Somebody ought to manufacture fishing waders specifically for sitting on the fence. Reinforced seat. Extra padding. Absolutely no traction. Send the first pair to Trout Unlimited, which seems to need considerably more preparation to defend the right to fish than most of us need to go fishing.
Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International, Mule Deer Foundation, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management and virtually every other hunter or angler supported group has enthusiastically endorsed Amendment 83.
TU is missing from the campaign’s published coalition, and at this writing I could find no public endorsement from either national TU or Colorado TU. An organization so closely associated with fishing ought not require a search party to locate its position on protecting the right to fish.
A memo supplied to me as an internal TU analysis helps explain the hand-wringing. Undefined language could invite litigation, they fear. Existing restrictions could encounter difficulties. Lawyers could become involved. Well, there goes the republic. Had this standard prevailed in Philadelphia, the Bill of Rights would still be awaiting clearance from the Subcommittee on Things That Might Upset Somebody. Rights matter precisely because government must answer for restricting them. The possibility of having to defend one is an unusual reason not to establish it.
Read subsection four. Amendment 83 preserves state regulatory authority when a law is necessary for scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities. Those are alternative grounds for regulation. It does not hand every license buyer a constitutional permission slip to dynamite a trout stream. The conservation safeguards are right there, inconveniently interrupting the panic.
Yes, “classic methods” leaves room for interpretation. Neither the statutory spring bear restrictions nor the constitutional restrictions on specified traps is expressly repealed, and nobody can promise what future courts would decide. But an existing regulation does not become holy writ merely by surviving several generations of fishing catalogs. If a restriction cannot withstand the amendment’s conservation and safety standards, why should a science-minded organization consider its reconsideration an outrage?
The memo’s warning about lawyers and courts displacing scientists is especially rich given Colorado TU’s own experience. In April, TU reported that the wildlife commission advanced a fur-ban petition over agency staff objections. TU called the proposal “an anti-hunting, angling and trapping position without any basis in science and sound wildlife management.” Its words. The scientists had already been overruled. Apparently, they were supposed to find comfort in knowing no constitutional right had complicated the proceedings.
Nor does TU require smelling salts whenever somebody refers to a courthouse. In July, it described its participation in litigation defending Bristol Bay’s Clean Water Act protections. Good. That is a fight worth having. But the memo’s anxiety about litigation sits awkwardly beside the organization’s willingness to litigate for habitat. Lawyers do not become a conservation hazard simply because the people holding fishing rods might benefit from their work.
TU also praised expanded federal hunting and fishing access in January. That deserves acknowledgment, not erasure. It makes the missing endorsement harder to understand. An organization willing to celebrate additional places to fish should be able to explain why stronger protection for fishing itself apparently requires another lap around the conference table.
Perhaps some anglers imagine they enjoy diplomatic immunity because they release their trout and dress like assistant professors on sabbatical. PETA calls catch-and-release fishing “cruelty disguised as sport.” Your barbless hook is not a peace treaty. Neither is the photograph of you holding a rainbow as though you just delivered it. To opponents who reject recreational fishing, the problem is not your technique. It is what you came to the river to do.
This argument has already made its way into the fundraising brochure. Parts of Europe already prohibit angling with the intention of releasing the catch. That is, animal activists in Europe have succeeded to convincing much of the population that putting a hook through a fish’s jaw for the angler’s enjoyment constitutes cruel behavior. Perhaps a hookless fly is next? That is not a blanket fishing ban but it restricts the deliberate catch-and-release approach familiar to American anglers. The distinction should concern TU, not reassure it.
What happens when a future Colorado proposition promises to stop the “torture” of trout by banning recreational hooking? Does TU explain that the fly was hand-tied? Seek an exemption for donors whose rods cost more than their first cars? Produce a moving film about all the streamside willows its volunteers planted? None of those answers addresses the accusation. A campaign against fishing will not award extra credit for tasteful fleece.
TU’s members deserve leadership before that fight arrives. They should not have to choose between restoring a river and defending their ability to fish it. Support Amendment 83, explain the genuine legal questions, and help answer them. That would be conservation leadership. Sitting out while other sportsmen carry the argument is something else.
Healthy trout have backbones. On Amendment 83, their most famous advocates ought to find theirs.