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 signal 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.

 

[Carnage2011]

Andrew hasn’t been on a good run lately….good lord.

Hopefully people get it right and pass this one. I feel like CO is a dumpster fire right now so I’m not very optimistic, but I’m damn sure hoping!

 

[elkduds]

83 is endorsed by the National Wildlife Federation, FYI. I'm posting often in CO websites in favor of 83. You can, too.

 

[brockel]

This forum pushes “vote blue” for your hunting and public land rights. That also has its issues. Both sides suck

 

[INMT]

This forum pushes “vote blue” for your hunting and public land rights. That also has its issues. Both sides suck

Does it though. I think in red states where senators/reps are pushing public land transfers and DOGE level land agency cuts, folks are looking at blue options. Usually pro public land and 2A candidates.

But in CO, WA, OR, CA etc folks on here are split. R’s respect 2A and hunting. D’s respect public lands.

Seems the independent thread is extremely relevanthere. As @Forkyfinder pointed out, a half dozen I’s could start to make a difference.

As a former coworker once said:

“Let’s vote the radical middle. To the left of the right and to the right of the left. Common sense for an uncommon America.”

 

[rookieforever33]

Spotted this picture in another thread. Felt like it fit better here.

 

[nrpate05]

How does a constitutional right to hunt and fish actually work on the ground? I support it, but just curious what it actually means in practice.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Does it though. I think in red states where senators/reps are pushing public land transfers and DOGE level land agency cuts, folks are looking at blue options. Usually pro public land and 2A candidates.

But in CO, WA, OR, CA etc folks on here are split. R’s respect 2A and hunting. D’s respect public lands.

Seems the independent thread is extremely relevanthere. As @Forkyfinder pointed out, a half dozen I’s could start to make a difference.

As a former coworker once said:

“Let’s vote the radical middle. To the left of the right and to the right of the left. Common sense for an uncommon America.”

I agree with your statement on frustration with public lands positions with R’s in red states. But I have a hard time finding D’s that are good on 2A, even in red states. Most all take some money from Giffords or Bloomberg. Can’t speak to other states, but in CO even the R’s are good on public lands, it’s a bit of a third rail. However, the D’s are all terrible on 2A and only a few (mostly rural districts) are good on hunting. But that is likely because Bloomberg and Everytown have essentially purchased the Democratic Party in Colorado and they have no choice.

The independent thread has been blowing up HuntTalk! Very interesting to see how it plays out. Could make things really different in the U.S. Senate.

 

[COEngineer]

Washburn is the most anti-hunting hunter ever. He's the anti's best friend and is always cited as, "Even hunters don't agree with <hunting topic of the day>." Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'm sure there are hunters who think their specific form/method/species of hunting is the only way that is ok, but that guy has never said anything positive about hunting and I am likewise disappointed that Outdoor Life gave him more credence.

 

[Elky Welky]

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.

Direct quote from the article:

"Still, it should be noted that Washburn’s constituency is far smaller than the wave of sportsmen support for A-83. Nearly all organized hunting and fishing groups have come out in support of it, including the influential Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project, the state’s largest coalition of hunting, fishing, and wildlife conservation groups."

 

[jryoung]

Direct quote from the article:

"Still, it should be noted that Washburn’s constituency is far smaller than the wave of sportsmen support for A-83. Nearly all organized hunting and fishing groups have come out in support of it, including the influential Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project, the state’s largest coalition of hunting, fishing, and wildlife conservation groups."

The currency is rage, not enough rage there.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Direct quote from the article:

"Still, it should be noted that Washburn’s constituency is far smaller than the wave of sportsmen support for A-83. Nearly all organized hunting and fishing groups have come out in support of it, including the influential Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project, the state’s largest coalition of hunting, fishing, and wildlife conservation groups."

Nearly all? Try every single one anyone has ever heard of, including RMEF, DU, TRCP, and BHA. The only “hunting” group opposed to Amendment 83 is Washburn’s fake “Hunters and Anglers against 83” group which is actually funded by Wayne Pacelle at Center for Humane Economy/Animal Wellness Action and Center for Biological Diversity. Made up of a handful of the CatsArentTrophies Prop 127 “useful idiots” for the anti-hunting movement in Colorado. Washburn is a career DC swamp creature and lobbyist. He publicly supported every single one of the anti-hunting activist appointments to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. Appointments that CWCP and the majority of the state Senate opposed. Washburn is one of worst of the worst, from this Chamberlain-esque tradition of appeasement where he demands that we as hunters ban mountain lion and black bear hunting in order to save the rest of hunting.

McKean let Washburn just spew all his propaganda with no push back. Outdoor Life isn’t the New York Times, it isn’t supposed to be a “neutral” news source. I thought they supported hunting and future of our sport? Disgraceful that OL couldn’t bring themselves to help Colorado hunters at such a critical time. I can tell you with quite a bit of certainty that if Amendment 83 fails we will see hunting bans and restrictions like Prop 127 on the ballot every single election cycle. It will be like a bright flashing beacon to every national anti-hunting organization in the country that Colorado is ripe for the taking. Make IP 28 in Oregon look like nothing.

I stand by my position and have my suspicions about the whole thing.