Amendment 83Constitutional amendment · Citizen initiative
Right to hunt and fish
Explain it like I'm 5
Hunting and fishing would become rights in the Colorado Constitution. The state could still set rules such as seasons, licenses, safety requirements, and limits, like park rangers setting rules for a shared park.
Yes vote
The constitution establishes a right to hunt, fish, and take wildlife through traditional methods, subject to regulation.
No vote
Hunting and fishing continue under current laws and regulations without a new constitutional right.
The question to ask yourself
Are current laws enough, or should hunting and fishing receive constitutional protection?
The case for
- Protects long-standing outdoor traditions from future bans or severe restrictions.
- Recognizes hunting and fishing as tools for wildlife management and recreation.
- Leaves lawmakers and wildlife agencies authority to set seasons, limits, and safety rules.
Backed by: International Order of T. Roosevelt, Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Rifle Association, Republican Party of Colorado
The case against
- Hunting and fishing are already legal and regulated in Colorado.
- Vague language about traditional methods could lead to lawsuits over future wildlife rules.
- A constitutional preference for hunting and fishing may limit responses to changing conservation needs.
Opposed by: Colorado Hunters & Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation, Sierra Club Colorado, Humane Colorado, League of Women Voters of Colorado, Defenders of Wildlife
- Money
- No direct tax change is proposed, and no significant direct cost was estimated; possible litigation costs were not quantified.
- Don't be misled
- It is misleading to say all hunting rules would disappear, because the amendment expressly preserves legislative and agency regulation.