Colorado Voters to Decide on Constitutional Protection for Hunting and Fishing

Colorado voters will consider Amendment 83 on November 3, 2026, a ballot measure that would grant constitutional protection to hunting and fishing within the state. Proponents argue this measure is necessary to safeguard these activities from potential future legislative restrictions, ensuring their preservation for generations to come.

Luke Hilgemann, CEO of the International Order of T. Roosevelt (IOTR) and chairman of the campaign supporting Amendment 83, explained that while hunting and fishing are currently legal in Colorado, their status is subject to change by lawmakers. "The biggest thing that the Constitution does is it gives it a higher power than just a statute," Hilgemann stated in an interview. A constitutional amendment requires a more significant process to alter compared to a statute.

If passed, Amendment 83 would establish hunting and fishing as constitutionally protected rights and designate them as the preferred methods for responsible wildlife management. The measure requires at least 55% of the vote to be approved. Should it pass, Colorado would join 24 other states that already provide similar constitutional protections for these activities.

The campaign supporting Amendment 83 is part of a broader national effort by IOTR to defend hunting and fishing traditions. "We worked together on a strategy to say how can we push back against the hunting and fishing and the conservation attacks that we've seen across the country," Hilgemann said, referring to the constitutional right to hunt and fish as a means to counter what he described as "radical policies."

Amendment 83 would not grant unlimited freedom to hunters and anglers. Existing regulations, including hunting seasons, bag limits, and licensing requirements, would remain in effect. Colorado Parks and Wildlife would continue to manage wildlife and enforce rules for public safety and the sustainability of future hunting and fishing opportunities. The amendment would not permit hunting of endangered species or trespassing on private property.

Concerns that the amendment could reinstate previously banned hunting practices, such as certain forms of bear hunting and trapping, have been addressed by proponents. Hilgemann asserted that the amendment would not reverse existing protections or reintroduce such methods. The official ballot analysis notes that while the amendment would not immediately change current regulations, it could influence future laws and judicial interpretations of these rights.

Opponents of the measure argue that constitutional protection is unnecessary as hunting and fishing are already legal. They also express concerns that the amendment's language could lead to litigation or complicate future wildlife regulation changes.

Colorado has recently seen significant public engagement in wildlife policy debates. In 2020, voters approved the reintroduction of gray wolves, and in 2024, they rejected a proposal to ban mountain lion, bobcat, and lynx hunting. These votes highlight the direct influence of citizens on wildlife management decisions.

IOTR was already engaged in establishing constitutional protections in 15 other states when a private citizen initiated the process for Amendment 83 in Colorado. Hilgemann believes the current timing is critical due to the state's changing demographics and attitudes towards outdoor recreation. "If we don't do this now, unfortunately, I don't think it's ever going to happen in a state like Colorado," he said.

The economic impact of hunting and fishing in Colorado is substantial, with a study from the Common Sense Institute indicating an annual economic contribution of $6.1 billion and the support of 25,000 jobs. Revenue from these activities also funds wildlife conservation and habitat restoration efforts that benefit the broader public.

Nationwide, IOTR is working on similar constitutional protections in other states. Hilgemann cited Oregon's Initiative Petition 28, which sought to amend animal-abuse laws and would have criminalized activities like hunting and fishing, as an example of the challenges faced by these traditions. Although the Oregon initiative failed to qualify for the ballot, proponents are expected to make future attempts.

"That's why the constitutional right is so important," Hilgemann concluded. "It gives it that extra layer of protection to make sure that when the political winds change, because they always do, that hunting and fishing in our outdoor heritage and tradition will be carried on, regardless if it's a Republican, Democrat, or Independent sitting in those offices that make these decisions."