Wild animals do not have a vote. That’s where they are on the ballot, anyway.

When millions of voters fill out their ballots this November, they will be electing more than just elected representatives. Many states also offer opportunities to influence conservation and wildlife through ballot measures focusing on things like investing more money in habitat protection or mitigating the effects of climate change. One might even reshape wildlife management in one of the most picturesque mountain states in the country and lead to the wanton deaths of all kinds of wildlife.

While ballot measures may seem like minor players in the grand scheme of electoral politics, they could have a huge impact this year. The Trump administration has been systematically scaling back protections for endangered species, cracking down on longstanding pillars of climate regulation and cutting funding for agencies like the National Park Service and National Forest Service, which oversee vast swaths of wildlife habitat. In many cases, countries must step up efforts and devote more resources to protecting habitats and species within their borders, and ballot measures can help shape those decisions.

Here are seven ballot measures this election that could change the national ecosystem:

The ballot measure would shorten the environmental review period for “essential projects” such as housing, water systems, clean energy and medical facilities. In a state that has struggled to build needed facilities fast enough, this could help speed up important clean energy projects that could help slow climate change. On the other hand, shortening the review period for the California Environmental Quality Act, as this proposal would do, could also lead to increased habitat destruction, leading to opposition from advocacy groups like the Sierra Club.

This amendment may seem sloppy and is primarily for the benefit of farmers and ranchers seeking tax relief. But the amount of tax credits available would double (from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres) if an owner conserves the land under the state’s conservation assessment program. As Yanshu Li, associate professor of forest economics at the University of Georgia, told me, the amendment could incentivize landowners to set aside larger areas for wildlife habitat protection, which would benefit species like the nine-banded armadillo and northern short white quail that call these habitats home.

Question 6 would create a “Nature for All Fund” to divert existing tax dollars spent on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses into nature conservation. The fund can then be used for natural resource conservation, marking the first time the state has provided a dedicated funding source for conservation projects.

The proposal, similar to one in Massachusetts, would shift existing sales taxes on sporting goods into a state fund dedicated to wildfire protection and prevention. Wildfires have burned more than 2 million acres in the state over the past decade, and dozens of conservation groups are supporting the measure to protect habitats and species.

Here, voters are being asked to approve up to $500 million in bonds that can be used to fund water-related infrastructure projects such as water treatment, waste management and wetlands infrastructure. Wetland creation under the Arkansas proposal could help animals living in these habitats, which are often overlooked in the region.

The measure would allow $55 million in bonds to be issued to fund environmental and recreation projects. The largest portion of the change — $25 million — will be used to help protect the state from the impacts of climate change. Another $7 will be earmarked for protecting Narragansett Bay and its watershed, including funds to “restorate natural habitats and control invasive aquatic plants,” the Rhode Island Current reported.

So far, these ballot measures have been relatively simple, but this fall voters face an issue that puts wildlife front and center and divides the moral center lines of hunters and anglers. Which brings us back to Colorado:

On the surface, this amendment seems fairly innocuous. It asks voters to enshrine “the right to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife by traditional methods” into the state’s constitution. Hunting and fishing are already popular in Colorado and protected by law, so this may not seem like a major change. But as Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commissioner Rebecca Niemiec, co-director of the Center for Animal and Human Policy at Colorado State University, told me personally, Neither the text of the bill nor its backers define what “traditional methods” of hunting and fishing are allowed under the amendment.

“In simple terms, traditional methods can be explained as including practices such as poisoning, leg traps, gillnets or baiting and hunting,” Niemick said. Many of these practices harm or maim animals, including non-target animals: steel-jaw traps and poisons will not differentiate between deer, wolves and lynx. All of these practices have been outlawed in Colorado over the years through other ballot measures or regulatory changes; for example, in 1992 Coloradans voted to ban the use of bait and hounds for bear hunting, and four years later they banned the use of leg traps and snares.

The new amendment also goes on to propose: “Establishing hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations.” This would leave much less room for wildlife agencies like CPW to make nuanced decisions or introduce alternative programs such as sterilization or animal relocation. It also reduces their ability to consider the preferences of people who value wildlife for reasons other than hunting.

“Biological science can inform decisions about how many animals can be killed without threatening the population,” Niemick said. “But it can’t tell us what hunting practices are ethical, or how to balance hunting opportunities with the public’s desire to see wild animals alive and free from unnecessary suffering.”

Nimick told me that the push for these constitutional protections is part of a larger pushback against conservation groups. But in this case, it’s not as simple as hunters versus non-hunters: Many hunters and anglers support considering ethical considerations when deciding how to manage wildlife, and some hunting groups in Colorado have spoken out against the amendment.

“If we were to put anything in the Constitution, it would be that we should balance the diversity of public interests in wildlife in all management decisions,” Niemick said. “If we are to address the complex challenges facing wildlife moving forward in the state and across the country, we need innovative approaches, not traditional ones.”