Colorado residents will vote on Amendment 83 this November, a measure that would elevate hunting and fishing from ordinary statutes to constitutional guarantees. Proponents, led by Luke Hilgemann of the International Order of T. Roosevelt (IOTR), argue that this added layer of protection will keep outdoor traditions safe from shifting political winds.
Why a Constitutional Amendment?
Hilgemann explains that while hunting and fishing are already legal, statutes can be altered by future lawmakers. “The Constitution gives it a higher power than just a statute,” he told OutKick OutDoors. By embedding these rights in the state constitution, supporters say Colorado can ensure that future legislators cannot easily curtail access to hunting and fishing, even as partisan debates intensify.
What the Measure Would Change
If approved, Amendment 83 would not overturn existing hunting seasons, bag limits, licensing requirements, or the oversight of Colorado Parks and Wildlife. All current regulations designed to protect wildlife, public safety, and sustainable harvests would remain in force. The amendment also expressly forbids hunting of endangered species and prohibits trespassing on private property.
Hilgemann stresses that the proposal does not aim to revive previously banned practices such as certain bear hunts or trapping methods. “It doesn’t go backwards,” he said, noting that the amendment is intended to preserve responsible management, not to roll back conservation gains.
Economic and Conservation Impact
Supporters cite a study from the Common Sense Institute indicating that hunting and fishing generate $6.1 billion annually and support roughly 25,000 Colorado jobs. Revenue from licenses, permits, and related tourism helps fund wildlife conservation, habitat restoration, and outdoor infrastructure that benefits all Coloradans, including those who never pick up a rod or rifle.
Hilgemann argues that without constitutional protection, future policymakers could weaken these funding streams, jeopardizing the very resources that sustain Colorado’s natural heritage.
Political Context
Colorado has a history of voter‑driven wildlife policy. In 2020, voters approved a measure to reintroduce gray wolves, and in 2024 they rejected a proposal to ban hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx. Amendment 83 follows that tradition of letting citizens shape wildlife management rather than leaving decisions solely to state agencies.
The measure requires at least 55 % of the vote to pass. If it succeeds, Colorado would join 24 other states that have already granted constitutional protection to hunting and fishing.
Opposition and Concerns
Critics argue that existing statutes already protect these activities and that a constitutional amendment is unnecessary. Some worry the language could invite lawsuits or make it harder to adjust regulations in response to new scientific data.
Supporters counter that the amendment is a safeguard against potential future attempts to weaken hunting and fishing rights, pointing to a recent legislative proposal that sought to change the wording of a state law from “shall” to “may,” which could have limited access.
Looking Ahead
IOTR is already working on similar constitutional protections in 15 other states, and Hilgemann believes Colorado’s vote could set a precedent for a broader national movement. “If we don’t do this now, I don’t think it will ever happen in a state like Colorado,” he warned.
Voters will have the final say on Nov. 3. The outcome will shape how Colorado balances tradition, conservation, and the evolving political landscape for years to come.
Original reporting: Fox News (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
