A Brief History of the Anti-Hunting Playbook

This outright assault on both science-based management and the lifestyle of rural Coloradans is the result of a predictable tactic increasingly used by animal rights advocates to end hunting in the United States. In other words, with a well-organized advocacy campaign, these groups are imposing their worldview at the expense of well-established wildlife management practices and rural communities.

The architects of our Constitution recognized this “Tyranny of the Majority” as one that could infringe on the rights of minority groups. This led them to create a well-structured republic that dispersed power through the checks and balances of our three branches of government and ultimately sought to protect minority interests against the threat of majority rule.

However, beginning in the early 20th century and continuing through the early 1970s, 24 states adopted formal processes to bypass these structures and put specific issues before the general population for a popular vote via a citizen-led ballot initiative. These initiatives involve organizers gathering a predetermined number of signatures from registered voters in the state to force a popular vote on a specific issue–such as the Colorado initiative to end mountain lion and bobcat hunting.

As more people move away from rural areas and have less direct experience with nature, hunting, and wildlife, they can become more susceptible to anti-hunting rhetoric, particularly regarding hunting predators. Anti-hunters are trying to take advantage of this shift, as well as the fact that the number of people participating in hunting continues to decline.

Since hunters comprise less than five percent of the population and are typically associated with more rural areas, initiatives attacking hunting practices frequently pass, and leave a host of complications and deeper divisions in their wake. In fact, since 1990, no fewer than 15 ballot initiatives that directly impact hunting have passed in 11 states.

For example, California’s Proposition 117, passed in 1990, permanently banned mountain lion hunting. In 1994, Oregon residents adopted Measure 18, which banned the use of dogs and bait to hunt bears and mountain lions. Two years later both Colorado and Washington voters passed initiatives that banned bear baiting in both states and ended spring bear hunts in Colorado and hound hunting for bears, bobcats, and mountain lions in Washington.

The organizers behind these initiatives often used false and misleading statements to persuade the urban majority that these bans were necessary for animal welfare. Yet, in each instance, passing the initiative resulted in difficulties in controlling predator populations. This imbalance has potential negative consequences for other wildlife species, complicating conservation and wildlife management efforts, and creating even more division between rural and urban citizens.

We can’t ignore Michigan Proposal 3, which banned hunting mourning doves in 2006. There are more than 300 million mourning doves in the United States, and they remain one of the country’s most abundant birds despite being one of the most popular to hunt. Though Michigan didn’t traditionally allow dove hunting, this initiative effectively foreclosed any option of considering hunting in the future.

Maybe the most malicious are the attempts in Washington and Oregon over the past couple of years to ban the killing of all animals. This would effectively end hunting, fishing, trapping, and raising livestock or other animals for food, which would obviously cripple rural lifestyles and economies, and have significant impacts on consumers in urban settings as well. Luckily, neither of these initiatives passed, but they do illuminate just how far the anti-hunting movement could go.

These examples illustrate how majority votes can impose restrictions that impact the hunting minority, often without fully considering the ecological, cultural, and economic implications for those who engage in and depend on hunting, and even further exacerbating already difficult social dynamics surrounding wildlife management.

Ballot initiatives are not the only threat to hunting. Governor-appointed state wildlife commissions that include members with anti-hunting agendas also pose a threat. These individuals rarely have expertise in wildlife management and increasingly push for regulations that restrict or eliminate hunting and that do not align with the best available science, often without considering the broader implications for wildlife management. There are a couple of prominent recent examples of state wildlife commissions banning the hunting of species over the objections of hunters and wildlife managers.

In 2021, New Jersey’s Fish and Game Council, under pressure from Governor Phil Murphy, forced the state’s Division of Fish and Wildlife to end bear hunting. However, only a year later, the Governor and Fish and Game Council reinstated a limited bear hunting season, citing a 237% increase in bear encounters over the previous year.

