Amendment 83 Explained: What a “Right to Hunt and Fish” Would Mean for Colorado

Hunting and fishing are already legal in the state of Colorado, so why is this new amendment on the ballot? Supporters say it’s to prevent future lawmakers from taking those rights away.

What Does Amendment 83 Do?

According to Blue Book analysis, if passed, Amendment 83 will do two things:

1. Create a right in the Colorado Constitution to hunt and fish certain wildlife.
2. Establish hunting and fishing as the preferred way to manage fish and wildlife populations in the state.

This right would not apply to endangered species, nongame wildlife, or animals protected under federal law. Because this amendment would change the Constitution, it would need 55% of the vote to pass.

What Your Vote Means:

• Yes: Colorado’s constitution would include a right to hunt and fish.
• No: Hunting and fishing continue as allowed under existing state and federal law.  

How is Wildlife Managed Today?

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) manages fish and wildlife. It administers hunting and fishing rules adopted by the CPW Commission, a citizen board appointed by the Governor (Blue Book). Those rules set where and when people can hunt and fish, license requirements, allowed methods and equipment, and harvest limits. They’re generally guided by population data, habitat and species plans, and recreation needs.

CPW isn’t the only voice, though. The legislature can pass wildlife laws, and Colorado voters have shaped wildlife policy directly at the ballot box.

Hunters and anglers also fund much of this system. License sales bring in about $115 million a year, roughly one-third of CPW’s revenue (Blue Book).

What Would Change?

If Amendment 83 passes, CPW would still manage wildlife day to day. What changes is the legal framework it, lawmakers, and voters work within.

What Stays:

• No immediate rule changes. The Blue Book says existing laws and regulations stay in place, and hunting and fishing continue under current state and federal rules (Blue Book).
• CPW can still regulate. The amendment allows regulation when needed for sound scientific reasons, public safety, or preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities. Licenses, seasons, and bag limits continue.
• Exclusions remain. Endangered, nongame, and federally protected species aren’t covered, and private-property trespassing laws don’t change.

What Changes:

1. Hunting shifts from privilege to right. Today, hunting exists because the law allows it. Under Amendment 83, new rules would need to fit within the amendment’s reasons: science, safety, or conserving future opportunity.
2. A management preference goes into the Constitution. Hunting and fishing would become the preferred way to manage wildlife populations. CPW would still choose its tools, but non-hunting approaches could face more scrutiny.
3. Courts get a bigger role. The Blue Book notes the new right may affect how the legislature and CPW Commission make policy, and could lead to changes depending on how courts interpret its language. Someone could sue arguing a rule restricts the right without enough justification.
4. The bar for future limits rises. A constitutional right outranks ordinary laws, including citizen-initiated statutes like Proposition 127. A future measure restricting hunting would have to work within the right, or voters would need to amend the constitution again.

The Case for Amendment 83:

Supporters see the amendment as long-term protection for a Colorado tradition.

• Lasting protection. The official argument in favor says it guards against future attempts to restrict or eliminate hunting and fishing, and that Colorado should join the 24 other states with similar constitutional protections (Blue Book).
• Heritage and economy. Supporters point to hunting and fishing as part of Colorado’s identity and its tourism and recreation economy, with license fees funding conservation statewide.
• Science over “ballot-box biology.” Backers argue that wildlife ballot measures have been used to override CPW’s experts, citing the wolf reintroduction and the 2024 mountain lion measure (Colorado Politics guest column; Eastmans’).
• Not a free-for-all. Supporters say the amendment won’t override federal law, overturn current trapping laws, allow trespassing, bring back spring bear hunting, or eliminate licenses, seasons, or bag limits (guest column). The campaign’s chair has also said it won’t revive previously banned bear-hunting practices (WFMD).

The Case Against 83:

Opponents argue the amendment is unnecessary and could make wildlife management more rigid.

• It’s already legal. The official argument against says the Constitution should protect fundamental rights, not recreational activities, and that Colorado is already a leader in wildlife conservation (Blue Book).
• It favors one tool. Opponents say it elevates hunting above other management methods and may limit the ability to put guardrails on hunting, fishing, and trapping (Blue Book).
• Vague words, decided by courts. Critics stress that terms like “traditional methods” and “preferred” are undefined, so judges rather than voters or wildlife scientists would decide what they mean. 
• Harder for voters to act. Animal welfare groups argue the amendment could create new grounds to challenge voter-approved restrictions and make future citizen initiatives much harder (Humane World for Animals).
• A statute would have been enough. Sierra Club Colorado argues that if the goal was reinforcing science-based management, backers could have sought a law through the legislature, which could be debated and adjusted if problems came up.

Whatever you decide on Amendment 83, read the official Blue Book analysis and hear from both sides before you fill in your ballot.