A pediatric dentist who teaches residents at Children’s Hospital Colorado has written against Amendment 83, the measure on the Nov. 3 ballot that would put a right to hunt and fish into the Colorado Constitution. She is studying for a doctorate in bioethics, and her letter, offered to The Independent for publication, turns on the amendment’s phrase “traditional methods.” It argues that a practice’s history is no test of whether it is humane, citing the bear-hunting practices Colorado voters banned in 1992 and the commercial trade in bobcat pelts.
If hunting is already legal in Colorado, then why are we being asked to change our Constitution to protect hunting by “traditional methods”?
That phrase should be at the heart of the debate over Amendment 83 because words matter. “Traditional” can sound wholesome and “Colorado heritage” can sound even better. I encounter that “heritage” language on signs along I-25 through Douglas County when I drive to Children’s Hospital on the days I teach there.
Looking at this through a bioethical lens, I see that a practice can be traditional and still be inhumane and unacceptable. “Traditional” does not mean ethical, humane or even worthy of constitutional protection.
Isn’t bear baiting traditional? Hunting bears with hounds certainly has a long history. Colorado voters prohibited bait, hounds and the spring bear hunt in 1992 in part to protect mama bears and their dependent baby cubs. Additionally, this is not merely ancient history. In August, Cowboy State Daily reported that Dan Gates, spokesman for Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, and others would like Colorado to reinstate the spring bear season and allow bait and hounds again.
The question should not be whether something is traditional. The question should be whether it is humane, ethical and sound wildlife policy today.
Bobcat trapping shows why.
A 2016 National Geographic article on an investigation of the American bobcat fur trade by Reveal, from the Center for Investigative Reporting, reported that shooting a trapped bobcat is more humane but can damage its pelt through a bullet hole or blood. Some trappers instead use a wire noose attached to a pole to strangle the animal. Apparently, strangulation protects the pelt. Slowly strangling a sentient animal to preserve the commercial value of its skin is inhumane. Calling it “traditional” or “heritage” does not make it ethical.
Bioethics reveals how the way we treat and exert control over other living beings reflects our society’s values. If we invoke “Colorado heritage,” we should ask what kind of culture our treatment of wildlife represents.
This discussion cuts close to home. My husband is a veteran, hunter and fisherman. He believes hunting can be ethical. He also believes taking an animal’s life creates a responsibility to make its death as quick and humane as possible. Questioning cruelty is not anti-hunting.
And let’s be honest: exactly whose heritage are we talking about? A Common Sense Institute analysis using CPW’s 2023 harvest-report data identified 427 bobcat hunters and 738 bobcats harvested. In a state of roughly six million people, 427 represents about 0.007% of the population. Colorado’s wildlife is a public resource. Why should a practice pursued by such a tiny constituency be presented as our collective “Colorado heritage”?
There is also a commercial reality. CPW requires bobcat pelts to be inspected and sealed. American bobcat pelts have entered international fur markets, including China and Russia. Russia is an American adversary. China is a major strategic competitor. Killing American wildlife for luxury fur markets in those countries while wrapping the practice in rhetoric about American and Colorado heritage is un-American.
Additionally, the measure is backed by the Wisconsin-based International Order of T. Roosevelt. Substantial outside money has helped put a constitutional amendment on our ballot while Coloradans are being told this is about protecting “our heritage.”
Whose heritage? Whose interests? Whose wildlife? Heritage tells us what previous generations did. Bioethics asks whether we should continue doing it.
The suffering of an animal does not become less real because a killing method is traditional. A practice does not become representative of Colorado because a few hundred people participate in it. Outside political spending does not become Colorado culture because a highway sign invokes “heritage.”
Hunting is already legal.
Before “traditional methods” are elevated into our Constitution, Coloradans should examine exactly what those words mean and what kind of ethical culture we want Colorado’s heritage to represent.
Leann Yoda
Gleneagle, Colorado
Editor’s note: Letters to the editor reflect the views of their authors, not The Monument Independent. To submit a letter, email [email protected].
