"Colorado’s outdoors are extraordinary precisely because so many of us enjoy them in different ways. We should keep expanding outdoor recreation opportunities in a sustainable way, protecting wildlife, and finding compromises that work for everyone — not picking constitutional favorites. I urge Coloradans who hunt, fish, hike, bike or simply love our wildlife to vote “no” on Amendment 83." —Jared Polis, Governor of Colorado
Numerous people, ranging from hardcore academics to people on the streets, are keenly interested in the nature of human-animal relationships (the science of anthrozoology) including living with pets, companion animals, wild neighbors, and more distant wildlife. In my home state of Colorado, human relationships with wild neighbors and more distant wildlife are fraught with difficulty, with attitudes and values ranging from serious attempts to peacefully and compassionately coexist with these animals to equally serious attempts to harm and kill them.
What is happening in Colorado is occurring in many other states and countries, so a real-world, on-the-ground example offers a very worthwhile discussion of the global complexities of our relationships with other animals.
To wit, Colorado’s Amendment 83, which will be voted on Nov. 3, 2026, centers on establishing a constitutional right to hunt and trap. Trapping is on the agenda, although some people try to play it down. A web search for “Colorado amendment 83” will show you a broad set of opinions that range from unconditional bravado and support to unconditional disgust and opposition to 83. I'm constantly being asked what I think about 83 from Coloradans and many others.
The importance of animal sentience and the emotional lives of animals
What is missing in the vast majority of opinions on this amendment, especially from those who favor it, is serious discussion of what I call the “S” and “F” words—namely, sentience, suffering, and feelings. In other words, there is little to no consideration of the emotional lives of the nonhuman victims and what the animals themselves—those in the crosshairs—would feel about this amendment if they could have a say in this grisly matter. Sentience simply refers to the ability to feel, and there can be no doubt that the targeted animals would vote a resounding, unanimous "no" to this amendment. There’s nothing fair about this one-sided amendment.
When you get down to it, Amendment 83 could be viewed as a constitutional right for causing cruelty—intentional physical and psychological suffering—using "traditional methods" that had been previously banned 30 years ago because they cause incredible amounts of pain and suffering, such as using steel-jaw traps, snaring, poisoning, using dogs to chase targeted animals, and baiting animals to make them easy to kill. It would also allow bears to be killed in and around their dens, including pregnant females. There's nothing fair about these abhorrent practices—just like the phrase "fair chase," when applied to so-called ethical hunting, is an obvious oxymoron.
For example, spring bear hunting was banned in Colorado in 1992—a generation ago—because it invariably resulted in killing lactating females with dependent cubs. Inarguably, these cubs need their mother to survive. And in 1996, voters restricted the use of steel-jawed traps, snares, and poisons.
The reason I chose the title for this short post is because dogs are highly sentient beings, and so too are the animals who will be targeted. Dogs, wolves, cougars, black bears, beavers, and many other animals share the same feelings, ranging from joy to fear to grief and anxiety to extreme pain and suffering.
Thinking about how dogs would respond to being hunted, trapped, snared, poisoned, and subjected to other "traditional practices" brings home many of the issues surrounding the use of these cruel and injurious practices, if you will, because many people who engage in these pernicious activities also live with a canine companion. However, dogs don't suffer more than their wild relatives. Thinking about what dogs would feel can lead us to viewing them as a "gateway species" for bridging the empathy gap to include other nonhumans in the arena of compassion and peaceful coexistence and to bring humans together.
Words also matter. A good number of people who hunt and trap animals use the word "harvesting" to refer to what they are doing as if they're casually going to drink a glass of water. But this and other words, such as "cull" or "dispatch," really do not "sanitize" these activities because animals aren't unfeeling objects to be wantonly harvested, culled, or dispatched, aka killed. If you want to harvest something, do it to corn but not to animals.
I would like to believe that if you wouldn’t include dogs in the list of victims who may be heartlessly and violently killed, you also wouldn't include other animals who also would suffer on their often slow and very painful way to dying. If you would include dogs on the menu of animals who could be hunted and trapped, many people and I would say we’re glad we’re not your dog.
Coda: Working for compassionate coexistence
Factoring in animal sentience is not a “radical” move but rather a humane and decent gesture for recognizing and appreciating who these animals truly are. And, thinking about them as sentient beings is totally science-based, so if one says they follow the science, they must also factor in the science of animal emotions.
Surely we can do much better for the magnificent animals with whom we share our stunning state. The same goes for countless other places. So let's work hard for compassionate coexistence and show other animals that we deeply care about their well-being and quality of life. In fact, research shows that working for nonhumans is also good for us—a win-win for all.