How We STOP BALLOT BOX BIOLOGY - Colorado's Constitutional Right to Hunt Explained

Colorado's Parks and Wildlife Commission now has zero experienced big game hunters on it. The chair is a former Humane Society attorney who spent his career suing game agencies. Six of ten commissioners voted to impose a commercial fur ban that their own agency and director recommended against — in writing — with five expert witnesses and a hundred years of combined expertise. Dan Gates was in every one of those meetings.

Dan Gates runs Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management and has been on the front lines of every major Colorado hunting fight for eight years — Proposition 127, Ordinance 308, wolf reintroduction, and now Initiative 302: a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right to hunt and fish in the Colorado State Constitution. We dig into what that right actually does, why 24 other states already have it, and how the Polis administration has strategically stacked the commission. We also cover two upcoming raffles — a Hill Ranch elk hunt and an Alaska salmon/halibut trip — that benefit CRWM's ground game on this fight.

In this episode:
What Initiative 302 actually says — and what it doesn't do
Why Colorado hunters don't currently have a constitutional right to hunt
How Governor Polis stacks anti-hunting commissioners
The March commission meeting — agency scientists overruled by commissioners who said "our values differ from your science"
Two commissioners forced to resign during Senate confirmation — what that means
Why 24 other states already have this right
The Hill Ranch elk raffle — 34 preference points required to draw, better odds in this raffle than the state draw
Alaska salmon/halibut fishing raffle — Sitka, two people, Reel Charters

Guest: Dan Gates — Executive Director, Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management. savethehuntcolorado.com
Raffle tickets: scicolorado.org — deadline June 12th, drawing June 15th. $50/ticket, 3 for $100.
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/c.r.w.m/

 

---
FOLLOW CLIFF
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/CliffGray
Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/Cliffgry/
Facebook - https://facebook.com/PursuitWithCliff

Pursuit With Cliff Podcast
https://pursuitwithcliff.com/interviews-and-podcasts/

Cliff's Hunt Planning and Strategy Membership
 https://pursuitwithcliff.com/membership/

Hunt. Fish. Spear.  (Experiences, Courses and Seminars)
https://pursuitwithcliff.com/Experiences

Merch
https://pursuitwithcliff.com/shop/

SUBSCRIBE TO CLIFF'S NEWSLETTER:
https://PursuitWithCliff.com/#Newsletter

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Six commissioners said, well, we appreciate your input, but it really doesn't matter because our values and our feelings and our morals and our ethics differ from what your science says. That's wrong.

SPEAKER_00 0:12

All right, Dan. Great to have you back on. Both in the mobile mobile uh studio. Excited to have you back on, man.

SPEAKER_01 0:18

Appreciate it, Cliff. Thanks a bunch. And uh it's good talking to you the other day, but it's good to reconnect and and try to put uh some of these dots in place that uh keep following us around and trying to make a spider web out of stuff.

SPEAKER_00 0:30

That's what I really want to start out with, Dan, is I want to get up to speed on this constitutional right to hunt and fish initiative. I think that I think that my audience, regardless if they're Colorado residents or not, they're gonna be familiar with this concept either in their state, um, regardless of where they're at. So I'll be honest with you, I'm pretty naive to what it actually is. Obviously, as a hunter, fisherman, it sounds like a good thing, but I have no idea how good of a thing it is, uh how how important it is to, you know, the tactics of keeping our rights as hunters, that sort of thing. So, really, man, that's where I want to start. Well, give give me the overview of of what it is, and also we know what's going on with Colorado right now.

SPEAKER_01 1:17

Well, I appreciate it. And it's it's an important enough subject to where, similar to what we were doing on Proposition 127 back in 2024, the mountain lion and the bobcat ballot initiative to to ban the harvest of those critters. Um, and similarly to the same to the same conversation about ordinance 308, which was a attempt to provide a commercial fur ban in the city and county of Denver. And while that that one there was more important to Colorado, it could set a precedent about what was going on through the western United States and specifically on the fur side throughout the entire North American continent. This here is an attempt, the the Initiative 302 is what it's referenced to right now, and it won't be that if we get the signatures and get it on the ballot, it won't be that because it has to go through that proper regulatory uh signature gathering time frame that what we did like on 127. But this would provide a constitutional amendment to the Colorado State Constitution to provide the constitutional amendment to for the right to hunt and fish. And and I need to I need to read some things during this, and sometimes people don't like it when you turn around and try to preach to them. But but the but the best way to do it is to explain why we need it and then what it actually says, because we're already getting opposition from a lot of the animal rights extremist groups indicating you already have the right. Well, no, we don't. Uh that's that's like saying in Canada they have the right to bear arms. Well, they really don't. They have the privilege to bear arms up there. We have the right to bear arms in the United States, which sometimes they try to infringe those rights. But this particular amendment to the Colorado State Constitution would create a constitutional right to hunt and fish and harvest fish and wildlife by traditional methods, including all species of fish and wildlife managed by the state, except non-game species, endangered species, or any species that is illegal to hunt under federal law, and in connection therewith establishing hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing wildlife and fish populations, and preserving the right of the state to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management if necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing opportunities for all species. Now, this does not give somebody the right to be able to hunt from January 1st to December 31st, whenever the hell they want, whatever the hell they want and however the hell they want. It does not give them any authority to trespass or go on private property in any way, shape, or form. This is codifying what we already have in the Colorado revised statutes, which is the statute is 331101, which talks about the primary means of being able to harvest fish and wildlife and for what reasons and leaving it up to the science-based wildlife managers. That's what we've been advocating for through this entire process of the last 15, 18 years. But specifically when 127 came up and they were trying to take the ability for managing those feline species in the state of Colorado and just take the harvest off the table, they were ignoring the data, they were ignoring the science. This does none of that, like what they had alluded to and what they continually to profess that this is an attempt to try to circumvent Colorado Parks and Wildlife, which is funny because back in 2024, they didn't believe the Colorado Parks and Wildlife was doing things appropriately. And since we've had multiple citizens' petitions through the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, since we've had pieces of legislation in the last two years, they've always downplayed the expertise of CPW. They've always turned around and criticized and chastised them. They don't have this and they don't know that, and they only do it for the sportsmen and women. Well, now they're saying let CPW manage the wildlife because they don't want the constitutional right to go along with it. And it's funny because when you push a dog in the corner, it's going to bite at some point in time. And I think that we've beat them at their own game. Now we're beating them at our game, and there's nothing that they could say or do from the extremist side of things that will codify what is really needed in the Colorado State Constitution or in the Colorado statutes when it comes to science-based wildlife management. This will provide a level of a stop gap to some degree. Doesn't make it 100% bulletproof, but it's a tool in the toolbox that we don't have. And there's 24 other states that do have it, Cliff, and we're going to be the 25th.

