Colorado Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish Citizens Initiative.

[Bluumoon]

I have something developed and am in touch w CRWM. Unfortunately my timeline is too tight to commit to the necessary meetings w the State title board to make the 2024 ballot and I also do not want to detract from CRWMs work this year.

I would like to pursue for 2025, but will need a like minded person who is able to attend at least 3-4 in person title setting meetings in Denver (have to work around their dates not ours). Responsibilities then extend to making sure everyone collecting signatures is following the rules and then submitting the signatures to the State for verification.

Not a lot of cost (time and travel) on the front end to get title set from what I understand, maybe legal if antis take to to Colorado Supreme Court.

Real $ sounds like it will be in signature collection. Estimated $1.2 mil for a ballot initiative, $2 mil plus for a constitutional amendment. Ballot initiatives can be reversed w a simple majority on a subsequent ballot. Constitutional amendment would take 2/3 vote to reverse if I understand correctly.

 

[UncleBone]

I would call and talk to the folks at CRWM. They might have some insight. The hoops to jump through and language are very important to navigate correctly. Also, there is a significant financial burden to ballet initiatives.

I think a large portion of the costs associated, are for the signature gathering itself. I personally think it should be illegal to pay people $20 an hour to wait outside grocery stores to gather signatures for a cause they know nothing, or care nothing about. However, that is how many ballot initiatives gain traction. I do believe if every Colorado resident hunter gave just a few days of their free time to gather signatures, it would be very easy, and would cost much much less. The campaign part of the ballot proposal would still cost money though. I get that, but I imagine if everyone gave just a small fraction of what they spend on gear towards the cause, we could raise plenty. Not to mention, the gear companies, gun companies, etc that make billions of dollars from us, should feel inclined to donate as well. I will look into contacting CRWM about it and see if there is anything I could do with my time to help in the mean time.

 

[lak2004]

I think a large portion of the costs associated, are for the signature gathering itself. I personally think it should be illegal to pay people $20 an hour to wait outside grocery stores to gather signatures for a cause they know nothing, or care nothing about. However, that is how many ballot initiatives gain traction. I do believe if every Colorado resident hunter gave just a few days of their free time to gather signatures, it would be very easy, and would cost much much less. The campaign part of the ballot proposal would still cost money though. I get that, but I imagine if everyone gave just a small fraction of what they spend on gear towards the cause, we could raise plenty. Not to mention, the gear companies, gun companies, etc that make billions of dollars from us, should feel inclined to donate as well. I will look into contacting CRWM about it and see if there is anything I could do with my time to help in the mean time.

I agree it should be grassroots driven, the fact is that the majority of hunters don't care to get involved. If they did, the wolf vote would have failed. We would need approximately 190k signatures to have around 124k verified signatures. Give or take. I hope we can make it happen. I'll be calling as well to see how I can help.

 

[UncleBone]

You are right about that. I have been saying for about 15 years "most people don't care about anything outside their living rooms". I do believe that holds true for every walk of life. It amazes me how little people care about politics, government, the future of our country etc. A lot of folks cannot be bothered to care about anything these days if it doesn't directly effect them right at that moment. I will give them a call tomorrow after work or later this week if I get out of work late. I hope we can band together on this issue and get something done.

 

[lak2004]

Washington state is doing one.....https://www.howlforwildlife.org/wa_right_to_hunt_fish?utm_campaign=right_to_hunt_wa&utm_medium=email&utm_source=howlforwildlife

 

[CoMulies]

There are over 300k resident hunters in Colorado based on tag sales. The simplest way to distribute the message to all of them would be to through CPW, who likely has everyone’s email.

Extremely unlikely they’d supply the distribution list, but is there any shot CPW would circulate info on this initiative? Doesn’t seem like it lately, but managing hunting and fishing is in their mission statement..

 

[lak2004]

There are over 300k resident hunters in Colorado based on tag sales. The simplest way to distribute the message to all of them would be to through CPW, who likely has everyone’s email.

Extremely unlikely they’d supply the distribution list, but is there any shot CPW would circulate info on this initiative? Doesn’t seem like it lately, but managing hunting and fishing is in their mission statement..

