Colorado Vote Could Write Hunting Rights Into State Constitution

Glenwood Springs —$123.92 million. That is the amount hunting and fishing license sales generated for Colorado Parks and Wildlife in fiscal year 2025-26. It accounts for nearly 44% of the agency’s total revenue. In November, Coloradans will decide if this lucrative recreational pastime gets written into the state constitution.

Amendment 83 proposes enshrining the right to hunt and fish in Colorado’s constitution. It would define these activities as the "preferred means" of managing the state’s fish and wildlife. The measure requires 55% of the vote to pass, a higher bar than standard legislative changes. West Group, a conservative law firm, brought the amendment forward. The International Order of T. Roosevelt, a Wisconsin-based hunting advocacy nonprofit, has largely funded and supported the effort. The group is working to establish similar constitutional rights in multiple states.

On paper, advocates argue the amendment protects these pursuits from a growing number of threats. They point to advocacy groups, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, and lawmakers as potential sources of interference. Their claim is simple: passage maintains the status quo in wildlife management.

In practice, opponents argue a recreational activity does not belong in the Constitution. They note that statutory protections already exist. Title 33 of state law currently requires Colorado Parks and Wildlife to protect, preserve, enhance, and manage wildlife for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of residents and visitors. That same statute declares that "the state shall utilize hunting, trapping and fishing as the primary methods of effecting necessary wildlife harvests." Opponents contend that elevating this to a constitutional right reduces Parks and Wildlife’s flexibility to manage wildlife. They also predict it will lead to more lawsuits.

The definition of "traditional" hunting and fishing methods has sparked debate between proponents and opponents. The amendment applies to these traditional methods but excludes species not typically hunted or fished, endangered species, and those illegal to hunt under federal law.

Let’s do the math on who actually funds this system. Licenses for non-Colorado residents to hunt elk drive the most revenue to the agency’s Wildlife Cash Fund. In the 2025-26 fiscal year, out-of-state elk licenses brought in around $45 million. That represents less than 5% of total licenses sold. Resident elk hunting licenses brought in over $5 million in the same period, representing just over 5% of license sales. For context, while residents provide steady support, the agency’s bottom line leans heavily on visitors paying premium prices for access to our public lands.

Parks and Wildlife is an enterprise agency. Its revenue comes almost entirely from the sale of licenses, state park passes, and other fees. The governor-appointed commission guides current regulations, including seasons, limits, allowable areas, methods, and license requirements. If Amendment 83 passes, the commission’s ability to adjust those parameters may face constitutional scrutiny. The agency currently operates under a mandate to balance wildlife health with public access. A constitutional "preferred means" clause could complicate that balance, particularly if management strategies diverge from traditional harvest methods.

The Post Independent reported on the measure’s background and financial context. The nonpartisan ballot information booklet confirms the 55% threshold and the specific language regarding "preferred means." The debate hinges on whether a constitutional right is necessary to protect an activity that already generates over $120 million annually for the state.

For locals, this is a question of governance and property rights. If you hunt or fish, the amendment may offer legal armor against future regulatory changes. If you don’t, it locks in a specific management philosophy for public lands. The cost of the status quo is already baked into your license fees. The cost of a constitutional amendment is a shift in how our wildlife agencies can operate for the next several decades.