FAQs | Get Answers, Take Action — NO on Amendment 83

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What is Colorado Amendment 83 Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish?

1

We deliver advisory and implementation services in strategy, operations, marketing, Amendment 83, formerly known as Initiative 302 while it was gathering signatures, is an amendment to Colorado’s constitution that claims to establish the right to hunt and fish wildlife, including through the use of undefined “traditional methods.” Funded and backed by a national campaign and out-of-state special interests (that have pushed nearly identical language in states across the country), it also places into the Constitution that hunting and fishing shall be the “the preferred means” of managing wildlife populations and limits the authority of Colorado agencies and the General Assembly to pass laws regulating hunting, fishing, and wildlife management only “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.”

This measure has appeared under several names throughout the ballot process: it was originally filed as Initiative 302, is backed by the International Order of T. Roosevelt (IOTR) and the T. Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, and now appears on the November 2026 ballot as Amendment 83, the 'Right to Hunt and Fish' amendment. Keep Colorado's Voice is the leading opposition campaign to this measure.

What would a YES vote do?

2

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.

Why is this a constitutional amendment?

3

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.

Would Colorado Amendment 83 affect wildlife management?

4

Yes, but not in a good way. The amendment purports to protect a right to hunt and fish (which are already protected under state law); it goes much further and declares hunting and fishing the "preferred means" of managing and controlling wildlife populations, a phrase that could tie the hands of the wildlife professionals—who currently use a range of science-based tools, including non-lethal coexistence methods. The amendment's vague standard for regulation also creates real uncertainty for biologists and regulators trying to respond quickly to emerging issues like disease outbreaks, invasive species, or human-wildlife conflict in growing communities.