Glenwood Petition Accuses CPW of Using Taxpayer Funds to Influence Amendment 83

Glenwood Springs —The air in Glenwood Springs still holds that crisp, high-altitude bite, but inside the offices of Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the atmosphere is thick with a different kind of tension. It’s the kind of pressure that settles over a room when money, politics, and deeply held traditions start to collide. You can feel it in the way conversations are carefully measured, each word chosen not just for its meaning, but for its potential legal or political fallout.

A simple, yet profound question that many locals are quietly asking cuts to the core of the controversy: did the state use taxpayer dollars to tip the scales on a ballot measure that divides the hunting and fishing communities? This isn’t just bureaucratic nitpicking; it’s a fundamental query about fairness in a democracy where everyone’s vote counts, regardless of whether they’re a lifelong rancher or a weekend hiker.

Eric Washburn, the president of Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation, stepped out from behind the scenes to file a formal petition with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission on September 10. He argues that the Colorado Wildlife Council, a body responsible for marketing and education under the department, spent funds to influence the 2024 election, specifically targeting Amendment 83. This amendment sought to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish, a move that supporters called a protection of heritage and opponents viewed as an overreach. Washburn alleges that the council violated the Fair Campaign Practices Act, a law that explicitly bars state agencies from spending money to urge voters to support or oppose statewide ballot issues.

The petition, co-signed by conservation advocates Charles Seymour and Brett Ochs, doesn’t just look backward; it aims to lock down the rules for the future. They are asking the commission to prevent the council from using funds on “electioneering” during the upcoming November midterms and to adopt a permanent rule to keep the lights off on political spending during election cycles. For folks who remember the last few elections, the sight of state-produced ads appearing on local channels has always felt a bit like a neighbor showing up to your doorstep with a campaign sign in hand.

The response from the top hasn’t been swift. On September 16, Director Laura Clellan sent a letter to the council, essentially putting the brakes on their operations. She ordered a pause on the release of any advertising or promotional materials until after the election was over. She called this a “conservative determination,” a phrase that signals caution, a desire to protect the council members from potential liability while the agency figures out what actually happened. It’s a classic administrative move: stop the bleeding, gather the facts, then decide if the patient needs surgery or just rest.

When pressed for more details, Travis Duncan, the public information officer for the department, offered a response that reflected the agency’s current posture. He said the agency “needs more time to evaluate the petition and to develop a response.” It’s a standard holding pattern, but in a case where accusations of cultural bias and workplace dynamics are surfacing, the delay allows the narrative to solidify in the public mind.

Adding fuel to the fire is an October 2 letter from the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit that has been actively engaged in Colorado wildlife policy advocacy. They sent this letter to Governor Jared Polis and Dan Gibbs, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. Their request goes beyond the financial audit. They are asking for an investigation into what they describe as a “cowboy culture” at CPW. They claim this culture may have created an unhealthy workplace for women and that there are reports of retaliation and bias against those who have advocated for changes to wildlife management. This cultural critique adds a layer of complexity to the financial dispute, suggesting that the way decisions are made might be just as problematic as how the money is spent.

On October 15, Clellan took another step, submitting a request for an advisory opinion from the Secretary of State. She is seeking input on whether the council’s previous videos or advertisements actually violated the Fair Campaign Practices Act and wants guidance for future election cycles. It’s a move to get an outside legal perspective, hoping to clarify the gray areas before the next election season rolls around.

As the November election approaches, the Western Slope finds itself watching its own state government navigate these murky waters. The outcome will likely shape how wildlife agencies interact with the public in the coming years. Whether the council’s actions are deemed legitimate outreach or improper electioneering, the precedent set will resonate far beyond the immediate dispute. For now, the agency continues to work through the details, aiming to provide clarity to a community that values transparency as much as it values its natural resources.

The debate continues to unfold, with stakeholders on both sides waiting for the official determination. In the meantime, the landscape remains unchanged, the mountains standing tall above the valleys, indifferent to the human disputes played out below. The only thing certain is that the conversation is far from over, and the next chapter will be written in the months to come.