BCAS Board Opposes Three 2026 Colorado Ballot Measures
The Boulder County Audubon Society Board of Directors opposes the following three initiatives on the ballot that are backed by well-funded special interest groups, and we wish to raise awareness about them and provide rationale and background for our opposition. Titles and text for these measures are misleading and key details are not included, leaving consequences poorly defined and difficult to understand. Additionally, matters such as those in Amendments 82 and 83 belong in policy and law, where they already exist, not enshrined in Colorado’s constitution which would be very difficult to change in the future.
Amendment 82 (formerly Initiative #177)
Right to Natural Gas
The BCAS Board opposes this measure, which would add to Colorado’s constitution the right for consumers to purchase natural gas for cooking or heating in homes or businesses and for distributors and utilities to sell natural gas to consumers.
We believe this measure is completely unnecessary. People and businesses are currently able to purchase and sell natural gas, and this ability is not under threat now or in the foreseeable future.
We also believe this measure would be harmful, for the reasons described below from the arguments against it in the 2026 State Ballot Information Booklet (aka the Blue Book):
“Using natural gas contributes to climate change through emitting greenhouse gases, leads to air pollution, and should not be protected in the state constitution. Doing so limits efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and adopt more sustainable options, such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy. Local communities should have the ability to make decisions about public health priorities, energy needs, and climate goals,”
Amendment 83 (formerly Initiative #302) Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish
The BCAS Board opposes Amendment 83. We have found the language of this proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution to be very open-ended, leaving the door open for allowing cruel and outdated methods such as body grip and leghold traps, stating “a right of the people of Colorado to hunt…. including by the use of traditional methods.” Additionally, this measure discourages methods of humane and non-lethal wildlife mitigation, stating “hunting and fishing shall be the primary and preferred methods of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife populations.” This bill is opposed by wildlife advocacy groups and by the Colorado Hunters & Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation.
Current state statute provides for hunting and fishing to have important roles in wildlife management in Colorado, and the BCAS Board does not believe the right to hunt and fish belongs in Colorado’s constitution.
“Good wildlife management requires a full toolbox,” Gary Skiba, a sportsman and former Colorado Parks and Wildlife bighorn sheep biologist from Durango, said. “Hunting and fishing can be important and effective tools. But so are habitat conservation and restoration, preventing disease transmission, limiting hunting in some cases to recover wildlife populations, relocation, non-lethal coexistence measures and other management tools. The Constitution should not declare one wildlife management tool preferred above all the others.” Quote from Pagosa Daily Post article published August 26, 2026.
Proposition 137 (formerly Initiative #308) Designate Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation
The BCAS Board opposes Proposition 137, which would change Colorado Revised Statutes and create a new law. Though on its face, the measure presents as positive and beneficial, the actual language of the measure is focused on permanently directing funding to “reduce the amount of potential wildfire fuel.”
From the Center for Biological Diversity's statement in opposition to this measure: “[the measure] could lead to expanded, and experimental logging, tree clearing, and road building.” Scientific research demonstrates that actions in the home ignition zone are most effective in preventing life and property loss, and this Proposition does not require funding for such actions. Additionally, the measure does not provide for any public oversight of how or where the increased funding, estimated to be in the tens of millions of dollars, for wildfire mitigation would be spent. For much more on reasons to oppose this measure, including organizations and people opposing it, see the NoProp137.com website.
For summaries, full text, and more information on these and all other Colorado ballot issues you get to vote on in November, see the State of Colorado's Amendments and Propositions on the 2026 Ballot resource webpage.