TO: Interested Parties

DATE: August 10, 2026

As your newsroom considers coverage of Colorado’s proposed "Right to Hunt" constitutional Amendment 83, we encourage you to examine what the campaign’s own architects have said publicly about its purpose.

While its supporters have described Amendment 83 as simply protecting hunting and fishing, the national organization behind the measure has repeatedly said constitutional amendments are intended to create new legal precedent, make future wildlife policy changes more difficult, and give hunting advocacy organizations stronger standing to challenge wildlife decisions in court.

Those statements raise important questions about whether the public communications of the campaign accurately reflect the constitutional amendment’s intended legal and long-term effects.

1. The campaign’s architects say Amendment 83 is designed to change future wildlife policy.

The organizations leading this effort have made numerous public statements that describe Amendment 83 and other right-to-hunt constitutional amendments as a legal strategy that extends well beyond preserving existing hunting opportunities.  

In a June 2026 opinion essay in Outdoor Life, International Order of T. Roosevelt (IOTR) Executive Director Luke Hilgemann wrote: “These amendments aren’t just words on paper. Their real power lies in the case law they create—solid, precedent-setting barriers that make it far harder for groups to erode hunting and fishing, either through the next wave of emotional ballot initiatives or through overreach by city councils and state wildlife commissions.”

Hilgemann went on to describe the amendments as creating new legal footing for future lawsuits: “The amendments don’t just declare rights. They give everyday citizens and sportsmen’s groups the legal footing to stand in court…”

He characterized this strategy as moving from “playing defense” to “being on offense.”

Other proponents have described the effort similarly. In Field & Stream, IOTR Director of Policy and Coalitions, Travis Thompson, called constitutional amendments “a lock on the door” against future wildlife policy changes. Hilgemann repeated this language in an email celebrating the number of signatures the campaign has gathered, sent July 8. 

On the Through the Gates podcast, Amendment 83 proponent and Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management (CRWM) Executive Director Dan Gates described Amendment 83 this way: “We have the state constitution that denies you the opportunity… now we have legal standing and we can go to court.”

IOTR’s own website describes Right to Hunt amendments as a “pre-emptive defense” against future legislation and litigation, explaining that constitutional amendments make policy changes “not easily challenged, changed, or revoked.”

Taken together, these statements describe constitutional amendments as legal tools intended to shape future wildlife policy through litigation and constitutional precedent.

2. Amendment 83 is part of a coordinated national legal strategy.

Colorado is one of several states targeted as part of a nationwide effort led by IOTR and its advocacy arm, T. Roosevelt Action. According to Hilgemann’s congressional biography, one of the organization’s principal objectives is to establish constitutional hunting rights in a majority of states by 2030.

The organization has supported similar campaigns across the country while pointing to litigation in states like Wisconsin, Florida, and Maine as evidence that constitutional amendments create stronger legal protections for hunting interests.

Hilgemann’s June Outdoor Life op-ed celebrated those cases as examples of an “emerging body of law” that turns constitutional amendments into “a practical shield.”

3. The organizations and individuals leading Amendment 83 have longstanding right-wing political ties.

Before leading IOTR, Hilgemann served as CEO of Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the national advocacy organization founded by billionaire industrialists David and Charles Koch, and was also CEO of Hunter Nation, a political advocacy hunting organization whose stated mission is to protect the “Traditional American Values of God, Family, Country, and our Nation’s Constitution.” Hunter Nation’s leadership includes Donald Trump Jr., Ted Nugent, voter-ID law advocate Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, country singer Craig Morgan, and other national right-wing political activists.

Prior to his role with AFP, Hilgemann previously served as chief of staff to former Wisconsin Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder. Suder resigned in 2013 amid controversy over a state grant awarded to the United Sportsmen of Wisconsin Foundation. Hilgemann had served on the organization’s board before leaving Wisconsin for a national leadership role at AFP.

After joining IOTR, Hilgemann announced a partnership with right-wing political advocacy group Turning Point USA on national hunting advocacy campaigns, launched six-figure digital campaigns promoting constitutional hunting amendments, and publicly identified passing constitutional amendments as one of its highest organizational priorities.

Public tax filings also show IOTR has made financial contributions to several conservative political organizations and legal advocacy groups, illustrating that the organization operates within a broader national political network rather than solely as a wildlife advocacy organization. 

These relationships raise questions about the extent to which Amendment 83 reflects a Colorado wildlife proposal versus a nationally coordinated anti-democracy strategy.

4. Amendment 83 follows a national legal strategy already being tested in other states.

The organizations behind Amendment 83 point to constitutional amendments in states including Nebraska, Florida and Wisconsin as examples of how this language can be used in legal disputes over wildlife policy. In his own public writing, Hilgemann described these amendments as tools that create “precedent-setting barriers” and provide hunting organizations with “the legal footing to stand in court” against future wildlife decisions.

These statements raise a fundamental question for Colorado voters: Is Amendment 83 simply preserving an existing activity, or is it creating a new constitutional framework that could reshape wildlife policymaking, invite litigation, and limit whose voices are heard for years to come?

###