Colorado’s Amendment 83 has sparked a familiar kind of political debate around wildlife: strong claims, alarming predictions, and competing interpretations about what a few sentences in the state constitution could ultimately mean.
That makes it especially important for Coloradans to look past campaign rhetoric—on both sides—and read what Amendment 83 actually says.
At its core, Amendment 83 would establish a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and take fish and wildlife, including through traditional methods. It would also establish hunting and fishing as the preferred means of responsibly managing fish and wildlife populations.
Those are significant changes. But they are not the same thing as eliminating wildlife regulation.
The amendment specifically preserves the state’s authority to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management. It does not eliminate seasons, bag limits, licenses, or the authority of Colorado wildlife officials to regulate take. It does not create a right to trespass on private property. It also excludes nongame species, endangered species, and species that are illegal to hunt under federal law from the protected right.
That distinction matters because some of the opposition to Amendment 83 has focused on what the amendment might eventually be interpreted to do.
Opponents have raised concerns about the phrases “traditional methods” and “preferred means.” Some argue that those terms could generate litigation, interfere with wildlife-management decisions, or potentially be used to challenge restrictions on practices that Colorado previously prohibited, including certain trapping, bear-baiting, and hound-hunting practices.
Those concerns deserve to be examined rather than dismissed.
But they also need to be separated from what the amendment expressly says.
Amendment 83 does not contain language reinstating those prohibited practices. Nor does it say that every species must be hunted, every hunting method must be legal, or hunting must occur everywhere. Colorado Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, which supports the measure, likewise notes that the amendment does not guarantee hunting of every species or the use of every possible method of take, and does not eliminate the regulatory authority of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission or General Assembly.
That brings us to the larger question behind Amendment 83.
Who should manage wildlife, and on what basis?
Colorado already has statutory language stating that the state shall utilize hunting, trapping, and fishing as primary methods of necessary wildlife harvest. But statutes can be changed through the legislative process. In fact, legislation introduced in 2025 proposed changing that language from “shall utilize” to “may authorize” and removing the designation of those activities as primary methods. That legislation did not become law, but its introduction illustrates why supporters of Amendment 83 see a meaningful difference between statutory and constitutional protection.
Colorado has also repeatedly confronted wildlife policy through statewide elections.
Voters approved restrictions on spring bear hunting in 1992 and trapping in 1996. They directed the reintroduction of gray wolves in 2020. And in 2024, voters considered—and rejected—Proposition 127, which would have prohibited hunting mountain lions and bobcats.
Those experiences are central to the Amendment 83 debate.
Supporters see the measure as protection against future efforts to remove hunting and fishing opportunities through political campaigns rather than ordinary wildlife-management processes. Opponents argue that voters and policymakers should retain broad flexibility to change wildlife policy and that constitutional language could constrain future decisions.
But protecting a right to hunt and fish does not, by itself, mean abandoning science.
The actual amendment preserves regulatory authority tied to wildlife conservation and management, public safety, and preservation of future hunting and fishing opportunities.
That is an important safeguard.
Hunting is not simply recreation layered on top of wildlife conservation. Regulated hunting is one of the tools American wildlife agencies have long used to manage populations, distribute harvest geographically and demographically, respond to population objectives, and generate funding for conservation.
And that last point is often overlooked.
Hunters and anglers buy licenses and permits that directly support state wildlife agencies. They also pay federal excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, fishing tackle, and related equipment through long-established conservation funding systems. Whatever someone’s personal feelings about hunting may be, hunters and anglers have played a substantial financial role in American wildlife conservation.
That does not mean hunters should be the only people with a voice in wildlife policy. Wildlife belongs to the public, including people who never hunt or fish.
But public ownership of wildlife and professional wildlife management are not mutually exclusive ideas.
We can value wildlife for many reasons while still recognizing that decisions about populations, harvest, habitat, disease, predator-prey relationships, carrying capacity, and human-wildlife conflict involve biological realities that cannot always be resolved by the most emotionally compelling campaign message.
That is why Coloradans should scrutinize claims from both sides of Amendment 83.
When someone says the amendment would automatically bring back a particular hunting or trapping practice, ask where the amendment says that.
When someone says it would prevent Colorado from regulating hunting, read the language preserving regulatory authority.
Conversely, when supporters say the amendment could never affect future litigation or wildlife-policy decisions, voters should recognize that constitutional language matters precisely because it can affect future laws and government actions. Terms such as “traditional methods” and “preferred means” may ultimately require interpretation.
Those are legitimate questions.
But they are very different from claiming that Amendment 83 simply removes wildlife protections or gives hunters unrestricted authority over Colorado’s wildlife.
The real debate is much more fundamental.
Colorado voters are deciding whether hunting and fishing should receive constitutional protection and whether those activities should have an expressly protected role in responsible wildlife management, while the state retains authority to regulate them.
That is the question worth debating.
Not slogans. Not fear. Not caricatures of hunters, anglers, wildlife advocates, or people who disagree.
Read Amendment 83. Read the arguments against it. Read the arguments supporting it. Then ask which system you believe gives Colorado the strongest framework for conserving wildlife while determining the future role of hunting and fishing. Colorado’s wildlife deserves a debate based on what the amendment actually says
