Let’s be clear: Colorado hunters will still be able to hunt deer if Amendment 83 fails.

At its simplest, passing Amendment 83 (formerly known as Initiative 302) would establish in the Colorado Constitution a constitutional right to hunt and fish. However, there would be exceptions including that there would not be rights to hunt or fish endangered species, “non-game” species, or federally protected species.

Amendment 83 is a Constitutional amendment, and it would require 55% of the vote (plus one) or more to pass.

This ballot measure language is short enough to post in full below:

SECTION 1. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, add Section 13 to article XVIII as
follows:

Section 13. Right to fish and hunt.

(1) THERE IS ESTABLISHED A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO TO HUNT, FISH, AND TAKE FISH AND WILDLIFE. THE RIGHT INCLUDES HUNTING, FISHING, AND HARVESTING FISH AND WILDLIFE BY THE USE OF TRADITIONAL METHODS. THE RIGHT APPLIES TO ALL SPECIES OF FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGED BY THE STATE EXCEPT NONGAME SPECIES, ENDANGERED SPECIES, OR ANY SPECIES THAT IS ILLEGAL TO HUNT UNDER FEDERAL LAW.
(2) THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF COLORADO IS THAT HUNTING AND FISHING ARE THE PREFERRED MEANS OF RESPONSIBLY MANAGING FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS.
(3) THIS SECTION IS NOT INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE TRESPASS UPON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR TO
MODIFY ANY PROVISION OF STATUTES RELATING TO TRESPASS OR PROPERTY RIGHTS.
(4) THIS SECTION DOES NOT LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF COLORADO OR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO REGULATE HUNTING, FISHING, AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IF THE LAW IS NECESSARY FOR SOUND SCIENTIFIC WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC SAFETY, OR TO PRESERVE THE FUTURE OF HUNTING AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL SPECIES STATEWIDE.

Readers should note that this initiative did not come with a list of definitions. Critics of 83 have noted that phrases like “traditional methods,” “preferred means,” or “sound scientific” methods could be open to interpretation, and there will be more about this below. Voters should know that once something is in the Constitution, it can only be changed by another vote of the people or the courts.

Exceptions to the Right to Hunt and Fish

Even if Amendment 83 passes, the language clearly says the right to hunt or fish would not be absolute, and it would keep many existing prohibitions in place. First, it would allow prohibitions on hunting endangered species. Secondly, it would not authorize hunting of federally protected species. And third, it would not authorize hunting of “nongame species,” for example specified lizards, snakes, rodents, or birds of prey. Interested readers can find a listing of these species from Colorado codes at this link: https://cpw.state.co.us/sites/default/files/dam/dzzsx8ge4u/chw10-as-approved.pdf

The Colorado General Assembly can pass laws regulating hunting or fishing, but much of the responsibility for hunting and fishing lies with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). If Amendment 83 passes, neither the General Assembly nor CPW would be legally prevented from regulating hunting and fishing, but the initiative’s language says the regulations would have to be necessary for “sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing opportunities for all species statewide.”

Amendment 83 does not include definitions about how the state would determine what constitutes “sound” scientific evidence, public safety, or preservation of the future of hunting and fishing.

A Little Colorado History on Why Amendment 83

It could be said that there are reasons to propose Amendment 83 that stem from State of Colorado events, but there is also a nationwide angle to this issue that will be covered two sections later.

In recent years, Colorado and local voters have seen several ballot measures regarding wildlife issues. In 2020, Colorado voters narrowly passed Proposition 114, which required grey wolf reintroduction in Colorado. In 2024, Proposition 127 would have banned recreational hunting of mountain lions and bobcats in Colorado, but it was defeated by about 9.5 percentage points. Several cities have also seen measures that would have banned or created limited bans on fur sales – Boulder narrowly passed its Question 301 in 2021, while a Denver measure was defeated in 2024.

Opponents of the state ballot measures maintained that predominantly Front Range voters had the sheer numbers to potentially pass binding laws that might disproportionately affect rural residents and rural economies. To keep this section short, grey wolves have killed and eaten livestock that ranchers and ranching communities depend on for their livelihoods, and payments to ranchers for lost livestock are currently exceeding cost estimates from when 114 was passed. Hunting mountain lions or bobcats primarily for fur is also to some extent part of rural lifestyles and rural economies. Statistically, only 6 of Colorado’s 64 counties provided majority votes in favor of Prop 127, and 4 of those 6 were Front Range counties while the 2 rural counties had very small voter turnout.

Also, it could be said that the state legislature (Colorado General Assembly) is dominated by Front Range legislators. In 2022, the legislature introduced SB 22-031, which would have accomplished something very similar to Prop 127, although it did not pass.

In 2025, the legislature introduced a bill (HB 25-1258), which would have amended Colorado law that currently says “The state shall utilize hunting, trapping, and fishing as the primary methods of effecting necessary wildlife harvests,” which is similar to what section (2) in the Amendment 83 text seeks to enshrine in the Constitution. The 2025 bill also did not pass, but it would have amended existing law to say the state may authorize hunting in “accordance with the best available wildlife and ecological science to benefit wildlife, whole ecosystem health, and all Coloradans.”

The organization Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management is among organizations supporting Initiative 302, and perhaps this statement from its website explains that prior initiatives and bills are at least part of its reason why:

“CRWM is proud to lead the campaign to amend the Colorado State Constitution to permanently protect the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife in Colorado — before the next attack comes.”

A Little Colorado History on Why Citizen Initiatives

State of Colorado residents have the right to initiative and referendum, which means citizens can propose ballot measures on a very wide range of topics at the state and local level. It means that “the people” can propose laws or amendments that the state legislature might not consider or couldn’t pass. However, it is possible for citizen initiatives to be defeated at the ballot box or stricken down in the courts.

Proposition 114 proponents believed they had good reasons to propose reintroducing grey wolves. For the short list, they maintained that grey wolves had lived in Colorado for a long time until they were hunted out of existence. They said wolf populations would help maintain balance in Colorado ecosystems, for example by reducing the deer and elk populations that forage and potentially cause damage to riparian habitat.

Proposition 127 proponents maintained that mountain lion predator populations help manage chronic wasting disease in the deer population. They also said hunting mountain lions simply for their fur is cruel and unnecessary, noting that people might only kill their mountain lion with the assistance of professional hunting guides and dog packs.

Amendment 83 might protect General Assembly or CPW actions if they meet criteria in the initiative’s language, but it does not mention the citizen initiative. It does not seem certain to this writer that passing Amendment 83 would prohibit running ballot measures like Prop 127 in the first place, but it does seem as if initiatives having to do with limiting or banning certain types of hunting or fishing could be subject to legal challenges on Constitutional grounds.

Right-to-Hunt Efforts and the Right Wing

The designated representatives for Initiative 302 are former Deputy Secretary of State Suzanne Taheri and Steven Ward, both of whom have been associated at least through legal work with the conservative organization Advance Colorado.

The anti-Amendment 83 website Wildlife For All has posted a piece, linked here, discussing how there are forces attempting to spread right-to-hunt legislation or amendments to not just Colorado, but other U.S. states. Among them is the organization “International Order of T. Roosevelt” (IOTR), named after former President Teddy Roosevelt, who was an avid hunter.

IOTR’s executive director Luke Hilgemann has a passage in his bio saying “One of his key objectives is to establish a state constitutional right to hunt and fish in a majority of the states by 2030.” Hilgemann was also the former CEO of Americans for Prosperity, and has a bio page on American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is known for drafting model legislation, normally from a conservative viewpoint, and encouraging willing legislators or legislative bodies to run the legislation. This is not to say that Amendment 83 language came from ALEC model legislation, but a 2018 news story from North Carolina said a proposed right-to-hunt constitutional amendment there included language that echoed “model legislation maintained by the National Rifle Association,” and went on to say:

“Wording included verbatim from the NRA proposal includes: ‘Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife’; and the two permitted areas of hunting regulation, to ‘promote wildlife conservation and management’ and ‘preserve the future of hunting and fishing.’”

Currently, 24 states have right-to-hunt-and-fish language in their state constitutions, and 20 of those were voter-approved, per National Conference of State Legislature (NCSL). A couple states only protect the right to fish in their constitutions, not to hunt.

Proponents: Three proponent committees are listed on the Secretary of State’s website: A Brighter Colorado, T. Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, and Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better.

Opponents: Three opponent committees are listed on the Secretary of State’s website: Protect Colorado’s Constitution, Stop the Constitutional Power Grab, and Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation.

Amendment 83 Pro:

  • It is possible for Colorado voters to pass wildlife initiatives that might be seen as anti-hunting, and protecting hunting in the Constitution could prevent these initiatives from taking effect.
  • This initiative includes language still allowing the state legislature or Parks and Wildlife to pass bills or rules managing hunting or fishing practices (though with conditions).
  • The initiative does not allow several types of hunting or fishing that are already prohibited in existing state or federal law.

Amendment 83 Con:

  • Putting this measure in the Constitution is too extreme of a move, and it could threaten the possibility of a ballot measure involving hunting and fishing with positive impacts taking effect.
  • Some of the language in the initiative is vague, and opinions over interpretation could lead to court cases.
  • Hunting and fishing is very well established in state statutes, common practices, and even Colorado’s economy. It will continue without amending the Constitution.

Links to More Information:

Richard’s Take

I’ll vote NO on this initiative, and hope readers will join me. First and foremost, I don’t think this measure should be in our Constitution, and I have a few more detailed comments about the text.

Still, I can understand why proponents are running it. Issues including Propositions 114 and 127 brought up concerns – justified or not – that proponents might continue running ballot measures that might negatively impact rural ways of life, with some confidence that they might pass since Front Range voter numbers are bigger than rural numbers.

But putting a measure in the Constitution is not the only way to prevent a ballot measure from taking effect. Opponents of Prop 127 seem to have learned a lesson from Prop 114. They raised money, campaigned, organized and disseminated information, and persuaded enough people to knock down the measure by about 9.5 percentage points. This defeat might have also taken away some confidence that Front Rangers could pass a measure just because of sheer voter numbers. Prop 114 barely passed in the first place, and both the 114 campaign and the aftermath of passing 114 sparked discussions over how the “yes-no” citizen initiative is perhaps not the best way to make somewhat complex decisions about wildlife management.

I don’t expect to ever prove this, but part of me suspects that Amendment 83 has some element of tit-for-tat “if you’re going to keep doing THAT then we’re going to do THIS” idea. But the “THIS” in Amendment 83 – putting it in the Constitution – would be a pretty hardcore action with some predictable and probably not-so predictable consequences.

One is that there might actually at some point be a good reason to run a citizen initiative having to do with types of hunting and fishing. I didn’t support Prop 127 in part because I thought it went too far, but might have been able to support something a little more incremental. It seems as if Amendment 83 could prevent even an incremental citizen initiative involving hunting or fishing from taking effect, or even if it goes forward and passes it could be challenged or stricken down in the courts on Constitutional grounds.

On a technicality, I probably wouldn’t vote in favor of the section in Amendment 83 stating that hunting and fishing are the “preferred means” of managing wildlife populations. Colorado Revised Statute 33-101-1 (4) already says, “The state shall utilize hunting, trapping, and fishing as the primary methods of effecting necessary wildlife harvests,” and that’s good enough for me. I also saw a statement in a Colorado Parks and Wildlife mountain lion management plan back in 2024 that used the word “preferred” when it came to managing mountain lion populations in a certain area, but that usage was quite specific, and I don’t see the need to make it cover all non-prohibited hunting and fishing.

The very last part of the Amendment 83 language also concerns me a bit because it might create new barriers to what might be good laws proposed into the future. It says the state or its agencies could pass laws or rules if they’re based on “sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing opportunities for all species statewide.” Well, who decides if these laws meet those criteria? And even as a person who opposed Prop 127, it actually seems to me like supporters could make the case that 127 was scientifically sound and might preserve some types of hunting opportunities into the future. There were scientific arguments presented on both sides of the 127 issue, so who wins?

So, a few basic questions. How absolute would be the “right to hunt and fish?” Whose sound science will decide what’s kosher for laws of the future? Would we need another Constitutional ballot measure if for some reason another “preferred” method of controlling wildlife populations comes along? And might there be lots of future litigation if Amendment 83 passes? With the state legislative process, it’s possible to pass a bill, and to amend it the next year if there are minor problems. But if something’s in the Constitution, even the tiniest part of the entire measure is lodged there until there’s another vote of the people, so it’s really not my preferred method of dealing with many issues.

I got yelled at a bit for opposing Prop 127 but I still think my rationale was sound, so I want to end with a bit about this issue. Critics of 127 and 114 used the phrase “ballot box biology” in part because a whole bunch of people with no real expertise were making the decision by filling in a little bubble on their ballots. I’m not going to say the following represents erudite and balanced opinions, but I saw people write about concerns that 127 was just a first volley in an attempt to ban hunting in general. And 114 could have given some people an impression that Front Range voters were able to defeat rural voters just on sheer population numbers alone. That’s why I can understand why Amendment 83 is on the ballot.

On the other hand, I feel that Amendment 83 is kind of a “ballot box lock box”, or “fighting ballot box with ballot box,” and I would probably vote “no” on 83 if only because it’s a proposed Constitutional amendment while 114 and 127 were both statutory. Moving forward, let’s have some more inclusive discussions about issues that affect diverse populations and have some nuance, instead of just leaving it up to a situation where the uninformed or underinformed might just have the power of sheer numbers.