09/27/2026
MY Governor is a jerk, a liar, and his "husbands" doormat when it comes to animal rights...Vote YES on 83!
Https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Jn53zdttH/
🚨 A Response to Governor Polis on Amendment 83 ‼️
As Colorado voters begin receiving their ballots, Gov. Jared Polis is asking them to vote no on Amendment 83.
The governor says he supports hunting and fishing. He points to expanded access, lower fees for Colorado hunters and other efforts benefiting sportsmen.
Those things are part of the record.
But they aren’t the whole record.
The governor argues Amendment 83 would elevate hunting above every other outdoor activity and force courts to favor hunters over hikers, bikers, climbers and other recreationists.
But that’s not what the amendment says.
Amendment 83 would establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish and declare hunting and fishing the state’s preferred means of responsibly managing wildlife populations. It also preserves the state’s ability to regulate those activities for scientific conservation, public safety and the protection of future hunting and fishing opportunities.
It doesn’t say mountain bikers would automatically lose a conflict with hunters. It doesn’t authorize trespassing. And it doesn’t specifically put leghold traps, bear baiting or wildlife-killing contests into the Constitution.
So let’s look beyond the governor’s statement and look at the record.
Who has the governor put in positions of influence?
Polis has faced repeated criticism from hunting and agricultural organizations over his appointments to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission.
In 2023, his appointments included Jessica Beaulieu, an attorney associated with the University of Denver’s Animal Law Program, and Jack Murphy, founder of Urban Wildlife Rescue, whose organization emphasizes nonlethal wildlife conflict resolution. Those appointments drew criticism from hunting advocates who argued that the commission was moving away from traditional wildlife-management experience.
And that criticism has not gone away.
In 2026, hunting organizations again challenged several Polis nominees, with opponents arguing that some candidates had backgrounds or activism that raised questions about their commitment to hunting and traditional wildlife management. The controversy became serious enough that two of the governor’s nominees failed to advance through the Senate committee process.
The governor disputes the characterization that he is stacking the commission against hunters. And notably, one of his 2026 appointees, Grand Junction veterinarian Peter Maguire, is described as an active hunter and angler.
That’s why the issue deserves more nuance than simply calling the governor “anti-hunting.”
But there is another part of this story that shouldn’t be ignored.
The First Gentleman and the animal-rights connection
Marlon Reis, Gov. Polis’ husband, is not simply a private citizen with an interest in animals.
The governor’s own office describes Reis as an animal advocate, and Reis has publicly described animal welfare as his passion.
He has also been publicly involved in Colorado’s wildlife and agricultural debates.
During the prairie-dog controversy, Reis publicly criticized rural opponents of a relocation effort and called for people to become “heroes for prairie dogs.”
He has also hosted public events dealing with wolves and animal issues and has spoken extensively about the treatment and perception of predators.
And Reis has had documented personal connections with people appointed by the Polis administration. One notable example was Ellen Kessler, a Polis appointee to the State Board of Veterinary Medicine and a friend of Reis who had herself become a controversial figure among agricultural groups over her public comments about ranchers and livestock.
None of this proves that Marlon Reis dictates the governor’s wildlife policies.
It doesn’t prove that Gov. Polis opposes hunting.
But it does make it reasonable for Colorado sportsmen to look closely at the administration’s record rather than simply accepting the governor’s statement that he is a strong supporter of hunting.
And here’s what gets lost in the debate
Colorado’s hunters and anglers aren’t just another recreational constituency.
The state’s own 2026 Blue Book says hunting and fishing license sales provide about $115 million annually—roughly one-third of CPW’s current revenue.
Those dollars help fund the wildlife-management system that benefits all Coloradans.
Hunters and anglers are therefore not asking to take Colorado’s outdoors away from everyone else.
They’re asking whether the activities that have helped fund wildlife conservation and have been part of Colorado’s heritage for generations deserve constitutional protection.
That’s the real debate.
We can disagree about Amendment 83.
We can debate whether hunting and fishing belong in the Constitution.
We can debate how wildlife should be managed.
But let’s have that conversation honestly.
Don’t tell Colorado sportsmen that Amendment 83 is about taking trails away from mountain bikers when the amendment doesn’t say that.
Don’t tell them that traditional methods automatically mean every banned hunting practice is coming back.
And don’t ask hunters and anglers to simply take the governor’s word that their interests are secure while ignoring the administration’s record of appointments, wildlife policy and the people surrounding those decisions.
Look at the language. Look at the record. Then make your decision.
— Colorado Outdoor Chronicles