SPEAKER_00 5:44

Right. Now, I I want to break it down a little, I want to kind of idiot proof the concept here, mainly for myself, Dan. So when we if if Colorado, I'm gonna I'll put a hypothetical out here so you can so I can get some understanding. If when they brought in the mountain, the potential mountain lion ban in Colorado, if there had been an established constitutional right to fish and hunt according to what you just wrote, if that had existed in law, how would that have looked different?

SPEAKER_01 6:16

Well, they would not have been able to accomplish what they were wanting to try to do because they wouldn't have ever been able to get it on the ballot, likely. And the reason being is because it would have been established in the Colorado State Constitution. The ballot measure would have to reverse the constitutional right, not start to uh nickel and dime it or piecemeal it and take this out or take that out.

SPEAKER_00 6:40

So with the constitutional right, it would have it, it we would have gone into that situation with Colorado hunters because mountain lions uh let's just we'll we'll stick on that. I know there's other, but because mountain lions were a species, a game species not endangered, you know, fulfilled all those those points, we have the right to hunt them. And that would like you say, it doesn't mean we have the right to hunt them year-round or outside of you know regulatory management environment or whatever, but it means that in my in my head, I'm thinking what it does and what it changes is it makes us it makes hunters always like the first, they have to have preference for being part of that part of the management, part of the hunting. Like if there's going to be a tool to control population, now hunters basically, due to that constitutional right, they have to be a part of that conversation. Am I thinking about it right, Dan?

SPEAKER_01 7:32

Yeah, pretty much. And it and it still gives the the agency and the and ultimately the commission, the the management authority, um, but they have to have scientific proof to be able to do that. Now, they that it's it's alluded to or it's assumed that that's what's supposed to happen. But as we've seen over the course of the last eight years with this current governor and the administration and the appointments and the hirings that they've made, they've not tried to uh establish a level of consistency and protocols that are in place. They've tried to subject themselves to their own ideologies, perspectives, and step away from what is since statute. Just like if you go back on the fur band, commercial sale fur band that was in the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission back in March. We had 550 people show up. The new director of CPW and the agency recommended a denial of that petition because there was no biological science, no data that indicated anything needed to be done. There was none of those 17 fur bearer species that were in some sort of detrimental harm. While six commissioners said, Well, we appreciate your input, but it really doesn't matter because our values and our feelings and our morals and our ethics differ from what your science says. That's wrong when it comes to science-based wildlife management, especially when you have people that are supposed to be put in place not only to represent individual groups, but to do things in the best interest of the resource, the wildlife, the habitat, and the people of the state of Colorado. Yeah. Six of the ten sitting commissioners decided that they weren't going to turn around and support that. That's a travesty in itself. And I think that this would help codify the ability for the agency to continue and further establish why science is necessary to manage our wildlife resources and not bring the politicized, emotional, social side of what today's society has become. The constitutional right will help defend that and likely help defeat it. But right now, that tool is not in the toolbox.

SPEAKER_00 9:33

Okay, and and okay, so I think I'm following now, Dan. Now, with the if the constitutional right existed and they did bring something, they they brought the fur ban and then the commissioners, they even though the science said otherwise and CPW said they weren't for it because of the science, but the commission, because we and we'll get into that, we'll get into how kind of the corporate governance of the commission can get so messed up. But the commission says, no, we're gonna go ahead with the fur ban. Could Colorado citizens then sue? Like could would it be they could sue because it's in it now it's infringing on this constitutional right? In my understanding, okay. So that's like a key okay.

SPEAKER_01 10:16

Yeah, that's why it's been alluded to us. I mean, the states that we know that have the constitutional right, and I want to mention going all the way back to 1777 in the state of Vermont, that's where this first started, the constitutional right to hunt and fish in their state constitution. Right. If if if we have that in place, it doesn't make it to where you have you know, I'm sitting in my truck here because I'm in a mobile unit right now. But just because I have a windshield in my truck doesn't mean that something can't fly in an open window and smack me in the face when I'm driving down the road. Right, true. But the windshield is a deterrent, the windshield is a barrier, and it still allows me to move forward in a very, in a very even flowing, upright manner. The constitutional right would do the same thing, not saying it couldn't be circummitted, not saying it couldn't be altered or adapted to, depending on the science side of things. But I think people need to understand that without those tools in place, the way that the animal extremist movement has been going, they want to nickel and dime and piecemeal it as much as they can, unless you go to the state of Oregon, where IP 28 comes up, and they want to just turn around and take all animal use or consumption away, no matter what it is, and make it an animal sanctuary state. They're just trying to do it all in one fail sweep. Here, we're trying to we're our citizens that are in that particular arena, about 3% of the entire population, um, they're trying to do it piecemeal at a time because they don't think the state of Colorado would would do it on all one one big sweep.

SPEAKER_00 11:44

Right. Yeah. So no, I got you. And so this is a deterrent to that. And that that now I kind of got I kind of understand the concept. The I I think this makes sense at the at this point. We probably talk about like the you know, what the commission and stuff looks like, Dan, because I think it relates. In my mind, what the way I understand the Colorado Commission, what what you're describing hunters and fishermen get out of a constitutional right to hunt and fish, it was kind of at least in my from my perspective, it it historically has been kind of codified in what the commission should look like, right? There should be somebody representing hunters, the livestock industry, sport. I don't remember all the different things. But I always thought when I looked at the commission that it kind of made sense. You know, everybody that had you know had a uh um you know some skin in the game on wildlife and you know had incentives to you know have their view there, uh they were they were represented in the commission and hunters were a part of that. So what you're talking about in my mind would kind of come through that. But that that has fallen apart. Can you can you kind of describe what what's gone on there so people understand?

