When organizations with a history of supporting hunting restrictions begin speaking on behalf of hunters, Colorado voters deserve to know who’s funding the message—and what those organizations have supported in the past.

Colorado’s Amendment 83 has sparked a debate about wildlife conservation, hunting, fishing, and the future of wildlife management in the state.

But beyond the political advertisements and campaign slogans, there’s a story that deserves considerably more attention.

Who is actually behind the opposition to Amendment 83?

One opposition campaign calls itself Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation. The name suggests an organization representing Colorado’s hunting and fishing community.

However, campaign-finance records reveal a connection that raises legitimate questions about that representation.

Follow the Money

According to Colorado Secretary of State campaign-finance records, the Center for a Humane Economy contributed $108,254.43 in cash and in-kind support to Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation through September 30, 2026.

Why does that matter?

Because the Center for a Humane Economy previously supported Cats Aren’t Trophies, the organization behind Colorado’s 2024 Proposition 127 campaign to prohibit recreational mountain lion hunting and the hunting or trapping of bobcats.

The Center for a Humane Economy contributed approximately $285,636 to that campaign during the 2023–2024 reporting period.

Now, an organization that helped finance a campaign to restrict hunting is also financing a campaign presenting itself as the voice of hunters opposed to Amendment 83.

That doesn’t automatically mean everyone opposing Amendment 83 is anti-hunting. It does, however, make the funding sources and policy positions of the campaign highly relevant.

Colorado hunters and anglers deserve to know who is paying for the messages they are being asked to believe.

Are the Opposition’s Claims Accurate?

One of the more alarming claims circulating in opposition advertising is that Amendment 83 would bring back steel-jawed traps and bear baiting.

But Colorado’s official 2026 Blue Book states that Amendment 83 would result in no immediate change to existing state laws or regulations.

Colorado already has constitutional restrictions on certain traps and statutory restrictions on bear baiting. Amendment 83 does not expressly repeal those restrictions.

The measure would establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish while preserving wildlife-management regulations necessary for scientific conservation, public safety, and future hunting and fishing opportunities.

There is room for reasonable debate about how a constitutional amendment might affect future legal challenges.

But suggesting that prohibited hunting practices would automatically become legal misrepresents what the amendment actually says.

Look at the Policy Record, Not Just the Campaign Name

The debate becomes even more revealing when we examine legislation introduced in Colorado in 2025.

House Bill 1258 proposed changes to the state’s wildlife-management framework, including language governing the role of hunting, trapping, and fishing in necessary wildlife harvests.

Under existing Colorado law, hunting, trapping, and fishing are identified as the primary methods of carrying out necessary wildlife harvests.

The introduced version of HB 1258 would have removed that statutory priority and replaced mandatory language with discretionary authorization.

The bill ultimately failed in committee.

But the proposal provides a concrete example of an effort to fundamentally change Colorado’s existing wildlife-management framework.

Removing hunting’s established priority in wildlife management is a step toward a system in which hunting could be more easily restricted or displaced.

That does not establish that every supporter of the bill intended to ban hunting. It does demonstrate why hunters should pay attention to legislative efforts that alter hunting’s established role.

Several organizations represented among supporters of HB 1258 also appear in the coalition opposing Amendment 83.

Voters should consider that policy history when evaluating claims that existing hunting protections face no meaningful threat.

What Amendment 83 Actually Does

Amendment 83 would recognize hunting and fishing as constitutional rights in Colorado and identify them as preferred means of responsibly managing fish and wildlife populations.

It would not eliminate the authority to regulate hunting seasons, establish bag limits, protect endangered species, or impose necessary conservation measures.

Nor would it give hunters unrestricted access to private property.

The central question is whether hunting and fishing should receive additional constitutional protection while remaining subject to responsible, science-based regulation.

Supporters believe this protection is necessary to preserve the role of hunting and fishing in wildlife conservation.

Opponents raise concerns about constitutionalizing particular wildlife-management practices and the potential effects on future regulatory decisions.

Those are legitimate issues for voters to examine.

But that examination should begin with the actual amendment—not slogans designed to frighten people.

Wildlife Conservation Should Not Be Decided by Misleading Advertising

For generations, hunters and anglers have contributed to wildlife conservation through license purchases, excise taxes, habitat projects, volunteer work, and direct financial support.

Their role in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is substantial.

That history does not place hunting beyond criticism or eliminate the need for careful regulation.

It does mean that proposals to change the role of hunting and fishing deserve serious scrutiny.

And when a campaign uses the identity of hunters and anglers to advocate a position, voters have every reason to examine its financial backing and legislative connections.

Don’t Be Fooled. Read the Records.

Colorado voters don’t have to rely on political advertisements to understand Amendment 83.

They can examine the proposed constitutional language, read the state’s official ballot analysis, review campaign-finance disclosures, and study the legislative record of HB 1258.

Those documents reveal a more complicated story than the campaign slogans suggest.

Before deciding how to vote, ask three questions:

1. Who is funding the message?
2. What have those organizations supported in the past?
3. What does Amendment 83 actually say?

FIND OUT MORE

Wildlife conservation is too important to be reduced to misleading sound bites. Colorado voters deserve facts, transparency, and an informed debate about the future of hunting, fishing, and wildlife management.

HOWL for Wildlife — Informed People. Effective Action.