Last year the legislature passed HB99-1229 which states that any re-introduction or introduction of a species into Colorado must first seek the approval of legislature. Many citizens thought that this legislation was heavy-handed and an attempt to eliminate the reintroduction of species. I was a co-sponsor on that bill and honestly did not agree with that perception. Now, enter HB00-1314, a bill that follows last year’s directive and seeks legislative approval for the re-introduction of the bonytail chub and black-footed ferret. HB00-1314 names these species to be re-introduced, cites the specific recovery plans, contains a time-limiting sunset clause and requires annual reports on the status of recovery efforts and progress toward de-listing. These two programs are both vitally important in the effort of keep the state, not the federal government, in control of endangered species issues. This is a good thing, right?

Many citizens took exception to my successful fight to keep the blackfooted ferret in the bill. In my mind it only makes sense to have the state be at the table and involved with this program, especially given the fact that federal control of the program is guaranteed until the states succeed in rebuilding the population or prove its unsustainability. And, there is little hope that Congress will ever adequately address the Endangered Species Act. So, we are stuck with it and we had better be a partner instead of doing the normal fire drill routine that accompanies new designations like the lynx.

Finally, and importantly, ferrets have received "experimental, nonessential status" (Sec. 10(j) of the ESA), which means that Endangered Species requirements are very relaxed in the experimental population area — Northwest Colorado. This means that if a ferret is accidentally killed in an otherwise legal activity like farming or spraying, it is not a violation of the Act. However, if the federal government takes over the program, THEN the property use limitations may kick in. If Colorado withdraws from the program before it is started, we risk the possibility of losing that "experimental, nonessential" status. That would put the agricultural community in far greater danger of federal regulation without continued state leadership. I don't mind taking the heat, but I honestly thought this was a good idea for Colorado. The bill is on its way to Sen. Dyer's Senate Agriculture committee. Have fun with this one, Jim.

*******

Another interesting bill this week was HB00-1249 "Strengthening the Marriage Relationship" by Rep. Mark Paschall (R-Denver). This bill began as a marriage enabling bill intended to encourage couples to perform premarital agreements after they obtain counseling. On its face, no one would have a problem with it due to its permissiveness. However Rep. Paschall moved a "strike below the enacting clause" amendment on second reading. Amending a bill by "strike below the enacting clause" means you have a completely new bill. Normally, someone other than the sponsor would move a strike below amendment if they wanted to kill or dilute the bill. Only one other time have I seen a member do a strike below on their own bill! This unusual move caught everyone's attention. Rep. Paschall had taken his seemingly noncontroversial bill through committee only to try and slip in very controversial changes on the floor. This marriage-enabling bill became a same-sex marriage ban and threw the House into a flurry of heated debate. Why would Rep. Paschall want to completely change his bill after it was approved in committee? The obvious answer is that he knew the bill, as it was amended on the floor, would probably have died in committee so he chose to perform a procedural move to keep it alive. And it worked. The bill is now in the Senate. I was a no vote.

A valuable lesson was learned on this bill. Some members in opposition to the Paschall same-sex marriage ban protested that the bill was unneeded because of the constitutional definition of a marriage being between "a man and a woman." This was incorrect. When I attempted to validate this statement I found that the only reference regarding gender and marriage was C.R.S. 14-2-104. It reads, "Formalities. A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized, and registered as provided in this part 1 is valid in this state."

This is a statutory provision, not constitutional. Some members voted based on the assumption that this bill was constitutionally unneeded. Others wanted to assure that this state was not forced into abiding by another state’s laws which may be contrary to the above statute. And others thought this bill too restrictive of individual freedoms. This very complicated discussion must also consider the U.S. Constitution full faith and credit laws and another Colorado statute (C.R.S. 14-2-112) that requires this state to recognize marriage contracts of other states. The lesson: just because something is proclaimed as fact on the floor of the House of Representatives does not guarantee its accuracy.