Saddle Sore: There goes the family dog — and Colorado lands

While much of “blue” Colorado wrings its hands about events in Washington and the activities of President Trump, there is, in Colorado, a much more sinister, government control issue than anyone might imagine coming in the form of a proposed ballot initiative. It is one of those, similar to Proposition 114 in 2020 that gave us wolf reintroduction. 

On April 18, the Colorado Legislative Council staff received language for a Colorado ballot proposal that is of significant concern for livestock producers, developers, and landowners in the state of Colorado. Currently, it has been assigned the number 2025-2026 #82: The Colorado Wildlife and Biodiversity Protection Act. A “feel good,” emotionally appealing name. It is pending review and a comment hearing.

The headline behind this idea is to create the Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation Commission (WECC), which will be made up of nine appointed members, with a requirement that no member can have any financial ties to agriculture, energy, or development. These supposed “elite” members will be appointed by universities, environmental groups, and policy institutes. And yet, the commission will have total control over agriculture, energy, and development.

Wait a minute! 

One positive note may be that this eight-page ballot proposal, submitted as required by law to the Legislative Council Staff and Office of Legislative Legal Services, received back a nineteen-page critique of nomenclature, grammar, use of capitalization, nonlinear focus on one subject, etc. Metaphorically, it has more red ink marks than some of my high school English papers. (Makes one wonder if the state of Colorado is writing the final proposal for them.)

It puts onerous restrictions and requirements on Colorado lands, mostly on the Western Slope, but it includes the entire state. Of course, Denver won’t be affected. Undoubtedly put together by folks who likely live in neighborhoods of ticky-tacky houses or high-rise apartments; are totally unfamiliar with scientific wildlife management practices, have slim (or no) knowledge of what is necessary for the basic survival, as related to natural environments, or success of agriculture; and are tone-deaf when it comes to development of open land. It strikes one of a similarity to the attempted creation of the Buffalo Commons, only from the inside.

The proposal gives unilateral decision-making to the Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation Commission (WECC). If your land and/or house is situated in a wildlife corridor, you may be asked to harden your uses to only those compatible with wildlife (no fences, no dogs, etc.); maybe they will require you to move or dismantle your house — or assess a large fine. There are houses in Pitkin County built in wildlife corridors — DOW or Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) didn’t have a strong enough voice to get the building plan rejected, or they weren’t informed of the potential development to start with. People not in compliance with WECC rules will face stiff fines or other penalties. And guess what? The commission proposes to be funded solely by penalties, fines, and impact fees. No taxpayer funds needed. That is surely a red flag.

As was brought to our attention with the ballot initiative to reintroduce wolves into Colorado, there is philosophy growing in some left-leaning, green groups that wildlife agencies such as CPW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are incapable of judiciously managing our wildlife, on private or public land (At least 75% of the funding supporting the reintroduction of wolves came from out of state). 

CPW, in 2020, did an exhaustive study pertaining to the reintroduction of wolves into Colorado. Its decision was that reintroduction was not a good idea for Colorado. As a slap in the face to CPW, the Colorado initiative required that CPW manage the reintroduction of those wolves, putting the agency in a difficult position. Employees were forbidden from speaking their minds about the success or failure of such an undertaking but, at the same time, were tasked with making it work. Very manipulative.

Reflective of this thinking is Oregon ballot initiative IP 28, titled the PEACE Act, also coming up in 2026, which would apply to every animal in the state and, along with a host of overreaching regulations, would make it a crime to process an animal by removing exemptions. Like a couple of other initiatives out there, it would make it illegal to utilize animals for food, fiber, or companionship. Oops, there goes the family dog.

This initiative appears to be a cog in the wheel of a larger strategy to flood the 2026 ballot with measures tailored to the Front Range’s environmental conscience, regardless of the cost. Sound familiar? If you’re a landowner, a farmer, rancher, or concerned citizen worried about your ability to freely roam the mountains, now is the time to get informed.

The wording of the proposal can be found here: leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/initiatives/2025-2026%2520%252382.002.pdf.

Tony Vagneur writes here on Saturdays and welcomes your comments at ajv@sopris.net.