Colorado Amendment 83 Threatens $124 Million Wildlife Revenue

Aspen —A $45 million windfall. That’s what non-resident elk hunting licenses brought to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Wildlife Cash Fund in the 2025-26 fiscal year. For context, those out-of-state tags represent less than 5% of total licenses sold. Meanwhile, resident elk licenses — just over 5% of sales — generated a mere $5 million.

This disparity sits at the center of Amendment 83, which asks voters in November whether to enshrine the right to hunt and fish in the state constitution. The measure defines these activities as the "preferred means" of managing wildlife. On paper, it sounds like common sense. In practice, it’s a legal landmine.

The proposal was brought forward by West Group, a conservative law firm, but largely funded by the International Order of T. Roosevelt, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit that has pushed similar amendments in other states. Advocates argue the amendment protects hunting from legislative overreach. Opponents counter that a recreational activity doesn’t belong in the supreme law of the land, and that CPW already has statutory authority to manage wildlife.

The crux of the debate is flexibility. Currently, Title 33 requires the state to utilize hunting as the primary method of harvest. Amendment 83 would elevate this from a statute to a constitutional right. Why does that matter? Because statutes can be changed by a simple majority in the legislature. Constitutional provisions require a supermajority or a voter referendum.

If Amendment 83 passes, any future attempt by lawmakers to restrict hunting methods, change seasons, or alter access rules could be challenged in court as a violation of this new constitutional right. Proponents see this as a shield against political interference. Opponents see it as a chain on CPW’s hands, forcing the agency to justify every management decision through the lens of "traditional" methods, a term that has already sparked heated debate.

Let’s do the math on the stakes. Hunting and fishing license sales generated $123.92 million for CPW in FY 2025-26, nearly 44% of the agency’s total revenue. CPW is an enterprise agency; it doesn’t rely on general fund tax dollars. It relies on users paying for the privilege. If the constitutional right to hunt creates legal friction that complicates management, or if it opens the door to lawsuits challenging regulatory decisions, that financial stability is at risk.

The nonpartisan ballot information booklet notes the right applies to "traditional" methods and excludes endangered species or those protected under federal law. But "traditional" is subjective. Does it include bow hunting? What about modern synthetic materials in gear? These aren’t trivial details. They’re the exact points where lawsuits will be filed.

For locals, this isn’t just about ideology. It’s about whether the agency that manages your access to public lands has the flexibility to adapt to changing ecological conditions, or whether it’s now bound by a constitutional standard that prioritizes historical precedent over scientific necessity.

The bottom line is simple. If you value the current system where CPW manages wildlife based on science and public input, and you worry that a constitutional right to hunt will tie the agency’s hands and invite litigation, vote No. If you believe the legislature can’t be trusted to leave hunting alone, and you want a permanent legal guarantee that traditional methods remain the primary tool for management, vote Yes.

Either way, you’re voting on whether the next generation of wildlife managers gets a free hand or a rulebook written in stone.