They're on a gag order from their boss, the CO governor trying to end hunting.

 

[CoMulies]

They're on a gag order from their boss, the CO governor trying to end hunting.

So after some quick research, there’s a CO law that, in short, says state employees and agencies are legally barred from sharing their opinion on any issue on the ballot.

Based on this, it seems like they would be fine to distribute info about the initiative prior to it going on the ballot, in the signatures stage if you will. Im not saying they will of course, just that they can and it seems to me this would be the easiest/fastest way to get all of CO’s hunters aware of the situation.

Tangentially related, the governor can’t prohibit employees from advocating for hunting outside of the ballot law mentioned above. That’s 100% encroaching on 1st amendment territory.

 

[lak2004]

So after some quick research, there’s a CO law that, in short, says state employees and agencies are legally barred from sharing their opinion on any issue on the ballot.

Based on this, it seems like they would be fine to distribute info about the initiative prior to it going on the ballot, in the signatures stage if you will. Im not saying they will of course, just that they can and it seems to me this would be the easiest/fastest way to get all of CO’s hunters aware of the situation.

Tangentially related, the governor can’t prohibit employees from advocating for hunting outside of the ballot law mentioned above. That’s 100% encroaching on 1st amendment territory.

They have the ability but will lose their jobs if they speak against their bosses will. It's already happened. Polis needs to go. CO is screwed anyway. This state has really gone to chit in the last decade.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Not a lawyer, but I think language crafted in the law needs creative wording, like instead of “right to hunt” say something about, the right for Coloradans to harvest wild food. A name like that would be almost impossible for many in Co to vote against, plus include some gargbage about equity and inclusion, folks here are programmed to vote for that language

 

[bayoublaster7527]

So I think a “right to hunt and fish” is achievable in Colorado. We need to keep a keen eye to how the similar proposal in Washington turns out. Whether it passes or not, we can learn a lot about strategy and what’s effective/not effective. Unfortunately I think hunters need to put all focus and resources toward defeating Prop #91 in this election cycle. That being said I believe this is something that CRWM and CWCP could take on in the future and get to the finish line. We need to be inclusive and selective with the title and language. I believe a “Right to Wild Food” or even a “Right to Recreate (hunt/fish/hike/ski/camp)” could be a winning strategy.

 

[CoMulies]

So I think a “right to hunt and fish” is achievable in Colorado. We need to keep a keen eye to how the similar proposal in Washington turns out. Whether it passes or not, we can learn a lot about strategy and what’s effective/not effective. Unfortunately I think hunters need to put all focus and resources toward defeating Prop #91 in this election cycle. That being said I believe this is something that CRWM and CWCP could take on in the future and get to the finish line. We need to be inclusive and selective with the title and language. I believe a “Right to Wild Food” or even a “Right to Recreate (hunt/fish/hike/ski/camp)” could be a winning strategy.

Agree the language must be carefully crafted, but “Right to Wild Food” leaves the door wide open to an attack on all predator hunting and the argument that a lot of guys are just trophy hunting. I think it needs to be clear that it’s a right to hunt issue.

Giving the shifting political winds in the state and the continued population growth, particularly in urban areas, I’m not sure there’s too much time to waste.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Agree the language must be carefully crafted, but “Right to Wild Food” leaves the door wide open to an attack on all predator hunting and the argument that a lot of guys are just trophy hunting. I think it needs to be clear that it’s a right to hunt issue.

Giving the shifting political winds in the state and the continued population growth, particularly in urban areas, I’m not sure there’s too much time to waste.

This is the rub. We want the title that goes on the ballot to be very very intentionally vague. The wording of the law can be laid out plainly, but that is the point we play the same game the anti’s play like trying to get rid of “trophy hunting” we do something like the right to procure organic free range meat, via ancestral practices… make it sound super hippy and harmless, makes the opposition have to scramble to get ahead of something that 90% of the public would back

 

[CoMulies]

This is the rub. We want the title that goes on the ballot to be very very intentionally vague. The wording of the law can be laid out plainly, but that is the point we play the same game the anti’s play like trying to get rid of “trophy hunting” we do something like the right to procure organic free range meat, via ancestral practices… make it sound super hippy and harmless, makes the opposition have to scramble to get ahead of something that 90% of the public would back

Sure, I agree with you on the ballot language and the need to tailor to the public’s perception. The black letter law needs to be crystal clear though, or it’s going to open up a litigation nightmare. I haven’t practiced law since my first year out of school, but even I could argue with you all day long over whether the “right to obtain organic free range meat” actually protects the right to hunt, and they will too.

