This story was originally published by Vox and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
asserted
story → publish → collaboration
When millions of voters fill out their ballots in November, they won’t just be choosing elected representatives.
asserted
they → fill → representatives
Many states are offering the chance to impact conservation and wildlife as well, through ballot measures focused on things like dedicating more money to habitat protection or mitigating the impacts of climate change.
asserted
states → offer → change
One could even reshape wildlife management in one of the country’s most picturesque mountain states—and also lead to the indiscriminate deaths of all kinds of wild animals.
uncertain
One → reshape → animals
And while ballot measures might seem like small potatoes in the grand scheme of electoral politics, they could have an outsized impact this year.
uncertain
they → seem → impact
The Trump administration has been systematically rolling back protections for endangered species, taking a hammer to longstanding pillars of climate regulation, and cutting funding to agencies like the National Park Service and National Forest Service, both of which oversee vast stretches of wildlife habitats.
asserted
both → roll → habitats
In many cases, states have had to step up, putting more resources into conserving the habitats and species within their borders, and ballot measures can help shape those decisions.
asserted
measures → have → decisions
Here are the seven ballot measures that could transform ecosystems across the country this election:
uncertain
that → transform → country
California — Proposition 45: Cutting pesky environmental reviews, also maybe cutting habitats
This ballot measure would shorten environmental review periods for “essential projects” like housing, water systems, clean energy, and medical facilities, among others.
asserted
measure → cut → others
In a state that’s been struggling to build what it needs fast enough, this could help speed essential clean energy projects that could help slow climate change.
uncertain
that → struggle → change
On the other hand, reducing California Environmental Quality Act review time, as this proposition would do, could also lead to increased habitat destruction, leading advocacy organizations like the Sierra Club to oppose it.
uncertain
proposition → reduce → it
Georgia — Amendment 1: Tax breaks for conservation land (maybe)
This amendment might seem a little in the weeds—and mostly in the interest of farmers and ranchers looking for tax breaks.
uncertain
amendment → seem → breaks
But it would double (from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres) the amount of land an owner can get tax breaks from if they protect it under the state’s Conservation Use Valuation Assessment program.
asserted
they → double → program
As Yanshu Li, an Associate Professor of Forest Economics at the University of Georgia, told me, the amendment could incentivize landowners to set aside larger tracts of their property for wildlife habitat conservation, which would benefit species like the nine-banded armadillo and the northern bobwhite quail that call these habitats home.
uncertain
that → tell → habitats
A fund for nature
Question 6 would create a “Nature for All Fund,” routing existing taxes on sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and money spent at golf courses to conservation.
asserted
Question → create → conservation
That fund could then be used on natural resource conservation, making it the first time the state has a dedicated funding source for conservation projects.
uncertain
state → use → projects
Colorado — Proposition 137: More money for restoration and wildfire prevention
This proposition, similar to Massachusetts’, would direct existing sales taxes on sporting goods to a state fund dedicated to conservation and wildfire prevention.
asserted
proposition → direct → conservation
In a state where wildfires have torn through more than 2 million acres in the past decade, dozens of conservation groups are supporting this measure to protect habitats and species.
asserted
dozens → tear → habitats
Arkansas — Issue 4: Waterworks and waterways
Here, voters are being asked to approve up to $500 million in bonds that can be used to fund water-related infrastructure projects like water treatment, waste disposal, and wetlands infrastructure.
asserted
that → ask → treatment
A boost to wetlands under the Arkansas proposal could help animals that live in those habitats, which are often overlooked in this region.
uncertain
which → help → region
Rhode Island — Question 5: New money for climate resilience and habitat protection
This measure would allow for $55 million in bonds to fund environmental and recreational projects.
asserted
measure → allow → projects
The largest chunk of this change—$25 million—would go to helping to protect the state from the impacts of climate change.
asserted
chunk → go → change
Another $7 would be devoted to protecting Narragansett Bay and its watersheds, which would include funding to “restore natural habitats and control invasive aquatic plants,” according to the Rhode Island Current.
uncertain
which → devote → Current
These ballot measures are all relatively straightforward so far, but there’s one question up to voters this fall that puts wild animals front-and-center—and is splitting hunters and anglers down an ethical centerline.
asserted
that → ’ → centerline
Which takes us back to Colorado:
asserted
Which → take → Colorado
Colorado — Amendment 83: A constitutional right to hunt…traditionally
On its surface, this amendment seems fairly innocuous.
asserted
amendment → hunt → surface
It asks voters to enshrine “the right to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife by traditional methods” in the state’s constitution.
asserted
It → ask → constitution
Hunting and fishing are already big in Colorado, and they’re protected by statute, so this may not seem like a major change.
uncertain
this → protect → change
But, as Rebecca Niemiec, co-director of Colorado State University’s Animal-Human Policy Center and a Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioner, speaking for herself, told me, neither the text of the bill nor its proponents define what “traditional methods” of hunting and fishing would be allowed under this amendment.
asserted
methods → speak → amendment
“Read plainly, traditional methods could be interpreted to include practices like poisoning, leg hold traps, gill nets, or baiting and hounding,” Niemiec said.
uncertain
Niemiec → read → poisoning
Many of these practices injure or maim animals, including ones that aren’t targeted: Steel-jawed traps and poisons don’t discriminate between, say, a deer, a wolf, and a lynx.
asserted
traps → injure → deer
All of these practices have been outlawed in Colorado over the years, either through other ballot measures or regulatory changes; in 1992, for example, Coloradans voted to ban hunting bears using bait and hounds, and four years later they banned leg-hold traps and snares.
asserted
they → outlaw → traps
The new amendment also continues on to propose: “establishing hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations.”
asserted
amendment → continue → populations
This would leave far less room for wildlife agencies like CPW to make nuanced decisions or roll out alternative programs, like birth control or animal relocation.
asserted
agencies → leave → control
It also reduces their ability to take into account the preferences of people who value wildlife for reasons other than hunting.
asserted
who → reduce → hunting
“Biological science can inform decisions about how many animals can be killed without threatening a population,” Niemiec said.
asserted
Niemiec → inform → population
“But it can’t tell us what hunting practices are ethical, or how to balance hunting opportunities with the public’s desire to see wildlife alive—and protected from unnecessary suffering.”
asserted
wildlife → tell → suffering
The push for these constitutional protections, Niemiec told me, is part of a larger backlash against conservation groups.
asserted
Niemiec → tell → groups
But in this case, it’s not as simple as hunter vs. non-hunter: Plenty of hunters and anglers support taking ethical considerations into account when making decisions about how to manage wildlife, and some hunting groups in Colorado have publicly spoken out against the amendment.
asserted
groups → ’ → amendment
“If we’re going to enshrine anything in the Constitution, it should say we should be balancing the diversity of public interest in wildlife in all of our management decisions,” Niemiec said.
asserted
Niemiec → go → decisions
…and 1 more, not listed.
The Aporia
