Colorado voters to decide whether hunting and fishing deserve constitutional protection

Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado. So why are voters being asked to make them constitutional rights?

Luke Hilgemann, CEO of the International Order of T. Roosevelt (IOTR) and chairman of the campaign supporting Colorado's Amendment 83, says it's about making sure future lawmakers can't easily take those rights away.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE FROM OUTKICK OUTDOORS

"Well, it's legal, but that doesn't mean that it's forever protected, right?" Hilgemann told OutKick OutDoors in an exclusive interview. "I mean, the biggest thing that the Constitution does is it gives it a higher power than just a statute."

In other words, a law can be changed by lawmakers. But changing a constitutional right is a much bigger undertaking.

Colorado voters will decide on Amendment 83 on Nov. 3, 2026. If it passes, hunting and fishing would become constitutionally protected rights in the state. The amendment would also establish hunting and fishing as the preferred ways to responsibly manage wildlife populations.

The measure needs at least 55% of the vote to pass. If approved, Colorado would join 24 other states that have already established constitutional protections for hunting and fishing.

Watch Luke Hilgemann's full interview with OutKick OutDoors here:

Hilgemann said the Colorado campaign is part of IOTR's larger effort to protect hunting and fishing traditions across the country.

"We worked together on a strategy to say how can we push back against the hunting and fishing and the conservation attacks that we've seen across the country, and came upon the constitutional right to hunt and fish as a way to slam the door against some of these radical policies that we're seeing take hold in states across the country," he said.

For starters, passing the amendment would NOT mean hunters and anglers could suddenly do whatever they wanted.

Hunting seasons, bag limits, licensing requirements and other existing regulations would remain in place. Colorado Parks and Wildlife would still oversee wildlife management and enforce rules designed to protect wildlife, public safety and future hunting and fishing opportunities.

"Seasons stay, regulations stay. We want responsible management through science," Hilgemann said.

The amendment also wouldn't allow people to hunt endangered species or other wildlife that is currently off-limits under its provisions. It also wouldn't give hunters permission to trespass on private property.

In short, Amendment 83 would protect the right to hunt and fish, not eliminate the rules governing how people do it.

Hilgemann also addressed concerns that the amendment could bring back hunting practices that Colorado has previously banned, including certain forms of bear hunting and trapping.

"That's not going to happen as a result of our amendment," Hilgemann said. "It doesn't go backwards. It doesn't bring those things back."

EVA SHOCKEY SAYS SHE RECEIVED 'THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS' OF DEATH THREATS FROM ANTI-HUNTING ACTIVISTS

Colorado's official ballot analysis says the amendment would not immediately change existing hunting and fishing regulations. However, it could affect future laws and regulations, depending on how courts interpret the new constitutional right.

Opponents argue that hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado, making a constitutional amendment unnecessary. They also worry that some of the amendment's language could lead to lawsuits or make it more difficult to change wildlife regulations in the future.

But Hilgemann says that's exactly why his organization wants stronger protections in place.

He pointed to a proposal during one of Colorado's recent legislative sessions that would have changed the wording of an existing state law regarding hunting and fishing as wildlife-management tools.

"There was a proposal that would have changed that word 'shall' to 'may,' which would have made it an option, right?" he said.

His concern is that, without constitutional protection, future lawmakers could change existing laws in ways that limit hunting and fishing opportunities.

Colorado is no stranger to heated debates over wildlife management.

In 2020, voters approved a measure requiring the state to reintroduce gray wolves. Then, in 2024, voters rejected a proposal that would have banned hunting mountain lions, bobcats and lynx.

Those votes illustrate how wildlife policy can be shaped directly by voters, rather than solely through decisions made by state wildlife officials.

Hilgemann said IOTR was already working to establish constitutional hunting and fishing protections in 15 other states when a private citizen began the process of getting Amendment 83 on Colorado's ballot.

The organization was then brought in to help develop the amendment's language.

"We thought, you know, Colorado maybe in two or four years," Hilgemann said.

But with the state's population and attitudes toward outdoor recreation changing, he believes now is the time to address the issue.

"If we don't do this now, unfortunately, I don't think it's ever going to happen in a state like Colorado," he said.

And there's more at stake than just the ability to spend a weekend in the woods or on the water.

Hilgemann pointed to a recent study from the Common Sense Institute that found hunting and fishing generate $6.1 billion in annual economic impact and support 25,000 jobs in Colorado.

He also noted that money from hunting and fishing helps fund wildlife conservation, habitat restoration and other outdoor resources that benefit everyone, including people who never pick up a fishing rod or hunting rifle.

"If we don't have hunting and fishing in a state like Colorado, someone needs to step up and pay for the conservation that happens," Hilgemann said.

Colorado isn't the only state where IOTR is working to establish constitutional protections for hunting and fishing.

Hilgemann pointed to Oregon's failed Initiative Petition 28, which would have removed certain exceptions from the state's animal-abuse laws. Had it passed, activities including hunting, fishing, pest control and raising livestock for food would have become criminal offenses.

The proposal failed to gather enough valid signatures to qualify for Oregon's November ballot, but Hilgemann said he expects its supporters to try again.

"They are playing the long game," he said.

For IOTR, the goal is to establish protections that will remain in place even as lawmakers and political priorities change.

SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY OUTKICK NEWSLETTER

"That's why the constitutional right is so important," Hilgemann said. "It gives it that extra layer of protection to make sure that when the political winds change, because they always do, that hunting and fishing in our outdoor heritage and tradition will be carried on, regardless if it's a Republican, Democrat, or Independent sitting in those offices that make these decisions."

Love all things parks, wildlife and outdoors? Follow OutKick OutDoors on Instagram and TikTok!