By Roland Halpern

Colorado voters may soon be asked to place hunting and fishing in the state constitution. Proposition 302 would establish the right to hunt, fish and take wildlife using “traditional methods,” while declaring hunting and fishing are the state’s preferred means of managing wildlife.

But though hunting and fishing are an important management tool, wildlife management is a much broader system. For example, Colorado Parks & Wildlife restores wild animal populations, protects habitat, erects fences to protect animals and humans, treats disease, relocates nuisance or endangered animals, controls invasive species and regulates human behavior. These methods could all become secondary to a superseding constitutional right.

Hunting is already legal in Colorado. It is a long-standing activity enjoyed by both residents and visitors. Carefully regulated hunting and fishing can and do play a role in wildlife management. But none of that means hunting or fishing should become a constitutional right. It should remain a privilege exercised under rules protecting wildlife, public safety and the interests of all Coloradans.

Hunters and anglers represent only a small portion of Coloradans who use and value public lands. Others hike, mountain bike, bird-watch, canoe, camp, climb, ski, photograph our wildlife or simply enjoy open space. We do not claim each of these activities should be elevated into a constitutional right. Public lands belong to everyone, and the Colorado Constitution should not give one group of users — or one recreational activity — superior legal status over all others.

This distinction is recognized elsewhere. Colorado has far more drivers than hunters or anglers combined. Driving is essential for work and family life, yet it is a privilege, not a constitutional right. Drivers must obtain licenses, obey traffic laws and accept suspension or revocation when they endanger others. Colorado’s Division of Motor Vehicles itself repeatedly refers to driving as a “privilege” that can be withdrawn.

Similarly, for some Coloradans hunting or fishing are essential. Hunting involves the taking of wildlife held in trust for the public and that is why under current law hunters and anglers must obtain licenses, follow seasons and bag limits, use authorized hunting and fishing methods and comply with wildlife regulations. If these conditions are violated a hunter’s or angler’s privileges could be revoked. These safeguards are not attacks on hunters or anglers. They are the foundation of responsible hunting and fishing.

Perhaps more problematic is the narrow method of how wildlife would be controlled. Proposition 302 would instill the protection of vague and undefined “traditional methods.”

So, what does “traditional” mean and who decides if a method is traditional or not?

The term sounds reassuring until one examines history. For some Indigenous peoples living in what is now Colorado, traditional hunting involved driving bison over a cliff, causing them to fall to their deaths. It was a traditional communal survival practice suited to a very different time.

No one is suggesting reviving “buffalo jumps,” but the example exposes the danger of constitutionalizing an undefined historical concept. Traditions change. Some people might call hunting with hounds, baiting, leg-hold traps, snares or muzzleloaders “traditional.” Others might argue it includes high-powered rifles, advanced optics, laser range-finders and sights, electronic calls, thermal imaging, trail cameras and drones — technologies that themselves didn’t exist decades ago but could become “traditional” over time. Undefined it could be argued any method is “traditional.”

A constitutional amendment should not leave courts, agencies and lawmakers guessing which methods receive special protections and which do not, especially not when it is Colorado taxpayers who will foot the bill for lengthy litigation and legal challenges that are certain to follow if Prop 302 becomes law.

Any constitution, including Colorado’s, should safeguard fundamental liberties such as speech, religion, due process and democratic participation. It should not become a catalog of favored recreational activities or wildlife-management techniques.

Voting no on Proposition 302 is not a vote against hunting or fishing. Far from it. Hunting and fishing can remain legal, respected and scientifically regulated without becoming a constitutional entitlement.

A license should grant the privilege to hunt. The Colorado Constitution should not guarantee it.

Roland Halpern is executive director of Colorado Voters for Animals, a nonpartisan volunteer organization that advocates for sensible animal welfare and protection laws.