SPEAKER_01 12:57

Yeah, so I mean, Colorado is a perfect example because when Governor Polis took office back in 2000, he was elected in 18, he took office in January of 19. His husband, uh Marlon Reese, has is a self-proclaimed animal welfare advocate. But yeah, in all sense of the terms, uh he's an animal welfare extremist. And it becomes more of a an animal rights extremist because they don't want certain things to happen to what we believe from a consumptive use side, whether it's wildlife or domestic livestock production or whatever. If you look at the selection of the commission, we have 11 commission spots on the Collard Departs and Wallet Commission. Now, right now we're down to nine because we were actually able to force two of the last ones to resign during the Senate confirmation process. That just happened just the first the first week of, well, end of end of April, first week of May. That caught that that codified the disruption of this entire commission selection process that Governor Polis has has tried to make sure that he put the right people at the right place at the right time. I'll give an example. The current chair of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is now Commissioner Jay Touchston. Jay Touchston has been on there since roughly 2020, 2021. Uh he's termed out in a couple years. But the interesting thing about Mr. Touchston is he was the vice chair. Now he was elected to be chair. But he worked the bulk of his career for the Humane Society for the United States as the lead attorney for animal welfare action, for you know, Wild Earth Guardians, for uh a variety of different animal rights extremist organizations, and sued game and fish agencies through this entire process of wolves and mountain and big game and and carnivores. Now he's the chair of the Colorado Parks of Wildlife Commission. Right. He will make the decisions on what petitions are heard, how they're heard, give the direction to the agency about what the commission wants to do or how they want to do it. And because there's not a seasoned big game hunter on the commission at this point in time, which we haven't had one for quite some time, we've got three wildlife consumptive use spots that that are consistent with typically the historical side of hunter and fisherman representation, including one hunter outfitter representative. The current hunter outfitter representative that we have is Commissioner Silva Blaney, and she's a fishing outfitter, and she's a great lady, and she voted along the sides of the science with the agency back in March. However, she's a newbie when it comes into the big game side of things. And when you're talking about an agency, as an example, that that has a $450 million budget with almost $100 million on big game licenses, and not one big game hunter that participates in the draw, participates in the seasons, understands the complexities of all that. Right, that's a major blow to the representation of the sportsmen and women. Yep. Mr. Chris Sisko, who recently resigned, never sat on the commission, but was appointed to the commission, but was never confirmed. And then with extreme pressure from the agriculture and the counties and the sportsmen and women uh coalitions, I would say, um he decided to step down and resign because he wasn't getting the support. Because he was nobody felt like he was a legitimate representative of the sportsman position that he was put into. That being said, Commissioner Gabe Otero, who's supposed to be the sports person, rep, Mr. Otero has a tendency to miss more meetings that he's actually present for. But as he was, as he was gone during the last commission meeting in May, they elected him to be vice chair. But he wasn't even there to turn around and cast the legitimate vote or have any part of the discussion on anything. So, so and and the the caveat to that, Cliff, is the fact that in May, when all of this selection process was going on, when all the things were happening to the commission, that was the same time that the CPW was presenting all the big game regulations and license allocations and season structures to the commission. And we didn't have one big game representative there. Now we forced one to resign. The other one is a big game or an outfitter sportsman rep that doesn't have experience, as I said, Silva Blaney. But at the same time, Gabe Otero, who's just still supposed to be part of the representation, was not there. And the bad part about it is Mr. Otero lives seven miles away from where the meeting was held in draft in Colorado. He said he had previous obligations. Well, I made the last 12 meetings for the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. If a commissioner that signs up for this is going to make six or seven of those, the sportsmen and women start to feel slighted by this representation. Yeah. It's the same way though.

SPEAKER_00 17:50

So I have a I have a couple of questions there, and then one point of clarification. So specifically on that, do you think that's tactical? Like him not showing up, is that tactical, or is it just not a priority?

SPEAKER_01 18:02

Boy, I don't know. The way things play out, it makes you wonder because Mr. Otero's first term is up coming July, and we don't know whether he'll be reappointed or not, or whether he would accept an appointment or not. But the fact of the matter is his representation over the course of the last four years has been not very commendable. Right. And if you can't show up, if you can't show up when things of importance come up, it's kind of hard to turn around and make people think that they have legitimate representation sitting on an appointed board for them to be able to understand or be able to complain and gripe to somebody saying, Hey, we're concerned about this. We need help on this, we need your voice on this. If you're not there to talk about that, are we getting really legitimate representation or not?

SPEAKER_00 18:45

Right. Well, and so that's that's the core of this that I want I want people to really understand, Dan, is for instance, the the gal that you said is the outfitter representative. Uh what's her name?

SPEAKER_01 18:57

Frances Silva Blaney.

SPEAKER_00 18:59

Yeah, so so I think this is a great example. Like she may be a great person. I don't know her. It sounds like you've had positive positive positive experiences.

SPEAKER_01 19:07

Very thorough, very interactive, very engaging, but they're again uneducated about important things. And I'm not saying this needs to be a a road scollar deal where you come out and you know exactly what it is. But there's not time to be on the job education when you're turning around and dealing with a lot of the things that this commission has to deal with, especially when you have so much divisiveness coming from the administration. Right.

SPEAKER_00 19:31

But the the bigger thing to me is I think this is very representative of what's gone on, right? Like the so she may be great, but that position has a certain type of representation that's assumed. And it's probably by design that she's been appointed, right? Because she's not she's not one of the big elk, you know, elk outfitters in meeker, right? That that they know is going to vote a certain way, is know is gonna have a certain perspective, right? And so so that she they're they're always gonna like push the edge of what the appointed spot actually should look like, right, Dan? Like every in that and that's what I think people should understand is that if you have three or four spots that historically have been pretty pro-Hunter, but all four of them, he you know, his appointees are just barely able to fit that hole, then overall you get this massive tilt in the commission. Is that is that kind of what what's going on?

SPEAKER_01 20:27

Yeah, it's it's not all not only that, it's to a point to where, like Commissioner Sisko, who was appointed after Commissioner Murphy Robinson resigned back in December of last year, Commissioner Sisko was appointed. Nobody in the sportsman community knew of him. I mean, you got all the major organizations. I'm the vice chair of the largest coalition organization in the state. Nobody in any organization had ever heard of him. And he had some credentials in the agriculture community, but at the same time, his notoriety to fame, which was highlighted by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Executive Director Dan Gibbs, was that Mr. Sisko looked forward to participating in the big game draw and that he was an avid uh traditional longbow or recurve hunter for snowshoe hairs. Yeah. Yeah. Now, I'm not going to knock what people like to do, but I tell you what, if that's your credentials to be able to turn around and sit on the commission, uh, that's not very representative. It's not very thorough to be able to turn around and help make decisions. There, again, the learning curve that they have to go through. We're talking about a $450 million agency with a thousand employees that's doing 961 species of wildlife, including 7,000 invertebrates or whatever, 78 game species. I don't want commissioners to just turn around and come in for a two year on-the-job training deal. I want them to be able to at least make somewhat educated decisions and not have to try to try to figure out pi r squared times 10th to the seventh power.

