Colorado Voters Decide on Amendment 83 Right to Hunt and Fish Nov 3

Colorado Voters Decide on Amendment 83 Right to Hunt and Fish Nov 3

by

Colorado voters will decide on Nov. 3 whether to permanently enshrine the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife in the state constitution through Amendment 83. If passed, the measure would establish these activities as secured rights, though it explicitly excludes the hunting of endangered species, nongame species, and any wildlife prohibited by federal law.

The proposal, known as the Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment, aims to move these protections to the highest level of state law to prevent them from being altered. The measure is designed to provide unalterable safeguards for outdoor sporting traditions that proponents argue are currently under threat from anti-hunting and fishing advocacy groups.

Colorado voters to decide on ammendment that would make hunting a constitutional right

Amendment 83 protects sporting rights without overriding agency authority

The stakes extend beyond tradition into the state’s balance sheet. The outdoor sporting industry in Colorado generates billions of dollars annually, and supporters of Amendment 83 argue that securing these rights would reinforce state economic stability.

Proponents clarify that the amendment would not override the authority of Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The agency would retain its full scientific power to dictate the specifics of conservation, including the setting of seasons, bag limits, and other regulatory rules.

Essentially, the amendment seeks to protect the right to participate in the activity, while leaving the method and timing of that activity to the biologists and regulators who manage the land.

The argument against constitutional redundancy

Opponents of the measure view the amendment as a solution in search of a problem. Many argue that because hunting and fishing are already legal and regulated under existing state laws, adding them to the constitution is an unnecessary addition to the state constitution.

Lions hunt buffalo dramatic african wildlife chase savanna pride lions chases buffalo across savanna dynamic action

“It makes it easier for people to abuse the hunting system,” said Mason Danielson, a student at FRCC’s Westminster Campus, who suggested the measure could lead to “Overhunting [and] overfishing.”

The concern isn’t just about the number of animals taken, but the fragility of the broader environment. Allen Wink, another FRCC student, noted that artificial influence on these ecosystems could disturb the natural balance, leading to long-term environmental degradation.

“There needs to be regulations in hunting,” Wink said. “[Amendment 83] can harm wildlife in the long run.”

The legal friction of “Permanent Rights”

The core of the debate rests on a fundamental disagreement over legal vulnerability. On one side, the Right to Hunt and Fish camp believes that statutory legality is too fragile—that a shift in political winds could lead to restrictive laws that dismantle Colorado’s sporting legacy. By moving the right to the constitution, they create a legal fortress that is significantly harder to dismantle than a standard law.

More on Hunt

Colorado voters will consider Amendment 83 to enshrine hunting rights

Related reading

Read next