For generations, hunting has been more than recreation in Colorado. It is part of our heritage, a vital wildlife-management tool and an important source of funding for conservation.
Now Colorado voters have a chance to put that principle into the Colorado Constitution.
Amendment 83, the Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish, will be on the November 2026 ballot.
It would establish a constitutional right of Coloradans to hunt, fish and harvest fish and wildlife. It would also recognize hunting and fishing as the state’s “primary and preferred means” of responsibly managing wildlife populations.
Colorado Hunters are Finally Taking the Fight Directly to the People.
Colorado voters have clearly seen what can happen when wildlife policy becomes a political campaign rather than a matter left primarily to hunters, anglers and professional wildlife managers.
In 2020, voters approved Proposition 114, requiring the state to reintroduce gray wolves.
Then, in 2024, Proposition 127 sought to prohibit the hunting of mountain lions, lynx and bobcats. Colorado voters rejected it, but the proposal demonstrated how quickly a statewide political campaign can put hunting opportunities on the ballot and attempt to advance anti-hunting initiatives.
Amendment 83 is a response to that reality.
Rather than waiting for the next ballot initiative, legislative proposal or regulatory campaign aimed at restricting hunting, supporters are asking voters to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish.
And Colorado isn’t breaking new ground.
Across the nation, twenty-four states already have constitutional protections for hunting and fishing.
What Would Amendment 83 Do?
The amendment would establish a constitutional right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife while preserving the authority of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission and the General Assembly to regulate those activities.
That distinction is critical.
Under the amendment, regulations could still be adopted when they are reasonable and necessary for scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities.
In other words, the amendment does not say, “Anything goes.” Reasonable wildlife management remains protected. What changes is the government’s ability to simply eliminate the right itself.
Look at the Record
If you want to understand why constitutional protection is necessary, don’t take my word for it, just look at the record.
Under Gov. Jared Polis, Colorado has expanded government authority to regulate firearms.
In 2021, Polis signed SB21-256, allowing local governments to enact laws governing or prohibiting the sale, purchase, transfer or possession of firearms, ammunition and firearm components and accessories. The law also authorized local governments to prohibit concealed handgun carry in specified buildings or areas.
In 2025, Polis signed SB25-003, imposing a new prohibition, beginning August 1, 2026, on the manufacture, sale, transfer and purchase of specified semiautomatic firearms, subject to numerous exceptions.
These aren’t campaign promises.
They are laws.
And while Proposition 114 and Proposition 127 were citizen initiatives—not actions personally initiated by Polis—they demonstrate something equally important: Colorado hunting rights can be targeted directly through the ballot box.
Polis’s record on firearms should also send a clear warning to Colorado hunters. There is no guarantee the next governor, the next legislature or the next CPW Commission will be more protective of hunting and gun owners’ rights.
That is precisely why relying on the goodwill of future politicians is not enough.
Constitutions provide protection from changing political winds.
That is exactly why Amendment 83 matters.
There are no Substantive Arguments Against It
Opponents argue that hunting and fishing are already legal and therefore don’t need constitutional protection. But that argument misses the point.
The fact that something is legal today does not guarantee that it will remain legal tomorrow.
Opponents also argue that constitutional language could make wildlife management more difficult. But Amendment 83 expressly preserves government authority to regulate hunting and fishing for legitimate purposes involving scientific conservation, public safety and preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities.
The amendment does not take wildlife management away from professionals. It puts a constitutional guardrail around the right to hunt and fish.
Where Is This Going?
If voters approve Amendment 83 in November, hunting and fishing will become constitutionally protected rights in Colorado.
That could fundamentally change the future of hunting in this state.
Future efforts to eliminate or severely restrict hunting could no longer be treated simply as ordinary changes to hunting regulations. They would have to be considered in light of a constitutional right.
And that is precisely the point.
The Bottom Line
Colorado hunters have learned an important lesson:
We cannot blindly trust future politicians, governors, legislators or regulators to protect our hunting heritage.
We have already seen statewide ballot measures attempt to change how Colorado manages wildlife. We have already seen the state enact increasingly restrictive firearm laws. And under Gov. Polis, we have seen government authority over firearms expanded.
The answer isn’t to hope the next governor will be better. The answer is to change the rules.
Hunters and anglers have paid for conservation. We have participated in wildlife management. We have helped build and maintain Colorado’s world-class wildlife populations.
We deserve a constitutional right to hunt and fish.
So, Colorado hunters, don’t sit this one out.
Get out and vote YES on Amendment 83.
Do it for yourself. Do it for your children. Do it for the generations of Colorado hunters who will come after us—and help set a precedent for other states to follow.
