lifelong DC swamp creature Eric Washburn. In an attempt to “both sides” the issue he tries to lead readers to believe the Colorado hunting and wildlife conservation community is split on the issue. He also lends some very undeserved credibility to Eric Washburn, who is universally despised by the hunting community in Colorado.

Why a Hunter Is Leading the Fight Against Colorado’s Right-to-Hunt Amendment​

Amendment 83 would make hunting and fishing a constitutional right in Colorado. Some of its fiercest critics are, oddly, hunters.

www.outdoorlife.com

Nothing strange Andrew, Washburn hates hunters and supports bans on hunting. He also is a Colorado Governor Polis insider, supporting and likely hand selecting anti-hunting activists for the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission.

Outdoor Life and Andrew McKean, do better. How about try supporting hunters and anglers in their attempt to protect hunting and fishing? You don’t need to “both sides” it, you’re a hunting and fishing publication. I don’t know maybe Andrew McKean and Eric Washburn are long time buddies or something.

Luckily though HOWL for Wildlife did some actual research and got the story right. Calling out Washburn’s group as anti-hunters masquerading as a hunting group. Also they are funded by Wayne Pacelle’s Animal Wellness Action/Center for Humane Economy, same folks who funded CatsArentTrophies Prop 127 campaign. You want to know the real force behind an organization? Follow the money.

https://www.howlforwildlife.org/don...gd_JfMlrlM6fZxHdPI_aem_VFCcS2PhN4qHkgds0GAEmg

 

[elkduds]

The CO democratic party is pumping out anti-83 rhetoric online and elsewhere. 2 themes: Traditional Methods language is vague. Takes control away from citizen petitioners. It can't pass without some level of support from Dems, because passage requires at least 55% voting Yes.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

The CO democratic party is pumping out anti-83 rhetoric online and elsewhere. 2 themes: Traditional Methods language is vague. Takes control away from citizen petitioners. It can't pass without some level of support from Dems, because passage requires at least 55% voting Yes.

Yeah. I think the state Democratic Party chose to not take a position but lots of elected Democrats and county level party committees have come out against it for the reasons you stated. It will take quite a bit of independent and Democrat support to reach 55%.

My gravest concern is if this doesn’t pass it will send a bright flashing light to every single national anti-hunting organization that Colorado is open for business and ripe for the taking. Essentially it reinforces the message that Coloradans don’t care to protect hunting and fishing. You can expect hunting bans and further restrictions on the ballot in every single election cycle. Maybe even more than one. The Pro Animal Future folks from Colorado are already involved in IP 28 in Oregon and looking for ways to bring something similar to Colorado.