09/09/2026
The Case for Amendment 83: Why Colorado Needs a Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish
In a state like Colorado, where the silhouette of a fly fisherman or the orange vest of a hunter is as much a part of the landscape as the jagged peaks of the Rockies, it seems almost absurd to ask if these activities should be legally protected. They are the bedrock of our heritage and the primary engine of our conservation efforts.
Yet, as we look toward the November 2026 ballot, a fundamental question has emerged: Should the pursuits that define Colorado’s identity be left to the whims of shifting political majorities, or do they deserve the stability of the state constitution?
Amendment 83 is a necessary shield for scientific management. Critics charge that this measure is a solution in search of a problem, but that view ignores a documented, aggressive pattern of legislative and ballot-driven threats designed to dismantle Colorado’s outdoor legacy one piece at a time.
The Reality of Constant Threats: Protecting Rights Before They Are Lost
The argument that hunting and fishing are "not under threat" is a fantasy that the data flatly contradicts. In the last three decades, Colorado has endured three major wildlife-driven ballot fights: the 1996 trapping ban, the 2020 wolf reintroduction, and 2024’s Prop 127, which sought to ban mountain lion hunting. While Prop 127 failed, it still garnered 44.5% of the vote, representing approximately 1.38 million Coloradans.
This is a demonstrated pattern of well-funded, organized efforts to curtail management tools. Critics often point to "out-of-state money" driving this amendment, yet they ignore that every major wildlife measure in the last decade has seen national funding on both sides. The difference here is the grassroots support: over 180,000 Coloradans signed their names to put Amendment 83 on the ballot.
Rights must be protected before they are lost, not after the damage is done.
Furthermore, Colorado is late to the table. Twenty-four other states have already adopted similar constitutional language. In those states, the sky has not fallen; instead, their wildlife management has gained a layer of protection that Colorado currently lacks.
Why a Statute Isn’t Enough: Solving "Constitutional Bloat"
Opponents often argue that if these activities need protection, they should be placed in state statutes rather than "bloating" the constitution. This fundamentally misunderstands the legal hierarchy in Colorado. A statute is a fragile thing; it can be repealed or gutted by a simple legislative session or a 50%-plus-one ballot measure. This low threshold is exactly what makes our wildlife management vulnerable to sudden, emotional political shifts.
Amendment 83 utilizes the constitution for its intended purpose: to place fundamental interests beyond the reach of narrow majorities. Because Colorado requires a 55% consensus to pass a constitutional amendment, the "bloat" argument actually defeats itself. If a measure can secure 55% of the vote, it reflects a broad, statewide consensus that the interest is indeed fundamental enough to merit constitutional status.
Ending "Ballot-Box Biology" by Empowering the Experts
Critics charge the movement with hypocrisy, claiming it uses the ballot box to stop "ballot-box biology." This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of a Bill of Rights.
Amendment 83 does not use the ballot box to set specific species-level policies. It doesn’t set quotas, define seasons, or mandate reintroductions.
Instead, the amendment secures the structural authority of professional managers. It clarifies that Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) remains the lead agency for scientific management. While the phrase "traditional methods" has been labeled as vague by some, the text is designed to be read in harmony with existing law. The experience of 24 other states is reassuring: courts routinely handle broad terms like "reasonable" and "traditional" without stripping away agency authority. By voting on the framework of who makes the rules, rather than the rules themselves, voters are actually ending the era of emotional, species-by-species ballot campaigns.
The Financial Backbone of Conservation
A common misconception is that a constitutional right to hunt and fish elevates "killing" over habitat work. In reality, the legal status of hunting and fishing as the "preferred means" of management is what secures the funding for all other conservation. Under the "North American Model," license fees from hunters and anglers provide 58% of CPW’s entire budget.
This revenue doesn’t just fund game management; it pays for the conservation of non-game species, endangered species recovery, and habitat preservation across the state. The amendment identifies hunting and fishing as the "preferred means" because they are the only tools that simultaneously manage populations and generate the revenue needed to sustain the entire ecosystem.
"Preferred means" is a default within active population management, not a replacement for habitat work or non-game conservation.
The Power of Deterrence
While some call the amendment symbolic, its true value is found in the things that don’t happen. Since the modern wave of right-to-hunt amendments began in 1996, statewide anti-hunting measures have largely ceased in states with these protections.
Campaigns naturally seek the path of least resistance; by raising the requirement for anti-hunting measures from a simple majority to a 55% constitutional threshold, we change the strategic landscape.
Furthermore, this status gives these rights real legal weight. In states like North Carolina and Mississippi, courts have already begun citing constitutional provisions to protect fisheries management from arbitrary interference. Amendment 83 moves Colorado from a "soft target" to a state where wildlife policy is anchored in law.
Amendment 83 is designed to do one vital job: secure the legality of the pursuit.
A Future for Colorado’s Outdoors
The passage of Amendment 83 would represent a move toward long-term stability for Colorado’s natural heritage. It would ensure that the professionals at CPW can do their jobs without the constant threat of their management tools being stripped away by the next high-spend, emotional ballot campaign.
The fundamental choice for voters in 2026 is clear: Should Colorado’s wildlife policy be driven by the outcomes of political advertising, or should it be anchored in the scientific authority protected by the state’s highest law?
