Colorado Voters Should Question Amendment 83: What Problem Is It Really Solving?
Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado. So why are well-funded, out-of-state interests pushing to change the state constitution?
Colorado voters should take a closer look at Amendment 83 before deciding whether it belongs in the state constitution. Although its supporters frame the measure as a way to protect hunting and fishing, those activities are already legal in Colorado. The question voters should be asking is simple: What problem does this amendment actually solve, and what could Colorado stand to lose by passing it?
Amendment 83 is a solution in search of a problem. Behind its familiar language about protecting hunting and fishing is a much bigger question about who gets to shape wildlife policy in Colorado—and whether voters should permanently limit their state’s ability to make those decisions through its own democratic institutions.
Amendment 83 is a national agenda pushed onto Colorado’s constitution
Amendment 83 is not an isolated effort to protect hunting and fishing. It is the latest iteration of a coordinated national campaign to embed constitutional protections for particular uses of wildlife in state constitutions, potentially constraining how states manage wildlife for generations.
As Wildlife for All’s research on the national right-to-hunt movement documents, well-resourced organizations including the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation and International Order of Theodore Roosevelt have promoted this approach. The International Order of Theodore Roosevelt was formerly known as the Shikar Safari Club. The networks surrounding these organizations also intersect with far-right and MAGA groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, Turning Point USA and Americans for Prosperity.
Constitutional amendments are not ordinary policy changes. They can establish legal principles that shape future decisions long after the campaigns that passed them have ended. When organizations promote standardized language across multiple states, voters should ask why a policy intended for one state needs to be replicated nationwide—and whose interests that standardization serves.
Colorado has its own ecosystems, wildlife populations, laws and public priorities that are distinct from every other state. A single constitutional approach developed and promoted through national networks and presented as a “solution” should be questioned by any reasonable person.
Vague language, lasting consequences
Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado, subject to state laws and regulations. The state does not need Amendment 83 to recognize those activities.
Instead, the amendment’s vague language raises questions about how it could affect future wildlife policy and the authority of the institutions responsible for making it. What might its provisions mean for state wildlife managers, legislators, courts and communities when disputes arise over how wildlife should be managed?
The consequences are not necessarily limited to hunting and fishing. Wildlife policy involves complex decisions about ecosystems, species conservation, public safety and competing interests in public resources. Those decisions require the flexibility to respond to changing conditions and new information that the current system of wildlife management often constrains.
A constitutional amendment that establishes a broad legal right without clearly defining its boundaries could invite litigation over future laws and regulations. That could mean additional costs for Colorado taxpayers and uncertainty for the public agencies charged with managing wildlife.
It could also make it harder for Colorado to adapt its policies to challenges that will only grow more pressing, including climate change, habitat loss and biodiversity decline. The state needs the ability to respond to changing ecological conditions using the best available science, meaningful public participation and a democratic process—not a constitutional mandate that could constrain future options.
Wildlife belongs in the democratic process
Wildlife policy inevitably involves competing perspectives. Hunters and anglers have interests in how wildlife is managed, but so do wildlife watchers, hikers, scientists, conservationists, Indigenous communities and residents who value healthy ecosystems and the continued existence of native species.
No single user group of public lands should have an automatic constitutional advantage in determining the future of wildlife policy. Nor should decisions about wildlife be dictated by national organizations whose priorities may not reflect the needs and values of Colorado communities.
Colorado’s existing institutions give residents ways to participate in wildlife policy and hold decision-makers accountable. Those processes are not perfect, and they should be continually improved. But permanently changing the constitution is a consequential step, particularly when the activities supposedly in need of protection are already legal.
Voters deserve clear answers about what Amendment 83 would change, how its language could be interpreted and why those changes are necessary. Supporters should explain what specific problem the amendment solves that existing laws cannot address—and why the proposed constitutional language is the right solution.
Ask what Colorado stands to gain and lose if Amendment 83 passes
Before voting on Amendment 83, Coloradans should look beyond its reassuring description and consider the broader implications of enshrining a particular approach to wildlife policy in the state constitution.
The stakes extend beyond any single ballot measure. They concern whether Colorado retains the flexibility to govern its wildlife in response to its own laws, ecosystems, public priorities and future challenges or whether a well-funded and coordinated national political agenda can narrow those choices for generations.
Colorado’s wildlife deserves thoughtful, adaptable management that reflects the state’s diverse communities and changing ecological realities. The people of Colorado deserve a constitution grounded in their own values, interests and needs.
Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado. Before changing the constitution, voters should ask why this amendment is necessary, whose interests it serves, and what it could mean for the future of wildlife governance in their state.
Learn more at the coalition of groups opposing Amendment 83 in Colorado: