Colorado voters will decide this November whether to add a constitutional right to hunt and fish to the state constitution through Amendment 83. The measure, if passed, would designate hunting and fishing as the preferred means for managing wildlife populations across the state. This decision carries implications for Grand Valley residents who participate in these activities, those involved in related industries, and anyone interested in how Colorado's wildlife and public lands are managed.
Supporters of Amendment 83 argue that adding this protection to the state constitution would safeguard Colorado’s hunting and fishing industry from future political or legal challenges. The "Vote Yes on 83" campaign has raised approximately $1.8 million as of September 21, with major funding coming from organizations affiliated with the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. These groups contend that constitutional protections are necessary to preserve Colorado’s outdoor heritage, which they consider part of the state's cultural identity. They also highlight the economic benefits, noting that revenue from hunting and fishing licenses contributes significantly to habitat and wildlife management efforts statewide. About one-third of Colorado Parks and Wildlife's (CPW) current annual revenue, roughly $115 million, comes from these license sales. Proponents also point out that Colorado would join 24 other states that already protect the right to hunt and fish in their state constitutions.
Conversely, opponents of the measure contend that hunting and fishing are already legal activities under existing state and federal law and do not require constitutional protection. They argue that enshrining a right to hunt and fish in the constitution is unnecessary and could promote one method of managing wildlife over others, potentially restricting the ability to place "guardrails" on these activities. Critics also express concern that the measure's undefined, vague language could lead to costly legal challenges and undermine reasonable regulations that voters, state lawmakers, and CPW have already established. Opponents maintain that the state constitution should protect fundamental rights, not recreational activities, and that Colorado is already a leader in wildlife conservation and management.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife currently regulates hunting and fishing through various mechanisms, including licensing requirements, harvest limits, and approved methods. These regulations are based on wildlife population data and conservation goals. Amendment 83 would not alter several key aspects of current wildlife management. Specifically, it would not apply to endangered species, nongame wildlife, or animals protected under federal law. It also would not affect private-property trespassing laws. State agencies, including CPW, would retain their authority to regulate hunting, fishing, and overall wildlife management for conservation purposes, public safety, and the preservation of future hunting and fishing opportunities.
The debate over Amendment 83 is part of a larger conversation among Colorado voters, who will consider 14 ballot measures this November, including those related to fentanyl sentencing, tax overhauls, and transgender issues. The significant campaign spending and varied viewpoints, including opposition from some Colorado hunters, underscore the diverse opinions surrounding the proposed constitutional change and its potential impact on the state's outdoor traditions and natural resources.
