Colorado voters will decide in November whether to enshrine a right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife in the state constitution and establish those activities as the preferred means of managing wildlife populations.
Amendment 83 was brought by a conservative law firm in Colorado but has been largely funded by the International Order of T. Roosevelt, a hunting advocacy group based in Marshfield, Wisconsin. It comes amid growing debate about who should have influence over decisions the state makes when managing Colorado wildlife.
Here’s what Amendment 83 would do, who is behind it and who is fighting the initiative.
What Amendment 83 would do
Amendment 83 is intended to prevent the legislature or future ballot measures from restricting hunting and fishing in Colorado
Proponents say “hunting and fishing are part of Colorado’s heritage and cultural identity and are important to its tourism and recreation economy,” according to the state’s official, nonpartisan Ballot Information Booklet, known as the “blue book.”
Money from hunting and fishing licenses benefits habitat and wildlife management efforts across the state. One-third of CPW’s current annual revenue, about $115 million, comes from license sales, the blue book said.
The Common Sense Institute, a nonpartisan conservative-leaning policy research organization that examines the fiscal impacts of policies, initiatives, and proposed laws in Colorado, reports Colorado Parks and Wildlife received 68% of its annual wildlife revenue from licenses, passes, fees and permits in fiscal year 2024-25, while Great Outdoors Colorado, funded by lottery ticket sales, generated 5%. Federal grants contributed 17% and all other sources of revenue added 10%.
A separate ballot measure — Proposition 137 — will ask voters if the state should divert $175 million to $180 million a year in already collected sales taxes on sporting goods equipment toward conservation, wildfire mitigation, watershed restoration and improved outdoor recreation opportunities.
While state law already gives hunting, trapping and fishing an important role in wildlife management, proponents argue hunting and fishing protections can be eroded through the legislative process. If it’s written into the state constitution, it cannot.
An example of the former scenario was House Bill 1258, introduced during the 2025 regular session, which sought to modify Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission statutory authority to manage wildlife through methods other than hunting, trapping and fishing by changing wording in the statute from the state “shall utilize” those methods to it “may authorize” the use of those methods, opening the possiblity for the state to use other methods to manage wildlife, which hunters and anglers believe could jeopardize their hunting opportunities.
The bill, strongly opposed by hunting groups, failed to pass. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers said it provided “a clear example of the difference between statutory and constitutional protections” that could weaken the way hunters believe wildlife should be managed.
In 2024, Proposition 127 unsuccessfully sought to ban the hunting and trapping of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx for fur.
Amendment 83 aims to safeguard the state’s existing method of wildlife management by identifying hunting and fishing as the preferred means in the state constitution and by preserving the authority of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission and the General Assembly to use hunting, trapping and fishing for wildlife management “when regulation is reasonable and necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety or the future of hunting and fishing opportunities.”
As of July 2026, 24 states have adopted the right to hunt and fish amendments since 1996.
Who is behind Amendment 83 and why
A conservative law firm filed Amendment 83.
The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, a conservative nonprofit dedicated to hunting, is funding the campaign to pass the measure, having spent $1.5 million in support of the initiative through cash contributions. Farrell-Roeh, a family-owned private investment company based in Denver, gave $150,000. Other major donors include Weld County developer and trophy hunter Jeff Damaske and Safari Club International, which sued two CPW commissioners in 2025 over an opinion piece published in The Durango Herald that supported Proposition 127.
Supporters of Amendment 83 argue the right to hunt and fish should not depend on statutes, future legislatures, ballot initiatives or changing commission philosophies. They cite as cautionary tales recent debates among the CPW commission over trapping and furbearer bag limits that illustrate how wildlife-management policy is vulnerable to change.
Hunters have accused Gov. Jared Polis of stacking the CPW commission with wildlife advocates who oppose hunting as a form of wildlife management. In July, the commission voted 6-5 to reduce the number of furbearing animals a trapper could kill in one day from 17 per person per species to two per person per species.
Chris Dorsey, a media executive, longtime host of hunting television programs and Legends of the Outdoors hall-of-famer, wrote an opinion piece in the Craig Daily Press that said Amendment 83 would not change methods CPW already uses to manage wildlife including bag limits, hunting seasons and method-of-take regulations (how animals are hunted), but that it would only “make more difficult eliminating hunting itself through emotional campaigns aimed at voters who may know little about wildlife management but are understandably fond of bear cubs.”
Who is opposing Amendment 83 and why
Opponents, including wildlife advocates, say the state’s animals are an asset that must be managed for everyone, not just for fee-and permit-paying hunters and anglers.
An issue committee called Protect Colorado’s Constitution formed mid-year to oppose Amendment 83.
The group’s to-date contributions are $6,171.
Protect Colorado’s Constitution is one of at least three issue committees and 11 organizations battling Amendment 83. The other committees are Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation and Stop the Constitutional Power Grab. Organizations include The Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, Science for Colorado Wildlife, Western Watersheds Project and Wildlife for All.
Opponents of Amendment 83 say it explicitly protects “traditional methods” of hunting, without defining what “traditional methods” means.
Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation called the ballot measure’s language “intentionally vague” and “crafted to overturn the will of Colorado voters who banned some cruel practices decades ago.” These included the use of steel-jawed leghold traps, wildlife killing contests and hunting bears through baiting, with hounds or in the spring when cubs are vulnerable to the loss of their mother.
Jay Tutchton, a retired law professor at University of Denver and chair of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, speaking on behalf of himself, said that vagueness is rife for litigation that could end in less protection for wildlife.
“That term is going to have to be explained by a judge at some point, and tradition is based on a point in time,” he said. “Like, what was traditional 100 years ago would now be objectionable today. One of the groups that supports 83 is called the International Order of T. Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt himself, and the Boone and Crockett Club, which he helped found, thought that scopes on rifles were unethical.”
Tutchton also said making hunting a constitutional right would open wildlife management decisions up to lengthy litigation, which could tie CPW’s hands and limit the agency from acting during a wildlife crisis. He used the case of extreme winter conditions in 2023 that killed off large numbers of elk and antelope in Northwestern Colorado. CPW reduced hunting licenses to help herds rebound.
Under Amendment 83, “a reactive decision could now be litigated and while it was being litigated we wouldn’t be able to react in a timely manner,” he said.
How Amendment 83 appears on the ballot
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution creating a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife by traditional methods, including all species of fish and wildlife managed by the state except non-game species, endangered species, or any species that is illegal to hunt under federal law, and, in connection therewith, establishing hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations; and preserving the right of the state to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management if necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing opportunities for all species?
Read the nonpartisan state ballot guide analysis of the measure here.
This story previously appeared on The Colorado Sun.
Copyright 2026 High Plains Public Radio.
