If Colorado voters are being asked to put a constitutional right to hunt and fish into our state Constitution, why not a constitutional right to birdwatch?
It is, after all, a traditional Colorado activity. The amendment should guarantee every citizen the right to pursue birds with binoculars, spotting scopes and telephoto lenses using methods traditionally employed by birdwatchers. Government must never infringe upon the right to keep a life list, identify a Western tanager or stand beside a reservoir at dawn arguing whether that tiny brown bird was a sparrow or a finch.
We should probably protect wildlife photography next. Then hiking. Mountain biking. Camping. Canoeing. Maybe mushroom hunting deserves constitutional status too.
The absurdity illustrates the problem.
Hunting and fishing are lawful and important recreational activities enjoyed by many Coloradans. So are dozens of other ways of experiencing wildlife and public lands. But enjoying an activity does not automatically make it a fundamental constitutional right.
Colorado’s Constitution should protect the essential rights of its citizens and establish the fundamental rules of government. It should not become a catalog of favored outdoor pursuits.
Hunters, anglers, birdwatchers and photographers actually have something important in common: All depend on healthy wildlife populations, sound science, responsible management and accessible public lands.
Those things deserve our protection.
And if we protect them well, Colorado won’t need to guarantee anyone a constitutional right to look at, photograph, catch or shoot wildlife. There will simply be wildlife worth seeing.
Roland Halpern
Denver
