> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Amendment 83 - Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish
- URL: https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/amendment-83-constitutional-right-to-hunt-and-fish/
- Published: 2026-09-20T23:44:42.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-20T23:44:42.000Z
- Author: Eric Phelan

# OFFICIAL BALLOT QUESTION

*"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution creating a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife by traditional methods, including all species of fish and wildlife managed by the state except non-game species, endangered species, or any species that is illegal to hunt under federal law, and, in connection therewith, establishing hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations; and preserving the right of the state to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management if necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing opportunities for all species?"*

**Source Colorado Secretary of State certified 2026 ballot list**

# NEUTRAL OVERVIEW

Amendment 83 would add a right of the people of Colorado to hunt, fish, and take fish and wildlife to the state Constitution. The right would include harvesting by traditional methods and would apply to species managed by the state, except nongame species, endangered species, and species that federal law makes illegal to hunt. A YES vote creates that constitutional protection. A NO vote leaves hunting, fishing, and wildlife management governed by existing constitutional rules, statutes, and agency regulations.  
  
The measure would also declare hunting and fishing the state's preferred means of responsibly managing fish and wildlife populations. It would not authorize trespass or change private-property rights. The General Assembly and state agencies could continue regulating hunting, fishing, and wildlife management when a law is necessary for sound scientific conservation and management, public safety, or preservation of future statewide hunting and fishing opportunities.  
  
The amendment does not define traditional methods, preferred means, or the legal showing required to prove that a regulation is necessary. Courts may therefore be asked to decide how strongly the new right limits future rules governing seasons, methods, species, licenses, quotas, and other wildlife-management decisions.

# THE PROPONENT CASE

Supporters frame the measure as protection for an established Colorado liberty and conservation tradition. Hunting and fishing provide recreation and food, support rural outfitters and businesses, and connect families to wildlife and public lands. Proponents also argue that license purchases and sportsmen's participation support habitat work and wildlife-management institutions.  
  
They contend that regulated harvest is a legitimate management tool for maintaining populations, reducing some wildlife conflicts, and meeting herd or fishery objectives. Because ordinary statutes can be changed by a future political majority, supporters believe constitutional status is needed to prevent lawful hunting or fishing from being eliminated for ideological reasons. They emphasize that the text expressly preserves private-property rights, public-safety rules, and regulation necessary for sound scientific conservation.

# THE OPPONENT CASE

Opponents argue that hunting and fishing are already lawful and culturally established, making a constitutional amendment unnecessary. They warn that a constitutional right, combined with the designation of hunting and fishing as the preferred management method, could give those methods priority over habitat protection, relocation, fertility control, or other tools when agencies respond to changing ecological conditions.  
  
They also question how courts will interpret traditional methods and the requirement that regulation be necessary. Challenges could involve seasons, quotas, equipment, species classifications, disease control, public-land closures, or restrictions intended to protect vulnerable populations. Opponents maintain that professional wildlife managers need flexibility to respond to new science and that future voters and lawmakers should not have to amend the Constitution to correct unintended effects.

# OFFICIAL MEASURE INFORMATION

| **Item**                       | **Official listing**                                                                                                                 |
| ------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| **Approval required**          | 55 percent because the measure would amend the Colorado Constitution                                                                 |
| **Designated representatives** | Steven Ward and Suzanne Taheri of West Group                                                                                         |
| **Registered in support**      | Let's Go Colorado; T. Roosevelt Conservation Alliance; Colorado's Wildlife Deserve Better                                            |
| **Registered in opposition**   | Protect Colorado's Constitution; Stop the Constitutional Power Grab; Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation |

*Committee listings can change. Current listing and full contact information Colorado Secretary of State*

**THE COLORADO CONSERVATIVE RECOMMENDS: YES**

# WHY WE RECOMMEND YES

We recommend YES because lawful hunting and fishing deserve protection when that right remains subject to science-based conservation, public safety, and private-property rights. Amendment 83 does not create an unrestricted right to take wildlife. It excludes nongame and endangered species, preserves federal prohibitions, bars any implication that trespass is allowed, and retains state authority to regulate when the stated conservation and safety standards are met.

The measure also recognizes that regulated hunting and fishing can serve public purposes beyond recreation. They sustain traditions of self-provision, support rural businesses and conservation organizations, and give the state established tools for managing wildlife populations. A constitutional baseline helps ensure that lawful participation is not erased by a temporary political majority.

Our caution is the constitutional wording. Traditional methods, preferred means, and necessary are not defined. Those terms may generate litigation or be used to challenge rules that wildlife professionals consider prudent. The amendment should not be interpreted to freeze existing practices, guarantee a season for every species, override private landowners, or prevent restrictions supported by credible population, disease, habitat, or safety evidence.  
  
