The amendment does not change civil trespassing laws. This will continue to protect landowners from damage to their property. If someone was to do harm to the land they would be legally responsible for the damages. This may also require a lot more effort from local law enforcement and may result in unfair treatment to landowners if the deputies were unable to respond.

The strongest opposition to this amendment comes from the landowners and private clubs who lease the land from the owners. The lease holders get upwards of $250 per person for a day of fishing on the private stretches. One owner of a ranch along the Poudre river said " Our family has owned this stretch for many years. We raised cattle until the market dropped out of it a few years ago. We almost lost the ranch during those years. We now offer guided fishing trips along the property and have made a substantial living at it. If this amendment passes I don't know what we will do."

Other landowner concerns include a basic mistrust of the behavior of the general public. They feel their property will be trashed, fences cut, and other damage that they will not be compensated for. One landowner at the sportsmens show said "If you want to fish on my property, why don't you just ask? Why does there have to be a law? If just anyone is allowed on my property I know they will trash it. Is that fair to me?"

Sportsmen are quick to dispute this argument stating that simply asking for permission from the landowner usually is unsuccessful unless you happen to know the owner personnally. Why would a landowner allow free access if they have been offered the big bucks to lease the area? The water and the wildlife in the water belongs to the public and the landowners are profitting unfairly from the resource by leasing it. Sportsmen are basically environmentally friendly and respect private property. There will always be a few bad apples but those individuals will exist regardless of this amendment.

Yet another argument to this amendment is that it may be found unconstitional and repealled immediately after the November election. Supporters of this argument site other constitutional laws and previous Colorado Supreme Court rulings that protect private owners from the illegal "taking" of their property by the government. They claim this may cost the state and taxpayers a great deal of money as a result of successful "taking" claims by landowners if the amendment passes.

Another gentlemen expressed his sentiments this way "You folks go ahead and pass your law.......It really is nothing that a mean ol' Bull and some barb wire won't take care of."

This comment reflects the one certainty about this battle..... it is easy to know who is for it or against it by simply looking to see which side of the barb wire fence they are on.

For more information contact:

Randy Martinez, Chairperson
Coloradans for Fair Fishing
P.O. Box 281127
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
(303) 934-1769

For an in depth legal presentation on this issue go to: http://spot.colorado.edu/~weisers/home.html

Click to Listen!