A group that says it represents hunters and anglers from across Colorado announced its opposition to a ballot measure that would establish the right to hunt and fish in Colorado’s constitution, saying it could result in the overturning of bans on certain unethical types of hunting.

The group includes a former appointee to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife and a hunter who supported the reintroduction of wolves to Colorado.

In a news release issued last week, a group called Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation announced its opposition to Initiative No. 302, which officially qualified for the November ballot.

Backed by the International Order of T. Roosevelt, the measure would establish the right to hunt, fish and take wildlife by use of “traditional methods,” with exceptions for nongame and endangered species. The initiative would also establish hunting and fishing as the “preferred means” of responsibly managing fish and wildlife populations in Colorado.

“Hunting and fishing is part of Colorado’s heritage,” Luke Hilgemann, CEO of the Order of T. Roosevelt, earlier said. “It’s something that the state traces its roots back to, and we want to make sure that those are forever protected against an onslaught of threats that have come from the anti-hunting and fishing groups, not only in Colorado, but nationwide.”

Hilgemann said his group introduced the initiative following worries that activists pushing for a hunting ban in Oregon, which failed to qualify for the ballot, could target Colorado next.

In a statement, the Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation argued that the initiative’s wording would protect “traditional methods” of hunting that have been banned in the state, such as wildlife killing contests, baiting bears with human food, the use of steel-jawed leghold traps and using hounds to hunt bears. Many of these practices were banned through a vote by the people, while others were banned by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission.

The organization also expressed worries about establishing hunting and fishing as the state’s “preferred methods” of managing wildlife, as it would mean, the group said, killing wildlife would be given preference over other forms of management, such as limiting hunting, relocating animals, developing vaccines to prevent disease transmission and investing in improvements to wildlife habitats.

“Good wildlife management requires a full toolbox,” said Gary Skiba, a former state wildlife agency bighorn sheep biologist from Durango. “Hunting and fishing can be important and effective tools. But so are habitat conservation and restoration, preventing disease transmission, limiting hunting in some cases to recover wildlife populations, relocation, nonlethal coexistence measures and other management tools. The Constitution should not declare one wildlife management tool preferred above all the others.”

In 2024, the Senate Agriculture Committee recommended against appointing Skiba to represent sportspersons at the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission.

Skiba was previously associated with Defenders of Wildlife, which described him as “the primary author of Colorado’s wolf conservation plan” in a 2021 lawsuit filed against the state of California.

The committee ultimately rejected his nomination, and Skiba withdrew his nomination.

Another member of Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation, Eric Washburn, wrote in an opinion piece in 2021 that it’s “time for the hysteria over wolves to end.”

“Wolf restoration is not complicated rocket science that takes a long time to get right. It has been done successfully in the Northern Rockies and CPW can base much of its plan on that excellent work,” he wrote. “Consequently, CPW should be empowered to immediately begin drafting the plan to inform a useful public discussion rather than spending four months empowering the anti-wolf forces to relitigate the election.”