Colorado: The Fox is in the Henhouse – and He’s Wearing Blaze Orange!

 

I recently wrote a blog about Amendment 83, the Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish, being on the November 2026 ballot.

It would establish the constitutional right of Coloradans to hunt, fish and harvest fish and wildlife, including by traditional methods. It would also recognize hunting and fishing as the state’s “primary and preferred means” of responsibly managing wildlife populations.

It’s fantastic that Colorado hunters are finally taking the fight directly to the people.

Of course, an opposing campaign has begun opposing our constitutional right to hunt and fish, and surprisingly it’s found itself a “hunter” to make their case (gotta do the two-fingered-air quotes around “hunter”). This fellow’s name is Eric Washburn, president of the newly formed Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation.

Washburn says he hunts big game, holds Colorado licenses and has hunted waterfowl. Fair enough. I have no reason to question whether he is a hunter.

But being a hunter and being representative of Colorado hunters are two different things.

That distinction matters as Colorado voters consider Amendment 83. The Legislative Council analysis says the amendment would preserve the state’s authority to regulate hunting, fishing and wildlife management when necessary for sound scientific conservation, public safety or preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities.

There are legitimate questions about how that language could affect existing regulations. Washburn argues that the amendment could lead to litigation and threaten some existing hunting restrictions. Those arguments deserve to be heard and examined on their merits.

But so does the background of the person making them.

Washburn is a professional public-affairs consultant with a long history in natural-resource policy. His published biography and writings show extensive involvement in conservation and wildlife issues, including work with Democratic Senate leaders Tom Daschle and Harry Reid and involvement in the founding of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

His public record on Colorado wildlife policy is also worth examining.

In 2023, Washburn wrote favorably about Gov. Jared Polis’ appointments to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, arguing that the Commission needed broader perspectives in dealing with issues such as climate change, habitat loss and species extinction. Two of my recent blogs focused on the last two CPW Commission meetings and how these very Commissioners Washburn supported are systematically tearing down the meetings and disrupting the Commission’s ability to make any meaningful progress on wildlife management issues.

Then there are wolves.

Washburn wasn’t just a supporter of Colorado’s wolf-reintroduction effort. He was one of its political advocates. In 2019, he publicly supported the ballot initiative to bring wolves back to Colorado, saying, “Colorado needs wolves.” He later wrote that it was time for the “hysteria” over wolves to end and urged CPW to move ahead with wolf restoration.

And that’s not the only example.

In 2026, Washburn publicly supported the CPW Commission’s decision to establish a daily limit of two furbearers per person. As I wrote in my last blog, that limit was “pulled out of thin air” and recommended by one of the new Polis appointees and went directly against CPW Staff’s science-based recommendation for a limit of 15. Washburn argued that Colorado had allowed hunters to kill as many furbearers as they wanted and said the new limits were necessary to protect the future health of Colorado’s 17 furbearer species.

But perhaps the most revealing statement came in that same March 2026 column, when Washburn wrote that “hunting in Colorado likely will come to an end in this century.” He cited declining wildlife populations, Chronic Wasting Disease, species conservation and generational changes as reasons.

Those aren’t minor comments from somebody who occasionally writes about wildlife.

Those are public positions on hunting, wildlife management and the role of hunters in Colorado.

And remember, this is the same Eric Washburn who is now asking Colorado hunters to reject a constitutional amendment that would establish hunting and fishing as a protected right and recognize them as the state’s primary and preferred means of responsibly managing wildlife.

Again, none of that means Washburn isn’t a hunter. But it sure gives Colorado hunters something to think about when he says he’s speaking for us.

Because most Colorado hunters I know have a straightforward view of wildlife management. We want healthy elk herds. We want mule deer and pronghorn populations to be managed properly. We want abundant game birds and healthy fisheries. We believe hunting is an important wildlife-management tool, and we expect wildlife decisions to be based on sound science as analyzed by CPW’s professional wildlife-management officers and biologists, NOT by ballot-box biology—which is how we ended up with the wolf-reintroduction disaster.

We also understand that hunting is about more than pulling a trigger.

It’s habitat. It’s access. It’s conservation funding. It’s predator management. It’s game populations. It’s the next generation of hunters sitting beside you in a blind or following you up a mountain.

Eric Washburn may be a hunter.  But if you want to know where he stands on hunting and wildlife management, don’t listen to the label.

Look at his record.

After all, just buying a tag doesn’t really make you a hunter, and it certainly doesn’t automatically make you the voice of Colorado hunters.