It’s not news to the many who hunt and fish Colorado’s wilds that our state has been at a crossroads on conservation issues. More “progressive” priorities for the outdoors have been advanced under the stewardship of Gov. Jared Polis. 

Recreation, rooted in hiking, cycling and skiing has continued to enjoy the blessing of the state’s political establishment, while cornerstones of wildlife conservation such ashunting and fishing are being nudged aside. “Animal rights” have taken precedence over science-based wildlife management.

That’s despite the fact sportsmen are tapped disproportionately to finance the state government’s conservation efforts. They contribute 58% of Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s funding through licenses, passes, fees and permits. In 2025, that totaled $25 million. 

While many other kinds of recreation, like camping and hiking, also help foot the bill through campsite and park entrance fees, hunters and anglers pick up a hefty tab. A bull elk tag can top $800 for a nonresident hunter while a deer tag can set back a nonresident hunter more than $500.

What thanks are hunters and anglers getting for paying the freight? 

They are facing threats to ban hunting.

Indeed, hunting and fishing could be restricted to the point of elimination if activists get their way. There was the failed hunting ban proposed on the 2024 statewide ballot for mountain lion, bobcat and lynx. Voters rejected it 55% to 45%. This year, at the instigation of animal-rights activists, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is moving to impose a ban on the sale of animal pelts — another blow to hunting and trapping. That pending ban didn’t even go to a statewide vote.

And look no further than Oregon for a scarier example — an active ballot measure that would effectively ban hunting and fishing and even make it a crime to catch a fish or harvest wild game. Dubbed the “PEACE” Act — “People for Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions — it would eliminate the legal exemptions that protect hunting, fishing, trapping and farming from Oregon’s animal abuse statutes.

So, it’s not surprising Colorado’s sportsmen are strategizing how to protect themselves. The T. Roosevelt Conservation Alliance is working to place Initiative 302 on the November ballot — amending the Colorado Constitution to enshrine the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife using traditional methods.

An outright ban on hunting would have profound implications for wildlife management and for our state’s economy. About 300,000 hunters and 950,000 anglers generate $3.25 billion in annual economic activity and sustain more than 25,000 jobs. 

Fundamentally, the ability to harvest from and care for nature is a right and responsibility wired into all of us. It’s an ethos, and reality, our state was built on, even if an increasingly cosmopolitan Colorado grows distant from those values in today’s Digital Age.

Initiative 302 seeks to keep science-based wildlife management in place in Colorado, as similar policies do in other states. Nearly half of U.S. states already safeguard the right to hunt and fish.

Let’s face it, the hunting rifles and fishing rods that once were a fixture of just about every household have given way to other kinds of recreation among Colorado’s increasingly urban and suburban culture. 

That’s a matter of choice, of course, but it also means many contemporary Coloradans have lost touch with our state’s original outdoors heritage.  And they are more susceptible to entreaties to ban hunting without knowing the implications.

The well-funded national animal-rights movement is banking on it.

Which is why hunters and anglers are now, at last, pushing back.