SPEAKER_00 21:50

Yeah, but I I agree with all that, Dan. But the other thing is it's it's adverse to the intention of how the commission was structured, right? Yes. Like the the lifestyle. Guy on the commission is supposed to be a guy with a cowboy hat on, shit on his boots, and he's got and he's got a huge livestock business. That's what it's supposed to be, right? It the the the the outfitter should for sure be totally uh involved in the the draw process, right? Like there this is like just by design it was developed that way, and what you have now is kind of is is pretty much a bastardization of that. It's nothing against the individuals that have been appointed, but that's the reality. It's like because every bio I read, Dan, it's like okay, this guy is not, or this guy or gal is not really representative of the spot. She's she or he is something else, and then you know, maybe she's got something that we can, you know, a little bit something in her background that we can squeeze her into that spot. Um, that's what's really going on, right? That's a lot of it. All right, guys. So some of my content you're gonna see that I've been using this chest holster from Invader Concepts. This is with my 10 millimeter. I also use it with my Glock 19 and even a PMR30. I'm gonna do a bunch of content here in the next couple months on that around bear defense. It should be interesting. It looks a little awkward to have your gun under your bino harness, but if you test out all the different variations, it is the best and you have it on you all the time. I do have a discount code, it's Cliff G and it's for 10% off. Go check them out.

SPEAKER_01 23:19

And even at even at the at-large positions that are available on the commission, uh the one of the last ones that that decided to resign that got so much opposition from multiple groups. Now, this is an at-large position that, with all reality, I mean, should we have a say in it? Maybe, maybe not. The governor should be able to pick who he wants, maybe, maybe not. But when when Commissioner John Emmerich had put his name on an anti-wolf compensation petition before he became commissioner, and he's also, whether he's married or whether he's just a companion of Delia Malone, who helped formulate the plan to get wolves into the state and also supplied additional petitions through the agency, the conflict of interest that is there that has been predetermined is it's it's not unbiased, and it's not done in the betterment of trying to do what's right for all aspects. There's so much, there's so much connection to this wolf issue, the wolf debacle that's happened here, and not to get into that whole deal, Cliff, but when voters voted for wolves, I don't believe that that was the right thing to do. However, voters voted for wolves, and I believe that we should stand up and adhere to the will of the people. The flip side is the people that I'm talking about are here on the commission, they don't believe that that same thing should take place when the will of the people go against something that they don't want, just like the fur ban. The fur ban did not pass in the city and county of Denver in 2024 by 57 to 43 percent. The largest city and county in the state of Colorado, the most populated, did not pass by that margin. But this commission, six of these commissioners, decided to circumvent that by one citizen's petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and impose their wishes, wants, and desires, not the facts, not the data, not the historical precedent. And John Emery, who is one of the commissioners that voted for that citizen's petition here in March, he's the one that ended up stepping down along with Chris Sisko and did not get confirmed. And now we're looking for new new appointments in those two spots, plus three more spots that'll be coming up in July. So a total of five spots are up for grabs in some capacity over the course of the next 35 to 40 days. Who knows what the hell we're gonna get? But it's not gonna be Teddy Roosevelt, I could tell you that.

SPEAKER_00 25:41

Yeah, yeah, sure. Yep. Yeah, and and just uh not to dwell on the commission, because I just want a little more understanding, Dan. When when the once the governor appoints a commissioner, what's the process for them to actually be approved?

SPEAKER_01 25:55

Well, once they're appointed from the end of the legislative session until the beginning of the next legislative session, they can sit on that commission and vote as to their heart's content. But they have to be confirmed to stay on the commission. So they go up through Senate confirmation to the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. They either get a favorable or unfavorable recommendation from that committee and then go to the floor for the full vote. That's what happened with Commissioner Sisko and Commissioner Immerich in April, is they came out of Senate AG with unfavorable recommendations, and there was so much negativity and animosity and opposition to both of them that when they got onto the Senate floor two days later, there was such consternation amongst the Democratic senators as well as the Republican senators that it was chosen they were chosen to step aside. Now, whether Governor Polis asked them or told them to step aside, I don't know, but I know that both of them stepped aside. The interesting thing about that is the reason Commissioner Sisko could not vote during any of the the preceding hearings, like in January, well see in in March of this year at the commission meeting, is because he was appointed during the session. And there's a law that indicates that any commissioner, not just Parks and Wallet Commissioner, if they're appointed during session, they cannot vote and attend meetings in a representative manner until they have been confirmed by the Senate. So if he was appointed a day before this the session actually took effect, he would have been sitting on the commission to make those votes. But he was appointed about three weeks after the session started in January, February, and then he turns around and can't vote. And ultimately he never even got to sit on the commission because he was opposed so hard that he decided to step down uh on the 24th of April.

SPEAKER_00 27:49

I gotcha. I gotcha. And that that I the reason I asked Dan is I'm just kind of understanding the political tactics that would come into play on this stuff. Because so my understanding is when you have open spots, an extremist like Polis, I mean, those are my words. I mean, you you you talked about his relationship with PETA and that sort of thing. I mean, he's an extremist. I mean, he's an extremist. He personally may not like vocalize that, but if you just I mean his his husband supports PETA, go if if you have any doubt about this, somebody who's watching this, like just go open up the PETA website and click on the hunting tab. I mean, you know, if you if you're living in a house with the same dude that supports that, you're an extremist. There's no I don't I I think it's pretty fair to say that. But anyways, uh tactically on this commission, he could he could appoint extreme commissioners and they they hypothetically, based on the timing, they would have a period of time that they could vote, they they could they could vote until they were were unapproved or whatever.

SPEAKER_01 28:48

Yes, yeah. So if a guy uh theoretically, if a guy was appointed uh the day after session as an example, which could be a strategic tactic, but if he was appointed on the 14th of May, the day after session, uh until the next session started, uh he could vote all the way through that next session and including any meetings during that session, yeah, until he was either approved or unapproved. And that I think that that in itself is maybe something that could possibly be addressed in some capacity, that if it's a if it's a decision-making deal that is detrimental or beneficial to individual groups and there's a conflict of interest, maybe they should be forced to recuse themselves, or maybe there should be some sort of litigious threshold there. Because if they're just put in there for a specific task, like to Mr. Emmerich, we believe, being that he was completely pro-wolf, 100% anti-harvest or anti-consumptive use on any predators or fur bearers. He was put in, he made the vote, he turned around and made his difference on a few different things, and now look, he's not even an approved commissioner. But we still have to leave live with what he did during those during those votes and those those well in in theory during the structure of trying to get what they wanted to get while the governor continually tried to put different commissioners in place to make sure that they stacked the deck to where all the votes were in their favor. Yeah, I gotcha.

SPEAKER_00 30:14

So so this kind of brings me back, I guess, to I'm I'm like I'm trying to uh in my mind think about the political tactics, right? And in in my mind, Dan, we have we have the commission, we have ballot initiatives, and then now we have this potential constitutional uh right to hunt and fish, right? So I'm trying to Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, in legislative. So um now now that we now that we've kind of gone through what how the commission can be problematic based on the governor's politics, the to to just uh uh finish up this idea, getting the constitutional right to hunt is can kind of stop this a little bit, right? If you have a if you have a commission that's strongly, you know, anti-hunting or whatever, that now they have to deal with the fact that there is a constitu to constitutional right to hunt. Am I thinking about that right? Is that a is it like a huge is is that a huge deal now? Because now even if they are extreme, they can't vote on certain things certain ways because they know that they're gonna run up against legal challenges against because hypothetically now there's a a right to fish and hunt. Does that make sense?

