Outdoor Life headlines Amendment 83 opposition Anti-hunting group

[elkduds]

Yeah, I had heard somewhere that the CA Commission might be moving in a more positive direction for sportsmen. Maybe the increase in black bear tags or something. I can tell you unequivocally that the Colorado Commission is moving the opposite direction quite quickly. Anti-hunting activist control the majority of seats currently. CA-based HOWL for Wildlife has been spending lots of time and resources on this Colorado issue. Even took the time to call out Outdoor Life and McKean about the shoddy coverage of the topic.

In the televised goobernatorial nondebate, Weiser spent several minutes on wanting to address needs of rural voters whose voice gets minimized by the Front Rangers. Unsure what that means RE Wildlife Commission, though I have asked his campaign that question several x online w no replies.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

In the televised goobernatorial nondebate, Weiser spent several minutes on wanting to address needs of rural voters whose voice gets minimized by the Front Rangers. Unsure what that means RE Wildlife Commission, though I have asked his campaign that question several x online w no replies.

That’s fair. I am remaining cautiously optimistic. I suspect it will be better than Polis (hard to be much worse) but likely not as good as we would hope for.

Issue is how much damage the anti-hunting commission can do by March. They are trying to ram through prairie dog hunting ban, lead ammo ban, and electronic calls ban all by the January commission meeting. Director Clellan pushed back against ramming all this through and expressed concern about the workload on the agency. She even asked, what’s the rush? These fraudulent Commissioners had no shame, openly stating they wanted to get it done by January because they wouldn’t survive Senate confirmation. Disgusting.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

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.

Like most legislation these days, it's completely performative, but it makes some people happy (and smug) so there is that...

 

[elkduds]

Like most legislation these days, it's completely performative, but it makes some people happy (and smug) so there is that...

My hope, and I believe part of it's intent, is to discourage ballot initiatives brought by anti groups. Those are a serious and growing threat here.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Like most legislation these days, it's completely performative, but it makes some people happy (and smug) so there is that...

Don’t believe it is performative at all. Things like Proposition 127, HB 25-1258, and the wave of citizen petitions to the wildlife commission have not been “performative”.

I truly believe a right to hunt and fish in a state like Colorado, with incredibly lax ballot initiative laws, will help deter future hunting bans. Call it “smug” if you like but Colorado has become ground zero in the fight to protect hunting and fishing.

 

[SAJ-99]

Don’t believe it is performative at all. Things like Proposition 127, HB 25-1258, and the wave of citizen petitions to the wildlife commission have not been “performative”.

I truly believe a right to hunt and fish in a state like Colorado, with incredibly lax ballot initiative laws, will help deter future hunting bans. Call it “smug” if you like but Colorado has become ground zero in the fight to protect hunting and fishing.

Had this been in place during Polis’ tenure would it have prevented the other ballot initiatives?

From a practical standpoint it is performative if we keep electing people that will cater that these groups that want to redefine meanings written in constitutions against the will of the people, be it at the state or federal level.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Had this been in place during Polis’ tenure would it have prevented the other ballot initiatives?

From a practical standpoint it is performative if we keep electing people that will cater that these groups that want to redefine meanings written in constitutions against the will of the people, be it at the state or federal level.

That’s an interesting question and my understanding is that ballot initiatives go through a legislative review where they look at how said initiative affects current statute or constitution. It takes a constitutional amendment to overturn an existing constitutional amendment, which does raise the threshold. And can also set up further litigation battles.

There is the interpretation of the constitutional amendment which comes into play. I share your frustration with elected officials. So nothing is ironclad. But I will take having constitutional protections for hunting and fishing over the alternative every day.

Saw a post the other day highlighting that the 24 states with RTHF have significantly less attacks on hunting and fishing compared to states without RTHF.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Don’t believe it is performative at all. Things like Proposition 127, HB 25-1258, and the wave of citizen petitions to the wildlife commission have not been “performative”.

I truly believe a right to hunt and fish in a state like Colorado, with incredibly lax ballot initiative laws, will help deter future hunting bans. Call it “smug” if you like but Colorado has become ground zero in the fight to protect hunting and fishing.

As I said, it makes some people feel better.

 

[TOGIE]

Not sure why the opposition to it would be so fierce if it was purely performative.