On balance, the express safeguards make this a defensible protection of individual liberty rather than an exemption from wildlife law. Courts and agencies should preserve the core right while giving real effect to the measure's scientific-management, safety, and property-rights limits. The Colorado Conservative recommends YES.

# HOW WE REACHED THE SCORES

Each category uses five tests worth 0 to 10 points. The fixed anchors are: 0 for clear harm or failure; 2 for a material weakness; 5 for mixed or neutral evidence; 8 for a clear benefit with workable safeguards; and 10 for an exceptional benefit with strong controls. Intermediate whole numbers are used only when the evidence falls between anchors.

| **Category**                  | **Points** | **Stars** |
| ----------------------------- | ---------- | --------- |
| **Fiscal Responsibility**     | 37/50      | ★★★★☆     |
| **Limited Government**        | 37/50      | ★★★★☆     |
| **Individual Liberty**        | 45/50      | ★★★★★     |
| **Institutional Integrity**   | 37/50      | ★★★★☆     |
| **Long-Term Colorado Impact** | 45/50      | ★★★★★     |

## FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY 37 OF 50 ★★★★☆

*The measure creates no spending program and may support existing license-funded activity, but litigation and implementation costs remain uncertain.*

| **Test**                  | **Pts** | **Evidence and reason**                                                                                                    |
| ------------------------- | ------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Direct public cost        | 9       | The text creates no new agency, tax, subsidy, appropriation, or benefit program.                                           |
| License-funded continuity | 8       | Protecting lawful participation may help maintain existing license-based activity, but revenue is not guaranteed.          |
| Rural business continuity | 8       | Guides, outfitters, retailers, lodging, and related businesses retain protection against a future categorical prohibition. |
| Administrative efficiency | 7       | Existing CPW institutions remain in place, although agencies may need new legal review and rulemaking procedures.          |
| Litigation exposure       | 5       | Undefined constitutional terms may generate cases and public legal costs that cannot yet be estimated.                     |
| Metric total              | 37      | ★★★★☆                                                                                                                      |

## LIMITED GOVERNMENT 37 OF 50 ★★★★☆

*The amendment restrains future prohibitions while preserving specified regulation, but it moves wildlife policy into a difficult-to-amend constitutional framework.*

| **Test**                       | **Pts** | **Evidence and reason**                                                                                                        |
| ------------------------------ | ------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Protection from prohibition    | 9       | A constitutional right directly restrains a future categorical ban on covered hunting and fishing.                             |
| Personal responsibility        | 9       | The measure protects individual participation while leaving participants subject to lawful seasons, methods, and safety rules. |
| Regulatory restraint           | 8       | Government retains authority, but a challenged restriction must fit the amendment's stated purposes.                           |
| Property rights and federalism | 8       | The text preserves trespass law and federal prohibitions rather than displacing them.                                          |
| Narrowness and adaptability    | 3       | Constitutionalizing a preferred management method limits future policy flexibility and has no review mechanism.                |
| Metric total                   | 37      | ★★★★☆                                                                                                                          |

## INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 45 OF 50 ★★★★★

*The measure strongly protects lawful recreation and food gathering while expressly respecting private property, safety, and conservation limits.*

| **Test**                         | **Pts** | **Evidence and reason**                                                                                       |
| -------------------------------- | ------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Hunting and fishing right        | 10      | The measure expressly protects the people's ability to hunt, fish, and take covered wildlife.                 |
| Lawful traditional methods       | 9       | Traditional methods receive protection, although the term is not defined.                                     |
| Food and recreation              | 9       | The right protects both recreational participation and lawful harvesting for personal use.                    |
| Private-property safeguard       | 9       | The amendment expressly denies any authority to trespass or weaken property rights.                           |
| Liberty and conservation balance | 8       | Strong individual protection remains subject to scientific management, public safety, and species exclusions. |
| Metric total                     | 45      | ★★★★★                                                                                                         |

## INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY 37 OF 50 ★★★★☆

*The text preserves agency and legislative authority under stated standards, but several key terms will require interpretation.*

| **Test**                         | **Pts** | **Evidence and reason**                                                                                          |
| -------------------------------- | ------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Core rule clarity                | 8       | The protected activities, principal exclusions, and retained government powers are stated directly.              |
| Scientific-management safeguard  | 9       | The text expressly preserves regulation necessary for sound scientific conservation and management.              |
| Safety and property safeguard    | 9       | Public safety and existing trespass and property-rights law are expressly protected.                             |
| Definitions and legal standard   | 5       | “Traditional methods”,” preferred means”, and “necessary” are undefined and may require judicial interpretation. |
| Agency and legislative authority | 6       | Authority remains, but the constitutional standard may alter how courts review future decisions.                 |
| Metric total                     | 37      | ★★★★☆                                                                                                            |