SPEAKER_01 31:26

Well, and yeah, and I think that that's that's what we're hoping uh that we can accomplish out of this, and based upon what other states have been able to do and how it's been how it's been solidified or in and concrete, I think, yeah, it's exactly right that there again, it doesn't mean that something can't be restricted. It doesn't mean that something can't be prohibited. It means that the agency who is managing that has to have either the um unequivocal science to be able to go with that or the unrefutable science to go along with that, depending on what decision that was made. I mean, in theory, could you turn around and say we're gonna ban elk hunting in the state of Colorado? Well, you could, it probably wouldn't go very far if somebody wanted to go that route. But unless you had data and science to be able to substantiate why you needed to do that, it was actually in the benefit of the species or actually in the benefit of other species or whatever. The interesting thing about the language and the constitutional right, the way it's written for our state constitution, is that it gives the agency as much, if not more, solid standing and footing to be able to do what they need to do when it comes to managing our wildlife resources. And maybe would turn around and take some of the politics out. Maybe it would take some of the ballot initiative, maybe it would take some of the commission undermining when you get the wrong governor. Maybe it would take some pieces of legislation out of consideration because there would be other sideboards that would have to be addressed because of the constitutionality of this. Yeah. And I think that, you know, that's why the the Second Amendment group can turn around and file lawsuits because it goes against the constitutionality on the national level. Now, every state's got a state constitution. It doesn't mean that you're going to be able to turn around and say, well, we're going to go back and we're going to start hunting bears like what we did in 1991 before they banned it. No. The way that this talks about is traditional methods and that goes into what is legal at the time of passage of the constitutional amendment would continue to be codified illegal. If they want to go back, somebody wants to go back and try to get spring bear hunting back, or hounds on bears, or baiting on bears, they would have to go back and turn around and try to reverse Initiative 10 that the voters voted on back in 1992.

SPEAKER_02 33:44

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 33:44

It doesn't automatically codify that. The trapping amendment, amendment 14 that we had in 1996, where it took away body gripping devices, foothold devices, and cable restraint devices. That would not change in any way, shape, or form. We still have cage trapping. That would be in place. We still have the ability to protect um human health and safety or livestock uh protection and human um conflict resolution. But the constitution that is there actually supersedes this constitutional amendment, unless you want to go back and try to change that one to turn around and mirror that with this, which is another monumental task. But nobody's trying to do that. We're trying to stop the continued assaults and attacks on what we consider to be not just necessarily an unequivocal right, but the ability to be able to turn around and manage in a preferred method with traditional measures and science-based wildlife management. We want another stop gap. We want another sideboard. We want another barrier that just can't come in and leave the uneducated voter a box to check one time a year, yes or no. Should I take this away or should I do that? This is allowing them to make the decision of we don't need to keep going back to the wheelhouse every single ballot cycle, every single election cycle to change something because somebody else wants to turn around and take away duck hunting or wants to modify archery season. You shouldn't be doing that through ballot box biology. Right. Now I want to say before I step to the next level, this is not ballot box biology. Ballot box biology has to do with individual species, science, method of take, disruptions, distractions, displeasures, or opposition to one thing or another. This is helping to codify the ability for the agency to still continue to manage our wildlife resources and do so how they see as necessary for the objectives and the models of each one of those game species and each one of those other species that are dependent on the management ability and authority of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

SPEAKER_00 35:51

Right. And it yeah, so I guess it it's the concept is kind of a little bit confusing to me, but I think I've got it right, Dan. The constitutional right to fish and hunt, it's getting signatures right now, and it will be a ballot initiative. So it is it is using the ballot box tactic to get to hopefully get this law right. But in a sense, not only is it not uh ballot box biology, it should, if it passes, it should weaken a ballot box biology as a tool. Am I getting it? Isn't that basically like the point? The point is to weaken that as a tool that can be used. Am I making sense?

SPEAKER_01 36:32

100%. 100%. And and we've always said, and we you and I discussed this briefly, we've always said that we wanted to put the experts in charge of our wildlife resources and natural habitat management. We've always said that while we might have questions or concerns, as long as they proved what they were considering, we didn't have a problem with it. Now, some people might just because they've got a problem with, you know, wildlife management being done by government agencies, which has been done historically, and that's why we're at where we're at, and that goes into the North American model of wildlife conservation. But we want the agency to be to be the determining factor. What has become the problem is the commission and the weaponization of the commission through different administrations to where the agency doesn't necessarily have as much authority or influence as what they should. Now, prime example, I'll go back to March 4th and 5th of this year, when the new director that was selected by the commission and the governor came out with a 11 or 13-page document recommending the denial of the commercial fur ban. And the agency did the same thing, and the commission, uneducated commissioners, threw that aside. The science, the data, the biology, all the factual information that was provided, threw it aside and said, We don't care what you think. That's what they said. The presentation, you could go back and look on YouTube at that, the presentation of five expert individuals with probably a hundred years of combined expertise, sat up there in front of the commission and gave the reasons why the agency and the director were recommending denial of that specific petition. And those six commissioners that voted yes pretty much looked at them, started the conversation amongst themselves, started having additional conversations about something that wasn't even on the agenda for that specific item, ignored the experts and voted, move this forward, and you come back with us with recommendations on what we want. Right. That's a travesty in itself. Because if they can do that with fur bear species, why can't they do that with bighorn sheep? Why can't they do that with air or mountain lions?

unknown 38:41

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 38:41

You could have to the experts, period.

SPEAKER_00 38:44

So I want to flesh this out, Dan. I don't want to get off like off too much on a tangent, but I I want this for my own understanding. Hypothetically, a very biased anti-hunting commission uh commission, they could without a without anybody voting on it, without any sort of legislative process, any of that, they could they could say, hey, we're gonna pass something that says that we're no longer gonna hunt elk in Colorado. Is that hypothetically possible?

SPEAKER_01 39:15

Hypothetically, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 39:17

Yeah. So so they could do that as a stand, they could recommend that to the CPW and then CPW would would instrument that in like their seasons. Basically, this year we're not gonna have a season.

