A yes vote would make a permanent, high-stakes change to Colorado’s Constitution. Although hunting and fishing are already fully legal here, by enshrining hunting and fishing as the "preferred means" of managing wildlife, a “yes” vote would tie the hands of wildlife biologists and elected officials who may need other tools to manage populations responsibly—which is the opposite of science-based management. This is much more than a simple policy change—once locked into the Constitution, it can't be easily adjusted if it has unintended consequences for wildlife. A “yes” vote could also impact Coloradans' ability to shape wildlife policy through the normal democratic process by potentially restricting citizens from using the statutory ballot initiative process for measures related to wildlife protection, management and hunting. 

Amendment 83 will be part of the November 2026 election. Coloradans can vote on Amendment 83 as soon as they receive their mail-in ballots in October.

This is exactly the question voters should be asking—because there's no good answer. Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado and fully protected under existing state statute. If the proponents of Amendment 83 genuinely wanted to reinforce that, they could have pursued a statutory change through the legislature, where it could be debated, amended, and adjusted if problems emerged down the road. By choosing a constitutional amendment, they’re using the least flexible tool available—to enshrine a right that isn't under any threat.

And this is because Amendment 83 isn't about protecting hunting and fishing. It's about placing this specific policy—including undefined terms like "traditional methods" of wildlife management and vague standards for when the state can regulate—permanently out of reach of future legislatures, wildlife biologists, and voters themselves. A statute can be fixed if it turns out to have unintended consequences. A constitutional amendment can't; it would take another statewide vote, with a 55% supermajority, just to correct a mistake. That's an awfully high bar to lock in for a right that’s under no actual threat.

Absolutely not. Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado and fully protected under existing state statute. In fact, current law explicitly says that “The state shall utilize hunting, trapping, and fishing as the primary methods of effecting necessary wildlife harvests” (C.R.S. § 33-1-101(4)). There is no need for a constitutional amendment on this.

The term “traditional methods” is not defined anywhere in the initiative and is intentionally vague—the proponents of this amendment use it as code for unpopular and controversial practices, like luring wildlife with food baits, using packs of dogs to chase wildlife, and catching and killing wildlife with cruel and painful traps. In fact, a manual from the Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation, a key organization behind “right to hunt” measures nationwide, explicitly states: “by using a phrase like ‘traditional methods,’ proponents can give a stronger protection to trapping without actually mentioning trapping.” And another key proponent of Amendment 83 has been vocal about his desire to reinstate cruel practices that voters themselves have prohibited, including spring bear hunting, hounding of bears, and baiting. Once locked into the constitution, Colorado voters, lawmakers, and wildlife experts would be helpless to stop these cruel practices, which can cause extreme suffering, orphan young animals, and go against values of fair-chase hunting. 

Yes. In 1996, Colorado voters passed Amendment 14, which banned the use of cruel leghold traps, body crushing traps, poisons, and snares on public lands. Amendment 83's undefined "traditional methods" language creates a potentially serious risk of conflict with that existing constitutional ban. Powerful and wealthy trapping interests could go to court arguing that a newly created constitutional "right" to hunt and fish "by traditional methods" overrides or narrows the voter-approved trapping ban, opening the door to reintroducing leghold traps and other practices Coloradans already voted to prohibit nearly 30 years ago. And as stated above, the proponents have been clear to emphasize using the phrase “traditional methods” as a code word to include trapping, without having to actually state the word because it is so widely opposed by the public.

Yes, and this may be one of Amendment 83’s most far-reaching consequences. By enshrining hunting and fishing as the constitutional "preferred means" of wildlife management and requiring any regulation to clear an undefined "reasonable and necessary" hurdle, Amendment 83 raises the legal bar for any future wildlife protection that isn't hunting-related, whether that's a ban on a cruel practice, a new species protection, or a citizen-led ballot measure like the one Coloradans used to outlaw leghold traps in 1996. Coloradans seeking similar protections would now have to overcome a competing constitutional right rather than working with elected officials to pass a statute or with agency biologists and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to pass a regulation. 

And because this would be locked into the Constitution rather than left as statute, if 83 turns out to conflict with a wildlife protection Coloradans want, there isn't a simple legislative fix. It would require another statewide vote and another 55% supermajority, making it far more difficult for future generations of voters, wildlife experts, and lawmakers to adapt protections as science, values, and circumstances change.

