Yes. Science for Colorado Wildlife urges Coloradans to vote No on Colorado Amendment 83, the 2026 right to hunt and fish constitutional amendment. Science should decide how each species is managed, season by season. Amendment 83 decides in advance: it makes hunting the constitutionally "preferred means" whatever the data say about a population, a disease outbreak or a drought, and it protects undefined "traditional methods" that courts, not biologists, would define.

No. Wildlife management works when biologists can match the tool to the situation: a closed season when a population crashes, a nonlethal method when conflict can be prevented, hunting where it fits. Amendment 83 writes one preferred tool into the constitution and leaves the rest to litigation. Twenty-one wildlife scientists and specialists have warned that the measure's undefined terms could put Colorado's voter-approved bans on trapping, baiting and hounding at risk.

Amendment 83 is a proposed amendment to Colorado’s constitution that is backed by far-right, out-of-state special interests including Safari Club, International Order of Teddy Roosevelt and Advance Colorado. These groups have pushed nearly identical language in states across the country.    

Amendment 83 would establish a right to hunt and fish with “traditional methods” –   a vague term that could bring back hunting and trapping methods that Colorado voters have previously banned as cruel and unfair hunting practices, such as steel-jawed leghold traps, neck snares and hunting bears with dogs and bait. Importantly, hunting and fishing in Colorado is already guaranteed by law: CRS 33-1-101 directs that “the state shall utilize hunting, trapping and fishing as the primary means of effecting necessary wildlife harvest”.

Amendment 83 would also require that hunting and fishing be “the preferred means” of managing wildlife populations. Such a requirement would limit the authority of Colorado wildlife agencies and the General Assembly to use other methods, in addition to hunting and fishing, such as habitat restoration, relocation, vaccination, and nonlethal coexistence strategies to sustainably manage wildlife.   

 Further, the amendment directs that wildlife may be regulated only “if necessary” for “sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing opportunities for all species statewide”-  more vague language that neither specifies who determines “if” nor defines “sound scientific wildlife management”. 

Your guess is as good as ours. Amendment 83 does not define “sound scientific wildlife conservation and management” in the ballot language. This leaves us to question its meaning and intent. However, in recent years, trophy hunting and trapping interest groups have increasingly referred to hunting or trapping of wildlife as “scientific wildlife management.” Importantly, there is no scientific evidence that hunting and fishing are effective at managing sustainable wildlife populations. On the other hand, decades of peer reviewed science documents that nonlethal wildlife management methods, such as habitat restoration, effectively restore wildlife populations.

A “yes” vote would make a permanent change to Colorado’s Constitution – inhibiting adaptative wildlife management in response to our changing environment and dismissing Coloradans’ evolving opinions about how wildlife should be managed.  A “yes” vote would silence the voice of the majority of Coloradans in wildlife decisions. A “yes” vote would restrict Counties and Cities from enacting their own hunting and gun safety regulations.

Hunting and fishing are already legal and carefully regulated under existing state and federal laws.  By enshrining hunting and fishing as the “preferred means” of managing wildlife, a “yes” vote would tie the hands of wildlife biologists and elected officials who need other tools, in addition to hunting and fishing, to sustainably manage wildlife populations.  

Although 83 would allow the state to regulate hunting and fishing “if the law is necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management…”, the measure does not define “sound science” and puts the onus of proof for necessity of wildlife management into courts and with lawyers instead of with professional scientists. Once locked into the Constitution, 83 could not be easily changed to adapt to changing conservation needs – the opposite of what defines best available science and adaptive management.  

A “yes” vote would thus limit the ability of scientists and Coloradans to shape wildlife policy by tying the hands of scientists and by limiting the use of the ballot initiative process to determine best strategies for sustaining wildlife populations.  

A “no” vote ensures that all Coloradans voices are heard. A “no” vote leaves in place statutes and laws that Coloradans have previously voted on that ban steel-jawed leghold traps, neck snares, bait and dogs to hunt black bears, the spring bear hunt, and wildlife killing contests.

A “no” vote maintains CPWs ability to use methods, in addition to   hunting and fishing, to manage wildlife such as habitat restoration, vaccinations, and nonlethal coexistence strategies.

This is exactly the question voters should be asking—because there’s no good answer.  

Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado and fully protected under existing state statute CRS 33-1-101. If the proponents of Amendment 83 genuinely wanted to reinforce that, they could instead pursue a statutory change through the legislature. 

 83 simply doesn’t belong in the constitution. Colorado’s constitution enshrines basic, enduring rights—life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the public trust doctrine and due process of law. The Constitution should not be used to create statewide wildlife policy which needs to be flexible and responsive to changing environmental conditions.  Because this amendment would give hunting and fishing special constitutional status, wildlife experts, voters, local communities and lawmakers will have a harder time making changes that are necessary to adapt to changing conservation needs.  

No. Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado and fully protected under existing state statute. In fact, current law explicitly says that “The state shall utilize hunting, trapping, and fishing as the primary methods of effecting necessary wildlife harvests” (C.R.S. § 33-1-101(4)). There is no need for a constitutional amendment. 

Yes, but in a bad way. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), the agency that manages wildlife in Colorado, uses many tools, in addition to hunting and fishing, to sustainably manage wildlife in Colorado. CPW uses strategies such as habitat restoration, relocation, and conflict prevention strategies to manage wildlife. 83’s “preferred means” provision would limit CPW’s wildlife management discretion by establishing hunting and fishing as the preferred means of management. 83 would tie the hands of wildlife professionals, limiting them to using only hunting and fishing, while preventing them from using a range of science-based tools that they currently use, including habitat restoration, vaccinations, and non-lethal coexistence methods, to sustainably manage wildlife.