SPEAKER_01 39:27

Well, that or the fact that if some bunch of individuals wanted to get together next year and say we're gonna run a ballot initiative, well, it'd have to happen in 2028 because of the because of the tax part of it. But in 2028, they came together and they said, hey, we want to run a ballot initiative, we're gonna ban deer nail cutting in the state of Colorado. Yeah. It's not likely to happen, but nobody thought that they would turn around and ban all wildlife and and domestic animal harvest or consumption in the state of Oregon. That is likely going to be on the ballot this year. It started out as IP three years ago and didn't get much traction. Now it's getting so much traction that people are like, we might not be able to turn around and raise a cow or have chickens and eggs. Like crazy stuff. Or do or do pest control or fish or hunt. Yeah. That's essentially what it could be. The constitutional amendment would help on the wildlife side to be able to help prevent that and give up a barrier of litigation or some sort of legal that could be taken to prevent that and and actually help codify it.

SPEAKER_00 40:26

Yeah, no, I got you. No, that that makes sense. Um, and but from your perspective, the ballot and like uh ballot biology uh you know initiative, that's more that's more dangerous than just a biased commission. Or are they related, Dan?

SPEAKER_01 40:42

Well, I think they're related because right now the commission has enough sway and enough um influence because of the agenda-driven appointments that have been made. And so, you know, just like just like um I hate to use these references, but but you go back to that the changing logos and branding of Cracker Barrel or Blood Light or the things that came from the from that side of things. Look what the state of Washington Game and Fish Commission is doing right now. When you get the wrong people in the right places to make the wrong decisions that they want to see happen, or their appointees or their appointeds want to see happen, um, it makes it hard and even more difficult to think that government is working in the best interest of what they're supposed to be doing and to turn around and deal with the Colorado revised statutes and then interpret it for themselves as opposed to listen to the legal guidance of the attorney general's office or to the commission attorneys. And and you know, the bad part about this whole deal is when you get Commissioner Jay Touchden as chair, he's a seasoned attorney. When you have Jess Bulieu, who is also on the commission, who's with the Denver Sturm Law Group or something, but she's an animal rights professor. She's an attorney. And when you get other individuals that have this, you know, degreed background, whether it's a PhD or a master's or whatever the hell anybody gets, I didn't go to college, so I'm the dumb bastard in the block. I don't have that sort of accolade behind me. But I could say that I look at things from a from a whole holistic and organic approach to where you show me the facts of why we shouldn't do something, and I'll be the first to turn around and say we ought to look at this and figure out a way to do it differently for the betterment of whatever it is. I mean, I run a wildlife control business. I'm sitting here on the job right now getting ready to do some work when you and I get done. Yeah. The reason I do so is because they need some expertise and guidance on solving a problem to make sure that the public is good, the property is good, the wildlife is good, the habitat is good, and that you're also doing things in a public perception side of way that is good. But if we just turn around and let the public out here where I'm at right now make the decisions, well, that would take what, a six, eight, ten, twelve week process? How many trees would you have to worry about? How much grass would you have to worry about? How many attacks on the general public down here would you have to worry about? How much damage to the property? I think that where we're at, Cliff, is we've gotten to a point where sportsmen and women take a lot of things for granted, that it's always going to be here and that we don't have to worry about it because we don't pay attention to it. You know, bury your head in the sand, nothing happens until you pull your head out, and then you turn around and go, boy, there's a lot of stuff that happened. I think that we also have relied on government at too many different levels to do the work of what scientists and experts should do. Now, these scientists and experts work for the government.

unknown 43:42

Right.

SPEAKER_01 43:42

But if you really believe in the North American model of wildlife conservation, that's the status and the program that we've established over time to make sure that science actually plays a significant role in the management of our species. Not Cliff Gray's science, not Dan. Science, not animal welfare activist science, but the agency that's managing all of the science and all of the species that they have control over, how the hell did we ever get to a system where we turn around and take extremists and put them in somewhere? Right. Cliff, it'd be like the donut guy turning around and running our sewage system. Yeah, shouldp. But I don't want sewage backing up in my house because the donut guy didn't know what the hell he's doing. I want him to make donuts. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 44:30

Guys, Biltong, okay? I've been obsessed with this stuff for three or four years. Ever since I got on a keto, carnivore, paleo-esque type of diet, I've had a hard time finding healthy snacks. Biltong is a great option, particularly the slabs that have this fat on the side. That's where your energy is if you're a fat burner like me. Super simple ingredients in this, guys. Literally, one, two, three, four, five ingredients. Pair that to your gas station jerky. A great snack in the backcountry or just day-to-day. Bill Tong Depot is a huge supporter of my content. Go to their website, biltongdepot.com. Use my code CliffGray, C-L-I-F-F-G-R-A-Y at checkout for 10% off. And to support this content. Thanks, guys. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 45:13

We've got a bunch of donut people that are turning around and trying to do our wildlife management stuff, I think.

SPEAKER_00 45:17

Yeah, well, and I and I think like back to your point about the the North American model, Dan, is that you know, there's the you don't have to agree with it 100%, you know, 100.00% to not realize that this is it's very dangerous. That what we're doing now with the states managing the game on behalf of the public, the the biologists, the guys that know what they're doing, you may not agree with the model 100%, but what we're doing now is the best alternative. Because we can't, I mean, if we shift it away to what you're talking about, non-experts, you know, even the broader public making every decision on wildlife, it's gonna the results would be horrible. Particularly, I mean, I think as just an ecosystem, ecosystem as a whole, they'll probably be ridiculous, but particularly for consumptive users, this for sure gonna be a negative outcome. So you have to protect that at all at all costs. The other thing I I go ahead, Dan.

SPEAKER_01 46:16

No, well, I was gonna say not only protecting it, but educating the people that make the decisions on behalf of what their intentions are supposed to be. I don't expect 14 million sportsmen and women in this in the United States to be able to turn around and recite the principles or the sisters or the tenets of the North American model of wildlife conservation. Most people can't recite the Bill of Rights or the Ten Commandments. I don't damn sure don't expect to do the North American model.

SPEAKER_02 46:42

Right.

SPEAKER_01 46:42

But there's there's components in there that if we don't adhere to and if we don't stand up and we don't turn around and try to protect and enhance, what good is the model and what good is the management system that we've got in place? And I'll just say this point blank: I've not been to a meeting, I've not bid to a focus group, I've not bid to a stakeholder group, I've not involved myself in any of this stuff in the last 20 years where an animal rights extremist has come to me or come to one of those meetings and recommended an alternative or a suggestion except for stop zero. Yeah, no harvest. There's no compromise, no negotiation, no alternatives, no recommendations, no suggestions. It's always you shouldn't do this. Why? Because you can't. What should we do? We don't know, but you can't do it like that. There's always this circle jerk going back and forth saying we don't like what you do. And the reason they don't have any suggestions, Cliff, is because they don't pay into the system and they don't participate in the system.

SPEAKER_00 47:38

Right.

