What It Does, What It Does Not Do, and What Remains Uncertain

Colorado Backcountry Hunters & Anglers support of Amendment 83 FAQ

We recognize that members may have legitimate questions about the language and its potential legal effects. This fact sheet is intended to explain the measure, Colorado’s current legal framework, and the principal arguments surrounding it.

What Amendment 83 Would Do

Amendment 83 would add a constitutional right for Coloradans to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife. Specific language within the amendment means the measure would:

• identify hunting and fishing as preferred means of responsibly managing fish and wildlife populations;
• exclude nongame species, endangered species, and species that are illegal to hunt under federal law from the protected right;
• make clear that the right does not authorize trespass or alter private-property rights; and
• preserve the authority of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission and the General Assembly to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management when regulation is reasonable and necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or the future of hunting and fishing opportunities.

Twenty-four states already have a constitutional right to hunt and fish and courts in those states have applied the right in multiple different scenarios such as upholding it in cases like Arkansas's duck-hunting challenge as well as the effort to ban the hunting of bears in Florida, while others show ways in which it didn’t supersede the authority of the agency to uphold restrictions on specific species when challenged, such as Tennessee's commercial paddlefish restrictions.

What Colorado Law Says Today

Colorado does not currently have a general constitutional right to hunt and fish.

State statute does, however, already give hunting, trapping, and fishing an important role in wildlife management. C.R.S. § 33-1-101(4) states that Colorado “shall utilize hunting, trapping, and fishing as the primary methods of effecting necessary wildlife harvests.”

Because that language is statutory rather than constitutional, it can be changed through the legislative process. In 2025, HB25-1258 proposed replacing “shall utilize” with “may authorize” and removing the designation of hunting, trapping, and fishing as the primary methods of necessary wildlife harvest. The bill did not pass, but it provides a clear example of the difference between statutory and constitutional protections and why we feel it is important to support Amendment 83 at this time.

What Amendment 83 Would Not Do

Amendment 83 would not:

• guarantee that every wildlife species may be hunted;
• guarantee hunting in every location;
• guarantee use of every possible method of take;
• eliminate seasons, bag limits, licensing, or other wildlife regulations;
• authorize trespass on private property; or
• eliminate the regulatory authority of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission or General Assembly.

What About Existing Hunting and Trapping Restrictions?

• Colorado already has voter-approved restrictions on some methods of take.
• The Colorado Constitution prohibits specified leghold traps, body-gripping traps, snares, and poisons, subject to listed exceptions. That restriction is itself constitutional.
• Colorado also has a voter-approved statute prohibiting spring black-bear hunting and the use of bait or dogs for taking black bears.
• Amendment 83 does not expressly repeal either provision.

However, opponents have raised a legitimate question about how courts might interpret the undefined phrase “traditional methods” if a future challenge were brought against an existing restriction. There is currently no Colorado court decision answering that question because Amendment 83 has not yet been adopted.

Does It Eliminate Science-Based Wildlife Management?

The text does not eliminate professional wildlife management. Instead, it expressly recognizes regulation that is necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or preservation of future hunting and fishing opportunities.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife describes the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation as the cornerstone of modern wildlife conservation and identifies science-based management, wildlife held in public trust, allocation of wildlife through law, and public hunting and fishing among its central principles.

Colorado BHA believes constitutional protection for hunting and fishing should reinforce, not replace, professional wildlife management.

Why Are Supporters Seeking Constitutional Protection?

Supporters argue that hunting and fishing should not depend entirely on statutes, future legislatures, ballot initiatives, or changing commission philosophies. Recent Colorado debates illustrate that wildlife-management policy can change through several different avenues.

• In 2024, Proposition 127 asked voters to prohibit hunting mountain lions and bobcats rather than leave those activities under existing CPW regulation. The measure was defeated.
• In 2025, HB25-1258 proposed removing the statutory language requiring Colorado to use hunting, trapping, and fishing as primary methods of necessary wildlife harvest. That proposal also failed.

For supporters of Amendment 83, these examples demonstrate that the current statutory framework is not a permanent safeguard

Why Does Hunting and Fishing Matter to Conservation?

Hunting and fishing are not the only ways Coloradans value wildlife, and wildlife does not derive its value solely from whether it can be hunted or caught.

At the same time, hunters and anglers play a substantial role in funding wildlife management. Colorado Parks and Wildlife states that revenues associated with hunting and fishing account for roughly 70 percent of wildlife-management funding, including license revenue and federal funds generated through excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment.

Hunters, anglers, and conservation organizations also contribute through habitat projects, volunteer work, advocacy, and support for public lands and access.

What Are the Legitimate Concerns?

There are several questions that should not be dismissed:

• “Traditional methods” is not specifically defined. Courts may eventually be asked to determine its scope.
• “Reasonable and necessary” creates a constitutional legal standard. Future courts may have to determine how demanding that standard is.
• Constitutional language is more difficult to change than ordinary statute.
• Future litigation is possible as courts determine how the new provision interacts with existing statutes, regulations, and other portions of the Colorado Constitution.

Acknowledging these uncertainties is different from assuming a particular court outcome.