Yes, it could affect the ability of citizens to use the ballot initiative process on wildlife protection issues. First, by guaranteeing in Colorado’s constitution the ability of hunters to use vague “traditional methods,” and that hunting is the “preferred means of responsibly managing” wildlife, Amendment 83 would effectively prevent citizens from advancing a ballot measure that seeks to prevent widely opposed, cruel and outdated practices like trapping, baiting and the use of hounds to pursue wildlife. And second, by explicitly omitting the ballot initiative in its section authorizing the Colorado legislature and the Parks and Wildlife Commission to enact limited laws or rules on wildlife management, Amendment 83 seems to seek to preclude the use of the ballot initiative from the wildlife policymaking process altogether. The use of direct democracy and the right to appeal to fellow voters on any matter of their own choosing is a long-held and valued part of Colorado’s history. It should be protected, not deliberately obstructed by special interests.

Your guess is as good as ours, because it is not defined in the ballot language. However, in recent years, trophy hunting and trapping interest groups have been increasingly referring to the consumptive use—that is, killing by hunting or trapping—of wildlife as “scientific wildlife management.” They use this phrase to imply, without evidence, that the consumptive use of wildlife and modern, proven-effective and humane methods of wildlife conflict prevention and population control are somehow lacking in scientific validity. However, decades of peer-reviewed research have shown that those non-lethal methods are, in fact, supported by science.

No, not at all. Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado and fully protected under existing state statute, which says, “The state shall utilize hunting, trapping and fishing as the primary methods of effecting necessary wildlife harvests.” C.R.S. 33-1-101 (2026). A NO vote simply states that you do not support amending the constitution with the preemptive, anti-democratic language of Amendment 83.

Amendment 83 is largely driven by well-funded and out-of-state special interests. The main financial backer of 83 is the “T. Roosevelt Conservation Alliance,” a political issue committee (formerly called the “Western Heritage Conservation Alliance”) tied to the International Order of T. Roosevelt (IOTR), a Wisconsin-based organization dedicated to passing these types of amendments around the country. IOTR’s executive director, Luke Hilgemann, previously served as CEO of Americans for Prosperity—the national advocacy organization founded by billionaire industrialists David and Charles Koch—and as CEO of Hunter Nation, a political advocacy group whose leadership includes Donald Trump Jr., Ted Nugent, and voter-ID law advocate Kris Kobach. Since joining IOTR, Hilgemann has partnered with right-wing political group Turning Point USA on hunting advocacy campaigns, and public tax filings show IOTR has made financial contributions to other conservative political and legal advocacy organizations—evidence that the organization operates within a broader national right-wing political network rather than as a standalone wildlife group. Additionally, the special interest group the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, which wrote a manual for drafters of “right to hunt” measures that advises the deceptive use of “traditional methods” to refer to unpopular methods like trapping, baiting and hounding, has joined with national trapping groups to clear obstructions in state law to using those practices. 

In Colorado, the campaign also has ties to Advance Colorado, a prominent conservative political nonprofit: Suzanne Taheri and Steven Ward are the measure’s designated representatives listed on the filing, and both use the address of West Group’s Denver office—the same headquarters used by Advance Colorado. The effort is also fronted by the misleadingly named “Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management,” led by Dan Gates, the president of the Colorado Trappers and Predator Hunters Association—but the money and strategy trace back to this same national network: IOTR's own leadership has stated their goal is to establish constitutional hunting rights in a majority of states by 2030, using Colorado as one target in a coordinated, multi-state legal campaign rather than a locally driven effort to address a uniquely Colorado problem.

Opposition to 83 is wide and varied, including wildlife protection organizations, conservation advocates, voting rights advocates, veterinarians, wildlife rehabbers, gun safety advocates, local municipalities and rank-and-file hunters and anglers themselves. Multiple national and Colorado-based wildlife advocacy groups oppose this amendment, because it would limit the state's ability to manage wildlife and make it harder for voters to have a say in wildlife policy going forward. These organizations are also concerned about the legal risk the amendment poses to existing, voter-approved protections. 

There's a role for everyone in this effort. You can talk to friends, family, and neighbors about what 83 would actually do—personal conversations move more votes than almost anything else. You can share our materials on social media, put up a yard sign, or help distribute literature in your community. If you're able, financial contributions help us reach more voters. And if you're part of an organization, business, or community group, help is more useful than ever—sign on as an endorsing organization, coalition partner, or connect us with others who should know about this. Every bit of help, big or small, gets us closer to protecting Colorado voters' voice in wildlife policy.

Yes! Please fill out our endorse form.

Thank you for your support! Please click here to donate—every little bit helps!