SPEAKER_01 47:39

Well, you know, Shane Mahoney and I have had many, many conversations over the last four or five years. And I've talked to Tom Oprah the other day and had him on from the Shepherds of the Wildlife Society. Listen to the people that deal with this across the world, not just in Colorado or across the western United States. This is a conundrum of circumstances where you have roughly probably 96% of the population that does not participate in these activities. Right. 3% really is opposed to them. But the middle of the road ones, like you and I spoke about before, maybe it's 75%, maybe it's 80%, maybe it's 90%, I don't know. But they don't have any skin in the game. And for them, it's out of sight and out of mind until somebody brings it to their attention. Right. And it's up to us as a science-based wildlife management promotion community that believes in consumptive use to at least recognize the only line of defense we have are the science-based wildlife managers that are there trying to do what's best for the resource and what's best for the habitat.

SPEAKER_00 48:35

Yeah. No, I I I agree with that. And that's a that's a good a good way to put it. So I I totally agree. I think the other side that I mean you touched on, but I think it's important to to note, Dan, you know, like once you get these folks, uh it to me it's amazing. Like some of the folks that you're saying are getting on the commission now, they've been at they've been attorneys basically on the anti-hunting, pro, you know, whatever, uh whatever the next thing is world. The thing is, the thing is is that this is their career. This is their mechanism of income, too. For them, for you know, for Touchston to be on the board, that's just let's just call it what it is. It's just another part of him building his career. It's the he had like that's the they have it, they actually have an economic engine. The rest of us don't. You know what I mean? Like you being on the you being on the you know, involved, other other folks being. I know a lot of the folks that have been on the on the commission as the outfitter representation over the years. There's it is no like personal gain to them, right? There is no it it's just they're trying to do the best. Yeah, I'm sure maybe they're maybe they're trying to, you know, protect what they what they want out of the resource, but they don't have it's a totally different world than these. I mean, most of them are at turn attorneys, I'll just call it what it is. And they're they're in it for building up business, I think. I mean it's it's I'm I'm speak, I can I can't speak for you, Dan, but that's what I don't think people realize. Like these folks can be very dangerous because it's not it's not like a side project for them. This is their career, this is their thing, right? They can be on the commission, they can get things passed, and then they can go get a million-dollar deal representing XYZ Wolf organization or whatever. It's a real thing. I am I off base there or no, I don't think so.

SPEAKER_01 50:24

And I think you know, look, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna argue with the people that that I have to confront on a daily week basis about what their convictions are. You know, they're no less passionate about things than you and I are. Yeah, it's a different ideology that I'm trying to get them to realize and understand that the real world situation of what they want is almost impractical. Go back and listen to some of our clips that we've gotten from the commission, from the meetings themselves, where people believe in this rewilding component. They believe in taking people and livestock producers off of the landscape and actually condemning an imminent domain, their properties, and turning that over to the wildlife resources. I believe that no hunting should be allowed in any way, shape, or form. Hard stop. It's not just about fur bears, it's all hunting. This is an ideology that you can't change. It's kind of like trying to get an atheist to go to a Catholic church. Sure. I mean, you know, he might be interested in religion just because he opposes it, but he doesn't really want to turn around and listen to what anybody else has to say. I believe that there's an opportunity for education of some people. Now, the ones that are in this for a profession, it's kind of got it's it's gotten hard to get through their thick skulls because they don't look at this from an everyday perspective. Me as a wildlife control operator is an example. We just went through and I get off on a tangent, so you shut me off at any time you want. We just had we'd had Senate Bill 62, and I just talked about it on our legislative sportsmen's caucus meeting yesterday with a couple of the legislators. Senate Bill 62 was an attempt, the original attempt was to prohibit all rodenicides and glue boards in the state of Colorado to where you couldn't kill a mouse or a rat. Period. Hard stop. Yeah. That was a little harsh according to some legislators. So they revised it and amended it and moved it through different committees, and it went through the Senate, and then it kind of stalled a little bit when it was going through the House. When it went through the House Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee, not the Senate one, it ran into a buzzsaw because those legislators had heard enough other things that were going on about disease and about human health and safety, about sustainable food sources, and about all the complexities that wildlife and rodent management have to do with human interaction on the entire landscape. Didn't matter whether it's crop production, doesn't matter whether it's restaurants, health cares, healthcare individuals, um hospitals, nursing homes, foods, commodity storages, or utility infrastructures. Rodents breed like rats because rodents breed like rats. Every 21 days, a deer mouse is ready to turn around and have sexual reproduction activity. So it doesn't take long to get something that is so overbearing and overburdensome to a small population of individuals that have to deal with this on a regular basis. Right. But my point is that do we want animal rights extremists trying to take care of our rodent populations? Right. Yeah. If we don't let them take care of our rodent populations, do we let them take care of any other population? Right. They didn't want rats and mice to be killed in the state of Colorado. But it really gets down to it, they don't want mountain lions killed, they don't want coyotes killed, which that rodenticide bill was initiated by Mark Searles with Project Coyote. Yeah. With all due respect, Mark Searles might want to turn around and take care of coyotes because that's his mission in life. But we don't have to worry about coyote populations in the city. We don't have to worry about coyote populations in apartments and hospitals. Why do you want to turn around and try to control rodents for your own like and or dislike in the city where there's not going to be anything that has to do with coyotes? Right. I think that people need to understand that agendas are agendas, and people that come out that have what I think is unintended consequences, don't know the facts, don't know the logistics, don't know the understanding or comprehension of being able to do what they profess to do, which is obvious when they turn around and lost in the House Agriculture Committee by eleven, excuse me, t 11 to 2. And they lost on the beaver bill in the same committee, which would have prevented all beaver from the state of Colorado to be harvested in any way, shape, or form on public land. There again, another rodent. Are beavers good? Yes. Are beavers good in every location? No. Should beavers be managed? Yes. Did Colorado Parks and Wildlife come up with a 152-page document for a statewide beaver management plan? Yes. Did the animal rights community want to ignore that plan? Yes. Did they want to go through legislation? Yes. If they have a chance, I think they'll go to the ballot. Yeah. I think the constitutional right to hunt and fish would help prohibit or at least restrict or slow down some of those attacks and assaults on the agency, on the landowners, on the legislature. I mean, don't they have more important stuff to worry about for human health and safety and taxes and opioid addiction and prostitution and roads and bridges than freaking rats and mice?

unknown 55:40

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 55:42

No, I yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I I hear. And I think that's, you know, one of that's one of the that's one of the reasons probably this deal is so important is maybe it it is like an early roadblock where a lot of this stuff just won't come to fruition and be, you know, just a constant attack on things, right? Because they they know that this constitutional right to to hunt and fish exists and therefore it blocks things before it even starts. Um Dan, I appreciate you kind of getting me up to speed on this. I I I uh always enjoy the conversation and you and you've uh I've learned a lot, but I want to give you a chance, man, to talk about some things that you have uh coming up in terms of raffles and and uh that sort of thing that to to raise money to to help on this on this specific issue.