Yes, but in a bad way. The amendment would bring back the right to hunt and fish (which are already protected under state law) with “traditional methods” while also requiring any hunting and fishing regulations to clear an undefined “reasonable and necessary” hurdle. Regulations such as hunting and fishing quotas and seasonal restrictions that protect wildlife from over-hunting could become illegal under 83. If CPW closed certain hunting units because of a Chronic Wasting Disease outbreak —that could become illegal under 83. If CPW closed a river to fishing because of drought and excessively warm water — that could become illegal under 83.

The term “traditional methods” is not defined anywhere in the initiative. The proponents of Amendment 83 use “traditional methods” as code for unfair, cruel and controversial hunting practices, like luring wildlife with food baits, using packs of dogs to chase wildlife, and catching and killing wildlife with steel-jawed leghold traps, snares and poisons. In fact, a manual from the Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation, a key organization behind “right to hunt” measures nationwide, explicitly states: “by using a phrase like ‘traditional methods,’ proponents can give a stronger protection to trapping without actually mentioning trapping.”  A leading proponent of amendment 83, Dan Gates, who is the head of the Colorado Trappers and Predator Hunters Association, has been vocal about his desire to reinstate practices that voters have prohibited, including spring bear hunting, hounding of bears, and baiting.  Once locked into the constitution, Colorado voters, lawmakers, and wildlife experts would have much greater difficulty preventing these cruel practices, which can cause extreme suffering, orphan young animals, and go against principles of fair-chase hunting. 

Yes. Although in 1996, Colorado voters passed Amendment 14, which banned the use of steel-jawed leghold traps, body crushing traps, poisons, and snares on public lands, amendment 83’s undefined “traditional methods” language creates a serious risk of conflict with that existing ban. Powerful and wealthy trapping interests could go to court arguing that a newly created constitutional “right” to hunt and fish “by traditional methods” overrides the voter-approved trapping ban, bringing back the use of these cruel and unfair practices that Coloradans voted to prohibit nearly 30 years ago.

Yes, and this will be one of Amendment 83’s most far-reaching consequences. In the face of the world’s 6th mass extinction of native biodiversity, enshrining hunting and fishing as the constitutional “preferred means” of wildlife management would undermine any chance of recovery by preventing the protection and restoration of habitat which is the biggest driver of extinction. Further, because 83 would require any hunting and fishing regulations to clear an undefined “reasonable and necessary” hurdle, Amendment 83 raises the legal bar for any future wildlife protection that isn’t hunting or fishing related – such as habitat restoration and protection. For example, CPW acknowledges that habitat restoration is an important strategy to restoring mule deer populations, but this method would be sidelined under 83.

Yes, 83 could affect the ability of citizens to use the ballot initiative process to have their voice heard regarding wildlife conservation issues. First, guaranteeing in Colorado’s constitution hunters’ use of vague “traditional methods,” and that hunting is the “preferred means of responsibly managing wildlife, Amendment 83 would prevent citizens from advancing ballot measures that would protect wildlife from unfair and cruel hunting methods such as baiting, and the use of hounds to pursue wildlife. Second, Amendment 83 seems to seek to prevent the use of the ballot initiative from the wildlife policymaking process altogether. The use of direct democracy and the right to appeal to fellow voters on any matter of their own choosing is a long-held and valued part of Colorado’s history. It should be protected, not deliberately obstructed by special interests.

Precisely because they hunt and fish, hunters and anglers have the most at stake in getting wildlife management right. 83 could make that harder, not easier. Hunting and fishing are already legal and protected under Colorado law, so 83 doesn’t add any new protections that Sportsmen and women don’t already have. What Amendment 83 does add is legal uncertainty and a rigid, one-size-fits-all constitutional standard in place of the flexible, science-based approach that’s kept Colorado’s wildlife and fisheries healthy for decades.

No. Hunting and fishing are already protected in Colorado under existing state statute CRS 33-1-101. A “no” vote maintains your privilege of hunting and fishing in Colorado. A “no” vote means that you do not support amending our Colorado constitution with the preemptive, anti-democratic language of Amendment 83 that limits your voice.

Amendment 83 is driven largely by far-right out-of-state special interests. The main fiscal agent is the International Order of T. Roosevelt. Far-right interests aligned with MAGA, Americans for Prosperity, Turning Point USA, Advance Colorado and ALEC are the drivers of this ballot amendment.

Multiple national and Colorado-based wildlife advocacy groups oppose Amendment 83 because it would limit the state’s ability to manage wildlife and make it harder for voters to have a say in wildlife policy going forward. Opposition to 83 is wide and varied, including wildlife protection organizations, conservation advocates, voting rights advocates, veterinarians, wildlife rehabbers, gun safety advocates, local municipalities and rank-and-file hunters and anglers themselves.

We’re a coalition of Colorado organizations, wildlife advocates, hunters, anglers, and residents who have come together because we believe our constitution shouldn’t be used to lock in a national, out-of-state political agenda. We’re united by a simple conviction: hunting and fishing are already legal and protected in Colorado, and Amendment 83 isn’t about protecting something under threat but about permanently limiting Coloradans’ ability to shape wildlife policy for generations to come.

There’s a role for everyone in this effort. You can talk to friends, family, and neighbors about what Amendment 83 would actually do. Personal conversations can move more votes than almost anything else. You can share our materials on social media, put up a yard sign, or help distribute literature to your community. If you’re able, financial contributions help us reach more voters. And if you’re part of an organization, business, or community group, help is more useful than ever. Sign on as an endorsing organization, coalition partner, or connect with others who should know about this. Every bit of help, big or small, moves us all closer to protecting Colorado voters’ voices in wildlife policy.

Yes! Please fill out our endorse form.

Thank you for your support! Please click here to donate—every little (or big) bit helps!