Colorado Certifies So-Called “Right to Hunt and Fish” Measure for November Ballot as Amendment 83

This November, voters will decide whether to permanently amend the state constitution a “right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife”—including by the use of the intentionally vague and undefined language like “traditional methods”—and establish new constitutional parameters for how wildlife is managed in Colorado.

The No on Amendment 83 coalition is urging Coloradans to look beyond the amendment’s title and shorthand description as a so-called “right to hunt and fish” and read what the proposed constitutional amendment would actually do.

“This proposed amendment is misguided and undermines the balanced, science-based stewardship our public lands and diverse wildlife require,” Garrett Royer, political director of Sierra Club Colorado. “True conservation examines the health of an entire ecosystem, rather than elevating specific activities above all other ecological and public values. We cannot allow special interest groups to hardwire their interests into our state constitution.”   

Unlike an ordinary law, a constitutional amendment is difficult to change which means the question before voters is bigger than whether they support hunting or fishing and is actually a question about how Colorado will make decisions about wildlife in the future, and who gets to have a voice in those decisions.

“Amendment 83 would severely narrow the choices available to voters, communities and policymakers,” said Michelle Lute, Ph.D., executive director of Wildlife for All. “We’ve seen this scheme play out across the country: when special interests insert their sense of privilege into state constitutions, they make it harder for the public to have a meaningful voice as knowledge, ecosystems, and societal values change. Colorado’s wildlife belongs to our shared ecosystems and the public trust, and the public's say should not be locked out by constitutional language written today.” 

Yesterday, Democratic candidate for governor and current Attorney General Phil Weiser shared his statement for formal opposition to Amendment 83 which recognizes the many problems with this proposed amendment.

“I support Colorado's sportsmen, anglers, and hunters and am grateful for their leadership in funding our state's conservation of our outdoors and wildlife. But Initiative 302 creates a vague constitutional right to protect hunting and fishing — one that's not only unnecessary, but leads to a host of unknown outcomes.  

“The right way to protect fishing and hunting is through sound engagement, good governance, and thoughtful, science-based decisions at the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission — not by litigation or judges forced to make sense of vague constitutional amendments. That's why I oppose Initiative 302.”

The coalition is particularly concerned that voters may be led to believe Amendment 83 simply protects an existing right to hunt and fish, without understanding the broader changes contained in the proposed constitutional language.

“This proposed constitutional amendment would require that any regulation of hunting and fishing be ‘necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management,’” said Melinda Marquis, Ph.D., president of Science for Colorado Wildlife. “Evidence from other states with similar ‘right-to-hunt’ amendments indicates that courts, not scientists, decide what qualifies as sound science. Given the increased frequency of droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events, regulations should be grounded in rigorous science, not forged via litigation. As it has been in other states, such a constitutional amendment would be perilous to wildlife in Colorado.” 

"Project Coyote is committed to science-based wildlife management and to ensuring all Coloradans have a real voice in how we coexist with the wildlife held in the public trust,” said Mark Surls, Colorado & Northern Rockies Coordinator, Project Coyote. “Amendment 83 would limit that voice by locking in vague language that benefits special interests—not the wildlife themselves—into our state constitution. We believe Colorado's wildlife decisions should be reflective of all Coloradans’ values and the best available science and not just the desires of one interest group.” 

“The Right to Hunt ballot measure would create Constitutional rights to harvest wildlife using leghold traps, engage in wildlife killing contests, bait bears with jelly donuts, kill mother bears in the spring, orphaning and starving their young cubs, said Eric Washburn, President, Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation. “These are all cruel and unethical practices that Coloradans have already banned, and resurrecting them as new Constitutional rights will only cause the public to turn against hunting in Colorado.” 

The coalition believes Coloradans should have the opportunity to consider those provisions on their own terms, not simply as a question of whether they support hunting and fishing.

“Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission should be able to manage wildlife using the best available science, expert advice, and input from all Coloradans,” said Jennifer Best, Director, Friends of Animals, Wildlife Law Program. “Amendment 83 would take that away by mandating that hunting and fishing be put ahead of all other wildlife management options, even when it’s harmful to wildlife populations, ineffective, or causing unnecessary pain and suffering. Saying No to Amendment 83 preserves Colorado’s ability to manage for healthy wildlife populations and diverse outdoor recreation opportunities.”  

Colorado voters have repeatedly used the state's ballot initiative process to weigh in directly on wildlife policy. In 1992, voters banned bear baiting, hound hunting and spring bear hunting. In 1996, voters approved restrictions on leghold and body-crushing traps, snares and poisons.

"Pro-Animal Colorado's focus is factory farming, but we're opposing 302. Constitutions shouldn't pick winners in ongoing policy debates,” said Justin Clark, campaign director with Pro-Animal Colorado. “Writing a default for wildlife management into the state's founding document means future voters, legislators, and local governments all start from a position of having to justify any departure from lethal take. That's not wildlife management, that's locking the door on progress."

Amendment 83 would establish a different constitutional framework for wildlife policy. Voters now must decide if Coloradans should continue to have the ability to directly shape wildlife policy through the democratic process, or lock policy into the state Constitution.

“As Colorado changes  demographically and as a consequence of our warming climate, the  voices of all Coloradans are needed to shape wildlife policy that is equitable and responsive to these new realities,” said Delia Malone, ecologist and board president of ColoradoWild. “Locking wildlife policy into the Constitution would hinder adaptation to our changing world and prevent the opinion of all Coloradans from being included in policy development.”

“While hunting and fishing can play a role in wildlife conservation and management, there are no serious threats to people’s ability to do so in Colorado. Adding a constitutional right is simply unnecessary and reckless and would create legal chaos,” said Jen Clanahan, Executive Director of Colorado Nature League. “Hunting and fishing is already protected in Colorado statute and isn’t going anywhere. This idea is being peddled by reactionary actors.”

For more information and resources to help Coloradans understand Amendment 83, including the proposed constitutional language, analysis of its potential implications, and information about Colorado’s existing wildlife-management system, visit keepcoloradosvoice.com.

###

About the No On Amendment 83 Coalition: The No on Amendment 83 Coalition is a group of organizations and individuals working together to protect Colorado’s Constitution and preserve Coloradans’ ability to shape the future of wildlife management. The coalition believes wildlife decisions should remain science-informed, adaptable, and accountable to the people.

Background

The proposed constitutional language in Amendment 83 would:

• Create a constitutional right to hunt, fish and harvest fish and wildlife, including through “traditional methods,” elevating one type of public lands user over all others.

• Establish hunting and fishing as the primary and “preferred means” of managing fish and wildlife populations, creating uncertainty around future actions to address habitat, biodiversity, nongame species, disease, climate change, and other wildlife challenges.

• Apply the right to all species of fish and wildlife managed by the state.

• Would place constitutional limits on the authority of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, General Assembly, and local county and municipal governments regarding wildlife policy by requiring wildlife regulations only when "necessary" for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities

Putting policy into the Constitution is fundamentally different from passing an ordinary law or adopting a wildlife-management regulation. Constitutional provisions are designed to establish fundamental rules of government and are significantly harder to change.