SPEAKER_01 56:27

Yeah, and I want to talk, and I appreciate that, Cliff. Uh so I want people to know that the Coloradoans for Responsible Wildlife Management is playing a significant uh ground game leadership role in the state of Colorado on this constitutional right to hunt fish. But we did not initiate this. We wouldn't take credit for that because the ones that did were the International Order of T. Roosevelt. And they're spearheading this because some local Colorado individuals came up with the idea that this was what they wanted to do in 2026. And that was not IOTR's original intent. But once these individuals came up with the money, ran it through title board, legislative council, came out with legitimate titles that would resonate maybe and be on the ballot, they reached out to IOTR, the International Order, and they said, look, this is what we're doing, and we need some help. IOTR's job, their mission is to provide states with the constitutional right to hunt and fish. But they didn't think about doing it in Colorado until 28 or maybe 2030. I gotcha. But the opportunity came up, these other guys decided to go and do it on their own. When they found out that where they went, they ended up maybe unintentionally because they didn't know how easy it was going to be to get there or how hard it would be to get there. They reached out. Once they did that, IOTR reached out to CRWM and myself to say what you guys did in 2024 on the ground game, what you guys did to defeat 127 and help on Ordnance 308. We want your expertise, we want your knowledge, we want your input, we want your ability to be able to provide either a leadership role or a complementary, obligatory role to this effort. We agreed to do so, and now we're helping to build up those connections and that teamwork. We're doing a little bit on the resource side, but the resource side that we continue to fight and have the fund are still with the commission of the legislature, while we are doing the boots on the ground stuff on this constitutional right. That being said, we've done this for the last five or six years now, but the Colorado Chapter of Safari Club International is doing two more raffles on our behalf. Now, these have been very, very well received. But the interesting thing about this one, the one that's coming up, we have a fishing raffle off the off the coast of Sitka, Alaska that is with real charters, R-E-E-L charters, and it's for two people to go south salmon and halibut fishing for 27 and 28. Two people. There's a lot of information you could get off of our website at Save the Hunt Colorado.com. Or if you want to buy tickets, you have to be able to turn around and go to scicolorado.org, but you can get that website through the save the huntcolorado.com. The biggest part of this raffle is we've got a raffle that was donated by the by the legendary and extraordinary Hill Ranch in southern Colorado that's a ranched for wildlife property. That one there takes roughly 34 preference points for the general public to draw to be able to get in on the public side of that. But that's only for the state. State residents are the only ones that are going to play for that. Right. This is the location where guys like Cameron Haynes and the Eastmans and Lee and Tiffany Likoski have hunted. This is a spot that nobody is going to get to hunt because it's already pre-booked by other individuals that typically have a lot more funding and resources than what I would be able to do that. But if you applied for this through the state license drawing process, it would take you a minimum of 34 points. There's like two or three licenses per year. So if you have 27 points now and you've been waiting for the Hill Ranch, you will never draw that tag because there's a bunch of people in front of you that have 32, 33, 34 points. Tickets are $50 a piece on each one of those raffles, three for a hundred. Your odds of drawing on this Hill Ranch hunt are better in this raffle than they are on the state draw. And if you are a non-resident, they are the only way that you're going to be able to get it because only residents can participate in the ranching for wildlife program. Right. This is for October of 26. So if somebody applied in Colorado and drew a tag, an elk tag that had two points or 12 points, and they happen to win this, our recommendation is turn in your license that you got, get your points back, and go on the one that is going to be the most remarkable, extraordinary elk hunt that you probably have ever been on. Yeah. Not it's not hunted by the people that I mentioned because it's a crappy place to hunt. Just an opportunity. And Bobby, Bobby, and Dottie Hill don't do this at all. And they've supported us with a couple times over the course of the last several years because of our efforts to defeat these anti-hunting measures. And we're just proud and privileged to be part of this process because it's nice to see somebody get a chance of something that they're never going to get a chance of any other way. So either one, you can go to scicolorado.org and you can fill those raffle ticket applications out. If you forget scicolorado.org, we can we can make sure that we can get you to the right link with save the huntcolorado.com and the deadline on that is June 12th. The drawing is June 15th. You will know June 15th, 16th, if you drew the winning ticket, you were the recipient, and you can still make your mind up if you were lucky enough to draw one of those other coveted tags somewhere. Unless you drew something that was 30 points somewhere, uh we which is not likely, uh, we would recommend to turn around and take this advantage and take advantage of this and get on this hunt or good on this fishing trip.

SPEAKER_00 1:02:13

Yeah, I know for sure. And it's it's one of the most well-known, probably elk hunting places on the higher end that there is. Yeah, it's like, I mean, let's be honest. It's like it's like it's like when in a pretty nice vehicle, just just so people understand the level of this thing.

SPEAKER_01 1:02:28

It's like anymore, it's like when in a really nice vehicle.

SPEAKER_00 1:02:31

Yeah, yeah. For sure. So uh, but just a cool opportunity because even outside of that, I know I know from you know just researching it in the past and stuff, it's just hard. Even if you have the money, it's a hard place to get on to hunt. So pretty, pretty freaking cool opportunity. Um, but yeah, thanks, Dan. I appreciate having you on, man.

SPEAKER_01 1:02:51

Yeah, we got one one other thing real quick. If you want more information on the constitutional right, uh go to savecoheritage.org. And when we're doing our side of the podcast here, we'll turn around and put the links to all that stuff up. But savecoheritage.org. And uh, we just appreciate you know working with you, Cliff. I think we'll probably have another conversation down the road and get you on the Through the Gates podcast. Um, we try to tell people, you know, aim small, miss small, stay the course. And without our participation as a collective group, we won't be able to turn around and sustain this in perpetuity for future generations. So we just hope everybody jumps on board, supports the constitutional right, supports the hunting efforts of what Colorado and other states are doing. We just appreciate working with you at different levels and look forward to further communications.

SPEAKER_00 1:03:39

Yeah, of course. Thanks, Dan.

SPEAKER_01 1:03:41

Appreciate it.

SPEAKER_00 1:03:42

If you enjoyed this content, do me a huge favor. Subscribe on whatever platform you consume it on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, whatever works for you guys. Everything else is on my website, pursuitwithcliffe.com. Go there, and it's going to be very apparent to you that I work my ass off just to not have a real job. All the hunts I guide, all the seminars I put on, all the unique experiences I offer in the membership site, all the details are there.