Not arguing with you here, overall agree there needs to be a very strategic approach.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Agree the language must be carefully crafted, but “Right to Wild Food” leaves the door wide open to an attack on all predator hunting and the argument that a lot of guys are just trophy hunting. I think it needs to be clear that it’s a right to hunt issue.

Giving the shifting political winds in the state and the continued population growth, particularly in urban areas, I’m not sure there’s too much time to waste.

Yep. Completely agree. Predator hunting (outside of bears and mtn lions) does create a potential problem with the food message. “Trophy hunting” is going to continue to be an attack angle for anti-hunting proponents. The only counter is information campaigns highlighting science-based management practices and current regulations regarding wanton waste. I also agree time is of the essence but we really have to focus our resources on defeating Prop 91. Success there could translate into significant momentum for a follow-on “Right to Hunt” initiative.

 

[snider6464]

I love the energy of this post. I wish something like this was possible. I went down this same thought and rabbit hole about 8 months ago. I talked with other states on how this looked there, I talked with CPW officers, Dan Gates, and many others in the "know". Unfortunately with the political climate in the state of Colorado and how this would look on paper, our efforts are better spent in a different manner. Even if passed, the state still controls the authority of how we can hunt and fish. We may have the right but they could say you have to do it with a rock. I suggest like others have on this page to get in contact with Dan Gates and he can explain in detail why having a ballot initiative like this is probably not the best idea to combat what is happening in our capital right now. I also looked into trying to create a ballot initiative to stop ballot box biology, this was also something that I thought was possible and would be a great idea.

I am not trying to discourage anyone from getting involved and spending time or money to help the cause. Listen to the ample podcasts out recently with these topics discussed and ways to get involved and help. The outcome of the cat ban will determine how the future of hunting in the west plays out in the next few decades. WE as sportsman have to stand up and get involved now more than ever.

 

[JBahr]

I also looked into trying to create a ballot initiative to stop ballot box biology, this was also something that I thought was possible and would be a great idea.

100% THIS... How was this received? I would walk and get signatures for this.

 

[CoMulies]

I love the energy of this post. I wish something like this was possible. I went down this same thought and rabbit hole about 8 months ago. I talked with other states on how this looked there, I talked with CPW officers, Dan Gates, and many others in the "know". Unfortunately with the political climate in the state of Colorado and how this would look on paper, our efforts are better spent in a different manner. Even if passed, the state still controls the authority of how we can hunt and fish. We may have the right but they could say you have to do it with a rock. I suggest like others have on this page to get in contact with Dan Gates and he can explain in detail why having a ballot initiative like this is probably not the best idea to combat what is happening in our capital right now. I also looked into trying to create a ballot initiative to stop ballot box biology, this was also something that I thought was possible and would be a great idea.

I am not trying to discourage anyone from getting involved and spending time or money to help the cause. Listen to the ample podcasts out recently with these topics discussed and ways to get involved and help. The outcome of the cat ban will determine how the future of hunting in the west plays out in the next few decades. WE as sportsman have to stand up and get involved now more than ever.

Dan has been at this game much longer than I, but I’m not sure I see the logic in letting them slowly erode our rights and not trying to get a right to hunt bill passed just because that bill may not pass if it goes to a vote.

It goes without saying that politics here are getting increasingly worse, not better, and Denver will only continue to grow.

 

[justin davis]

We need this to happen. It would be huge and I think it would pass if voted on.

 

[lak2004]

Dan has been at this game much longer than I, but I’m not sure I see the logic in letting them slowly erode our rights and not trying to get a right to hunt bill passed just because that bill may not pass if it goes to a vote.

It goes without saying that politics here are getting increasingly worse, not better, and Denver will only continue to grow.

I think Polis and his cronies might have enough folks in their pockets to squash a bill like that. Maybe that's his rationale?