Colorado Voters Reject Constitutional Hunting Right
Amendment 83 failed in Colorado, where voters considered the constitutional change on November 3. The measure received about 44.9% support and 55.2% opposition, short of the 55% approval required for an amendment to pass.
The proposal would have recognized hunting and fishing as rights and identified them as the preferred approach to managing wildlife populations. Supporters said it could protect those activities from restrictions imposed by lawmakers or future ballot measures. The measure’s effect on state policy would have depended in part on how courts interpreted its language.
The campaign came amid disagreement over who should shape wildlife decisions. Supporters argued that animal-rights groups were using elections and legislation to influence management, rather than leaving decisions to Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the state agency overseeing wildlife and regulations. Opponents said wildlife should be managed for the public as a whole, not primarily for hunters and anglers, and raised concerns about the proposal’s undefined reference to traditional hunting methods.
About $3.5 million was spent supporting Amendment 83. The T Roosevelt Conservation Alliance accounted for $1.7 million, while the GOPAC Election Fund contributed nearly $1 million to a committee backing it. The opposing committee spent about $150,000.
Twenty-four other states already recognize a right to hunt in their constitutions. Colorado’s defeat leaves its existing wildlife-management framework in place, including the role of the state agency and its governor-appointed commission.
Colorado Rejects a Hunting Amendment That Could Reshape Wildlife Policy
Colorado voters rejected an amendment that could have given hunting and fishing a new constitutional foothold in decisions about the state’s wildlife. Amendment 83 drew about 44.9% support, well below the 55% threshold required for passage.
The measure would have designated hunting and fishing as preferred ways to manage wildlife populations. Its meaning for future policy was not settled in the text; courts could have shaped its reach when considering state laws and regulations. That uncertainty matters when a constitutional change could influence decisions by lawmakers and Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Opponents argued that wildlife belongs to the public broadly, not just people who hunt or fish, and objected that the proposal invoked “traditional” methods without defining them. Their concerns reflect the stakes of placing a hunting preference in the constitution while the state manages more than 960 species.
Supporters said the amendment was needed because animal-welfare groups were using ballot measures and legislation to influence wildlife management. But the defeat leaves those public processes, along with the agency’s existing role, central to future decisions. The campaign supporting the measure spent about $3.5 million, while the opposition committee spent roughly $150,000.
The vote followed years of contention over wildlife policy, including Colorado’s 2020 decision to require wolf reintroduction. Voters have now declined to make hunting and fishing constitutional rights in the state.
Colorado Voters Deny Hunting and Fishing Constitutional Protection
Colorado voters have rejected a measure that would have protected hunting and fishing in the state constitution, leaving those activities without the proposed safeguard against future restrictions. Amendment 83 received about 44.9% support, short of the 55% needed to amend the constitution.
Backers argued that hunting and fishing should be recognized as rights and preferred means of managing wildlife. They warned that animal-rights groups were increasingly trying to steer wildlife decisions through ballot measures and legislation, rather than relying on Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s expertise. The amendment’s supporters said it could have limited efforts by lawmakers or future ballot campaigns to restrict those activities.
The proposal’s defeat preserves the current system, in which state officials and the wildlife commission make policy and voters can also influence issues through ballot measures. Opponents said wildlife should be managed for everyone, not mainly for hunters and anglers, and questioned the measure’s undefined phrase about traditional methods. That objection helped block a constitutional protection sought by hunting advocates.
The campaign for Amendment 83 spent about $3.5 million, including nearly $1 million from the GOPAC Election Fund to a supporting committee. The opposition committee spent about $150,000. Twenty-four states already have constitutional right-to-hunt provisions, but Colorado voters chose not to add the state to that list.
