Amendment 83 is part of a national campaign backed by wealthy, out-of-state special interests that have pushed nearly identical measures in states across the country. This measure imports one-size-fits-all constitutional language developed outside our state, rather than addressing the needs of Coloradans. Colorado’s wildlife policies should be shaped by Colorado voters, wildlife experts, and local communities, not outside special interests with a national agenda.
Amendment 83 misleads voters into thinking they are protecting the right to hunt and fish when it actually takes away our voice in future wildlife decisions. Constitutional amendments are supposed to be rare and should only be added to protect fundamental rights and better define how the government operates. Because constitutional amendments are difficult to change, voters should understand not only what Amendment 83 says today but also how it could affect future wildlife policy.
Colorado has a robust and healthy system of wildlife management that works. Vote NO on Amendment 83 and protect wildlife in Colorado.
Here are answers to common questions:
- Amendment 83 isn’t about protecting hunting and fishing. It’s about changing who gets to make wildlife policy. Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado, and neither is under threat. Amendment 83 would put new, vague language into the Colorado Constitution that future laws, regulations, ballot measures, and wildlife decisions would have to satisfy. That means it could change the balance between voters, the legislature, the Parks and Wildlife Commission, and the courts when future wildlife questions arise.
- Wealthy special interests from out-of-state are pushing this, not Coloradans. This unnecessary constitutional amendment is being pushed by out-of-state special interests and could limit Colorado voters’ ability to shape future wildlife policy. Hunting and fishing are already legal and protected in Colorado, yet this measure would give them special constitutional status, making it harder for voters, local communities, lawmakers, and wildlife experts to have a voice and adapt to changing conservation needs. Its vague language could open the door to cruel trophy hunting practices, restrict local control, and trigger costly lawsuits. Colorado’s wildlife belongs to all of us, and wildlife policy should remain flexible, science-based, and accountable to Colorado voters, not just hunters, and certainly not special interests.
- Amendment 83 would limit Colorado’s ability to respond to changing science and conservation needs. The amendment makes hunting and fishing the “preferred means” of managing wildlife and says regulation must be “necessary” for specified purposes, including “sound scientific wildlife conservation and management.” But these key terms are undefined and vague, creating uncertainty around future actions to address habitat, biodiversity, nongame species, disease, climate change, and other wildlife challenges.
- The biggest consequence may be moving wildlife decisions from the public process into the courts. Adding this amendment to the state constitution could turn future wildlife decisions into legal disputes over what words like “preferred,” “necessary,” and “traditional” mean. That could mean more litigation, greater costs for the state, and less flexibility for voters, legislators, and wildlife commissioners to respond to circumstances that no one can predict today. The fundamental question is not whether hunting and fishing should be legal because they already are in Colorado. It is whether Colorado should permanently lock a particular approach to wildlife management into its constitution, rather than allowing future Coloradans to make those decisions through science, public participation, and the democratic process.
- Amendment 83 could open the door to cruel and outdated hunting practices. By giving constitutional protection to vague “traditional methods,” Amendment 83 could make it harder for Colorado to restrict practices like trophy hunting, steel-jaw traps, bear baiting, and using packs of dogs to chase wildlife. Coloradans have repeatedly rejected inhumane hunting practices, and we shouldn’t put vague language in our constitution that would reverse voters’ decisions or make it harder for future generations to protect wildlife and advance humane, science-based management.