Updated Oct. 28, 2026

Colorado already allows hunting and fishing. So why is there a ballot initiative to establish killing wildlife as a right?

Amendment 83, appearing on Colorado’s November ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment, would establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish in the state.

Read through our FAQ’s and talking points here.

Friends of Animals is urging our Colorado members to vote No on Amendment 83. A yes vote would leave lasting, high stakes change to Colorado’s Constitution.

Colorado’s Amendment 83 bills itself as a so-called “Right to Hunt and Fish” measure. What more “rights” do they need, though, in a state where hunting and fishing are already fully legal?

Framing the Amendment as just another “right” in need of protection dilutes its truer, harsher motivations.

Amendment 83 sneakily seeks to enshrine hunting and fishing the “preferred” means of wildlife management. A “yes” vote would tie the hands of wildlife biologists.

Vague by design, ‘traditional’ methods of hunting promised under 83
Bits of the amendment’s intentional vague language don’t stop there. Amendment 83 guarantees the right to hunt and fish by “traditional methods.” Friends of Animals can’t help but wonder what exactly does that mean?

  • Does it mean bringing back wildlife killing contests? Colorado banned cruel wildlife killing contests, where participants compete to slaughter the most animals for cash prizes, in 2020; but “traditional methods” could mean anything.
  • Does “traditional methods” mean bringing back garish, indiscriminate leg hold traps, which have been banned in the state since 1996?
  • Does it mean bringing back a bear baiting, which effectively turns innocent wild bears into habituated targets, and has been banned in Colorado since 1992?

FoA also wonders whether large swaths of nature will be off limits for those who don’t make killing a hobby. Outspoken opponents have already begun to worry that Amendment 83 will give hunting and fishing preference over other forms of outdoor recreation, and firearms being introduced to areas previously unallowed, resulting in more places being closed off.

Will photographers who ‘shoot’ bears be made to stay home because someone with a gun was guaranteed the right to do the other kind of shooting?

This is much more than a simple policy change; once locked into the Constitution, it can’t be easily adjusted when wildlife inevitably suffers.

Friends of Animals strongly opposes Amendment 83, Colorado’s so-called “Right to Hunt and Fish” measure. Colorado already allows hunting and fishing. This amendment is about giving people who kill wildlife even more power over animals who never get a vote.

Under Amendment 83, hunting would become carte blanche. A constitutional amendment is the state’s highest law; while 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.

Opposition is mounting

  • Governor Jared Polis opposes Amendment 83: “Traps can inflict severe suffering and capture animals indiscriminately, including family pets.”
  • Attorney General Phil Weiser opposes it, saying he is “really worried about putting things in the constitution that create mischief.”
  • The Denver Post editorial board (Sept. 24, 2026): “This amendment is a lawsuit waiting to happen every time CPW officials make a decision.”
  • Representatives Joe Neguse, Jason Crow and Brittany Pettersen, 25 state legislators, and the League of Women Voters of Colorado oppose it.

If passed, state agencies and the General Assembly could still regulate hunting, fishing and wildlife management, but only if the law is “necessary” for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities.

That could leave critical questions for courts to resolve when regulations are challenged. What qualifies as “necessary”? What constitutes “sound scientific” management? And who ultimately decides whether a wildlife regulation meets that standard?

Colorado’s Constitution is not a trophy room, and wild animals are not targets, props, or “resources” to harvest.

Amendment 83’s supporters clearly see things otherwise.

Amendment 83 is part of a national, well-funded agenda led by major trophy hunting groups—such as Safari Club Interational,Wisconsin-based International Order of T. Roosevelt (IOTR), and the NRA—and one geared toward permanently changing how the state manages wildlife.

IOTR specifically openly states that its mission is to establish constitutional rights to hunt and fish in all 50 states.

24 states currently have “right to hunt and fish” provisions, 23 of those 24 provisions were adopted after 1996.

In 2023, IOTR launched simultaneous campaigns in Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and South Dakota. Florida voters adopted a similar constitutional amendment in 2024, making Florida the 24th state with a constitutional hunting-and-fishing provision.

If Amendment 83’s language enters the constitution, Colorado would be the 25th. And the cost of getting this wrong will be paid by Colorado’s wildlife and ecosystems.

Vote No on Amendment 83.

FAQ’s and Talking Points

What would a YES vote do?

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?

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.

Could 83 affect future wildlife protections?

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.

Could 83 affect citizen-led ballot initiatives?

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.

Does Amendment 83 affect the front range?

Yes. Amendment 83 applies statewide, including Denver, Boulder, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs and the foothills open space most Front Range residents use. If the 1996 trapping ban were overturned, traps and snares could return to public lands where people hike with dogs. And as a constitutional amendment, it would be decided by every Colorado voter, not only by rural counties.

How do I vote no on Amendment 83?

Ballots were mailed October 2 and are due by 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2026. Find Amendment 83 on your ballot and mark “No.” A No vote keeps Colorado’s current law, under which CPW manages wildlife using the best available science.