BU BÖLÜM HAKKINDA
What happens when wildlife policy is written into a state constitution—and key terms are left undefined?
In this episode of Wildlife Wire, Mark Surls and Samantha Miller are joined by attorney and educator Jess Beaulieu for a legal deep dive into Colorado’s Amendment 83, the proposed constitutional amendment addressing hunting, fishing, and wildlife management.
Jess is the manager of the University of Denver’s Animal Law Program and faculty co-director of its Animals Forward program. With a background spanning wildlife ecology, conservation, law, and public policy, she helps unpack what constitutionalizing wildlife policy could mean in practice.
The conversation begins with a Civics 101 look at the difference between statutes and constitutional amendments before examining some of the specific language contained in Amendment 83. What does it mean to call hunting and fishing the “preferred means” of managing wildlife? What qualifies as a “traditional method”? How would courts interpret requirements involving what is “necessary” or based on “sound scientific wildlife conservation and management”?
Jess explains why undefined constitutional language can shift important questions from wildlife professionals, agencies, and legislators into the courts, where litigation and judicial interpretation may ultimately determine what those words mean.
The conversation also explores the potential financial consequences for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, including how increased litigation could redirect money that might otherwise support wildlife management, conservation, agency operations, and recreation.
Mark and Jess also examine how Amendment 83 could interact with Colorado’s existing constitutional prohibition on certain body-gripping traps, poisons, and snares, and discuss the broader question of what types of principles belong in a constitution versus statutes or administrative regulations.
In this episode-
The difference between a statute and a constitutional amendment
-
Why constitutional language carries greater legal weight
-
How courts interpret ambiguous or undefined constitutional terms
-
What “traditional methods” could mean—and why the phrase matters
-
The legal significance of words such as “necessary” and “preferred”
-
Whether Amendment 83 could affect the use of nonlethal wildlife-management tools
-
What “sound scientific wildlife conservation and management” might require
-
The role of biological science, social science, and public values in wildlife policy
-
How litigation could shape the practical meaning of Amendment 83
-
Who pays CPW’s legal expenses when the agency is sued
-
Potential impacts of litigation on wildlife-management funding
-
How Amendment 83 might interact with Colorado’s existing constitutional trapping restrictions
-
The difference between constitutional principles and day-to-day wildlife policy
-
Why precise language matters when voters are asked to amend a constitution
Jess Beaulieu is an attorney, manager of the University of Denver’s Animal Law Program, and faculty co-director of its Animals Forward program.
Her background spans wildlife ecology, conservation, law, public policy, and animal law. She studied wildlife ecology and conservation at the University of Florida and later earned her law degree from Stetson University College of Law. Her experience has also included an unpaid legal fellowship with the Center for Biological Diversity and public-interest legal practice.