## LONG-TERM COLORADO IMPACT 45 OF 50 ★★★★★

*The amendment can protect a durable outdoor tradition and conservation system, provided the scientific-management safeguards remain meaningful as conditions change.*

| **Test**                       | **Pts** | **Evidence and reason**                                                                                                |
| ------------------------------ | ------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Outdoor tradition              | 10      | The amendment gives durable protection to a longstanding Colorado activity and source of food and recreation.          |
| Conservation framework         | 9       | The right is paired with explicit scientific-management and future-opportunity safeguards.                             |
| Participation and funding base | 9       | Protecting participation may support the license and volunteer systems used by existing conservation institutions.     |
| Rural and statewide continuity | 9       | The measure offers one statewide baseline for participants and affected businesses.                                    |
| Adaptability over time         | 8       | Management authority remains, but constitutional language can be difficult to adjust as science and conditions change. |
| Metric total                   | 45      | ★★★★★                                                                                                                  |

## OVERALL RESULT

| **Five-category total** | **Normalized score** | **Overall stars** | **Recommendation** |
| ----------------------- | -------------------- | ----------------- | ------------------ |
| 201/250                 | 40/50                | ★★★★☆             | YES                |

**The result supports a YES recommendation because the amendment protects hunting and fishing while expressly retaining authority for science-based conservation, public safety, future opportunity, federal law, and private-property rights. Its undefined terms nevertheless require disciplined implementation and careful judicial review.**

## WHAT WE WILL HOLD GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR

Whatever the election result, the publication will revisit this measure after implementation. We will test whether officials protect lawful hunting and fishing without weakening scientific wildlife management, public safety, private-property rights, or protections for excluded species.

## HOW WE WILL DO IT

1\. Establish a dated baseline. Before the amendment takes effect, record current CPW regulations, license sales and revenue, hunter and angler participation, available population objectives, harvest and stocking data, wildlife-conflict reports, enforcement activity, public-safety incidents, agency costs, and pending litigation.

2\. Review on a fixed schedule. Publish an initial review six months after implementation and an annual review for at least five years. Add a timely update after any major statewide rule, statute, appellate decision, or enforcement policy that relies on the amendment.

3\. Audit regulation and litigation. Catalog every identified rule, bill, petition, or court case that invokes the new right or the necessary-regulation standard. State the species, method, restriction, scientific record, procedural posture, outcome, and practical effect without treating an allegation as a proven violation.

4\. Measure wildlife outcomes against published objectives. Compare population, habitat, disease, harvest, fishery, and conflict indicators with CPW management plans and pre-amendment trends. Distinguish statewide results from species- or region-specific changes and do not attribute a change to the amendment without supporting evidence.

5\. Protect safety, access, and property rights. Track trespass disputes, unlawful-take cases, preventable hunting or boating incidents, public-access changes, and claims that the right overrides landowner consent. Confirm whether rules for endangered, nongame, and federally protected species remain enforceable.

6\. Follow the money and publish the record. Compare CPW revenue, program costs, legal expenses, and material implementation costs with the baseline. Each review will link to available public records, explain the method and limitations, report favorable and unfavorable results, and issue dated corrections when needed.

*Primary accountability records: Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission materials, rules and regulations, plans and reports, license and financial records, General Assembly records, Colorado court dockets, and Colorado Secretary of State ballot and committee filings. Core sources: cpw.state.co.us/rules-and-regulations and coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ballot/contacts/2026.html.*

# APPENDIX EXACT TEXT OF INITIATIVE 302

**Source Colorado Secretary of State final text of Initiative 302**

*Be it enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:*

SECTION 1\. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, add Section 13 to article XVIII as follows:

*Section 13\. Right to fish and hunt.*

(1) THERE IS ESTABLISHED A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO TO HUNT, FISH, AND TAKE FISH AND WILDLIFE. THE RIGHT INCLUDES HUNTING, FISHING, AND HARVESTING FISH AND WILDLIFE BY THE USE OF TRADITIONAL METHODS. THE RIGHT APPLIES TO ALL SPECIES OF FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGED BY THE STATE EXCEPT NONGAME SPECIES, ENDANGERED SPECIES, OR ANY SPECIES THAT IS ILLEGAL TO HUNT UNDER FEDERAL LAW.

(2) THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF COLORADO IS THAT HUNTING AND FISHING ARE THE PREFERRED MEANS OF RESPONSIBLY MANAGING FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS.

(3) THIS SECTION IS NOT INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE TRESPASS UPON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR TO MODIFY ANY PROVISION OF STATUTES RELATING TO TRESPASS OR PROPERTY RIGHTS.

(4) THIS SECTION DOES NOT LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF COLORADO OR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO REGULATE HUNTING, FISHING, AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IF THE LAW IS NECESSARY FOR SOUND SCIENTIFIC WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC SAFETY, OR TO PRESERVE THE FUTURE OF HUNTING AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL SPECIES STATEWIDE.