In 2022, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission voted to suspend the state’s spring black bear hunt. The commission cited concerns about bear population management, potential impacts on orphaned cubs, and changing public attitudes toward hunting. However, this was done over the objections of the state’s biologists, who recommended continuing the hunt based on stable bear populations and management objectives.

State legislatures can also threaten hunting by introducing bills that restrict hunting practices or reduce funding for wildlife management programs. These legislative actions are influenced by changing demographics and shifting public opinions, whether or not they are informed by scientific understanding. It is essential to engage with legislators, educate them about the importance of hunting, and advocate for policies that support sustainable wildlife management.

Despite the threats posed by ballot initiatives, game commission composition, and increased urbanization, there are ways hunters, and those who support hunting, can fight back.

For example, people should support state constitutional amendments that protect an individual’s right to hunt and fish. Twenty-three states have already adopted such amendments. These constitutional protections can help safeguard hunting and angling against anti-hunting legislation, commission actions, and initiatives and should be diligently pursued for the twenty-seven states that lack such protections.

Additionally, reforming the ballot initiative process to ensure that wildlife management remains based on sound science rather than popular sentiment is crucial. We could largely achieve this if states raise the bar for initiatives to reach the ballot. States with frequent ballot initiatives typically only require a small percentage of registered voters to sign a petition.

This means that signatures are easily collected in urban centers without a need to canvass rural communities. Changing the standard to require a percentage of registered voters from each county or state house district would ensure that rural communities are proportionally considered in any ballot initiative process and would almost certainly lead to fewer and more balanced initiatives.

Our individual actions as hunters are an equally important piece of the puzzle to retain our opportunities to hunt. It is critical that we encourage hunters to demonstrate sound ethics, condemn unethical practices, and engage in socially responsible discourse. The broader hunting community needs to aggressively and affirmatively denounce and distance themselves from those who engage in illegal, unethical, or immoral behavior when hunting. Bad actors represent only a small subset of hunters but have harmed the broader hunting community deeply by showcasing deplorable behaviors on social media or other platforms.

We also need to use language that respects wildlife and considers how those who are not familiar with hunting, or even those who oppose hunting, may perceive it. We should stop using intentionally inflammatory or disrespectful phrases like, “who cares what they think,” “smoke a pack a day,” and “rack em and stack em.”

Anti-hunters use this language against us to convince the public to end hunting. Instead, we should invoke the ethos and character of conservation legends like Aldo Leopold, Teddy Roosevelt, and George Bird Grinnell. By showcasing ethical hunting, speaking with respect and discipline, and highlighting the positive aspects of hunting—such as its role in providing sustainable food, its contributions to conservation, and the deep connections it fosters with nature—we can help maintain the current overwhelming support for hunting, and shift public perceptions of those that question hunting to build a broader base of support.

Hunting has been an integral part of human history and continues to play a crucial role in wildlife management and conservation. However, it faces significant threats from ballot initiatives, anti-hunting commissions, legislative actions, changing demographics, and the irresponsible behavior of a small subset of hunters. So, it is time for hunters, and those who respect hunting, to take a stand to save hunting.

Whether you face imminent threats to hunting in Colorado, or you reside someplace else where you have not seen these direct threats yet, be vigilant. Stand shoulder to shoulder with hunters across the country in defense of hunting. Advocate for state constitutional protections for hunting and fishing. Support reforms to ballot initiative processes. Promote ethical hunting practices, and showcase the positive aspects of hunting. Decry unethical or immoral behavior.

Saving hunting allows us to remain connected to our ancestors while establishing hunting’s rightful place in our contemporary world. Conversely, if we lose hunting, we lose a piece of ourselves–the piece that fosters a distinct humility for our place in nature while also connecting us to nature at a deep and primal level. These are things we sorely need in our modern world.  Attacks on hunting are not going away, but by following the roadmap described above, we can ensure that hunting remains a valued and sustainable practice for generations to come.