Colorado voters will decide next year whether hunting and fishing should be written into the state constitution as protected rights, rather than simply allowed under current law.
Amendment 83 is set for the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot. It needs at least 55% approval to pass. If it does, Colorado would join 24 other states that already have constitutional protections for hunting and fishing.
Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado, which raises an obvious question: why amend the constitution at all? Luke Hilgemann, CEO of the International Order of T. Roosevelt and chairman of the campaign backing the amendment, says the difference matters because ordinary laws are easier to change than the constitution.
“Well, it’s legal, but that doesn’t mean that it’s forever protected, right? I mean, the biggest thing that the Constitution does is it gives it a higher power than just a statute.”
Hilgemann said the effort in Colorado is part of a broader national push by his organization to lock in hunting and fishing traditions against what he described as growing pressure from opponents of those activities.
“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, and came upon the constitutional right to hunt and fish as a way to slam the door against some of these radical policies that we’re seeing take hold in states across the country.”
What the amendment would and wouldn’t do
Passing Amendment 83 would not give hunters and anglers a free pass to ignore existing rules. Hunting seasons, bag limits, licensing requirements and other regulations would stay in place, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife would continue managing wildlife and enforcing those rules.
“Seasons stay, regulations stay. We want responsible management through science.”
The amendment also would not open the door to hunting endangered species or wildlife already off-limits, and it would not permit hunters to trespass on private property.
Hilgemann also pushed back on concerns that the measure could revive hunting or trapping practices Colorado has already banned, including certain forms of bear hunting.
“That’s not going to happen as a result of our amendment. It doesn’t go backwards. It doesn’t bring those things back.”
Colorado’s official ballot analysis notes the amendment would not immediately alter existing hunting and fishing regulations, though it could influence how future laws and regulations are written, depending on how courts interpret the new constitutional right.
The opposition’s case
Critics argue the amendment is unnecessary since hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado. They also worry its language could invite lawsuits or make future changes to wildlife regulations harder to enact.
Hilgemann pointed to a legislative proposal in a recent Colorado session that would have swapped the word “shall” for “may” in a state law describing hunting and fishing as wildlife-management tools — a change he says shows how existing statutes can be quietly weakened over time.
“There was a proposal that would have changed that word ‘shall’ to ‘may,’ which would have made it an option, right?”
A history of ballot-box wildlife decisions
Colorado voters have shaped wildlife policy directly before. In 2020, they approved a measure requiring the state to reintroduce gray wolves. In 2024, they rejected a proposal that would have banned hunting mountain lions, bobcats and lynx.
Hilgemann said his organization was already working toward constitutional hunting and fishing protections in 15 other states when a private citizen began the process of getting a measure onto Colorado’s ballot, and the group was then brought in to help draft the amendment’s language.
“We thought, you know, Colorado maybe in two or four years. If we don’t do this now, unfortunately, I don’t think it’s ever going to happen in a state like Colorado.”
The economic argument
Hilgemann cited a study from the Common Sense Institute finding that hunting and fishing generate $6.1 billion in annual economic impact and support 25,000 jobs in Colorado. He also noted that revenue from hunting and fishing helps fund conservation and habitat restoration that benefits people who never hunt or fish.
“If we don’t have hunting and fishing in a state like Colorado, someone needs to step up and pay for the conservation that happens.”
Hilgemann also pointed to Oregon’s Initiative Petition 28, which would have stripped exceptions from the state’s animal-abuse laws, potentially criminalizing hunting, fishing, pest control and raising livestock for food. It failed to gather enough signatures for Oregon’s November ballot, but Hilgemann expects supporters to try again.
“They are playing the long game.”
For Hilgemann, the goal is durability, regardless of which party controls state government.
“That’s why the constitutional right is so important. 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.”
