Is Hunting & Fishing a Right Worth Protecting?
There's a moment every serious hunter knows. You're up before the sun, coffee in hand, boots laced, and the world is still quiet. It doesn't matter if you're in a blind in Georgia, a river valley in Montana, or the high country of Colorado — that moment feels like something you were born into. It feels, honestly, like a right. And for a lot of Americans, it has been treated that way for generations. But in Colorado, the question of whether that right deserves formal, constitutional protection is now officially on the November 2026 ballot, and the economic stakes attached to the answer are enormous.
I'll be straight with you. I grew up fishing with my old man every summer in upstate New York. We didn't talk much out on the water — we didn't need to. What we did out there wasn't just recreation. It was connection. It was a tradition passed down without ceremony or paperwork. Now, watching legal battles and ballot campaigns chip away at that kind of tradition across the country, I find myself paying attention to what Colorado is doing. And you should too.
What Is Amendment 83?
Amendment 83, the Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish, will be on the November 2026 ballot. Put simply, it would establish a constitutional right of Coloradans to hunt, fish and harvest fish and wildlife, and would also recognize hunting and fishing as the state's "primary and preferred means" of responsibly managing wildlife populations.
The amendment was introduced by the organization, The International Order of T. Roosevelt (IOTR). Their CEO, Luke Hilgemann, put it plainly when he described the organization's mission: "We exist to protect hunting, fishing and what we believe are the fundamental freedoms of our namesake, Teddy Roosevelt."
This isn't some wild, untested idea, either. Across the nation, twenty-four states already have constitutional protections for hunting and fishing. If passed, Colorado would become the 25th state to have done so. Backers of the measure turned in over 184,000 petition signatures, with state election officials declaring more than 145,000 of those as valid, easily clearing the roughly 124,000 signature threshold required for constitutional amendments. That's not a fringe movement — that's a whole lot of people showing up and saying this matters.
Critically, supporters are quick to point out that the amendment doesn't strip away oversight. The measure preserves the full regulatory authority of Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and the state legislature, requiring only that regulations be "reasonable and necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing opportunities." In other words, the game wardens aren't going anywhere, and seasons and limits stay in place. This is about protection, not lawlessness.
Why Now? The Political Pressure on Hunters and Anglers
If you're wondering why hunters in Colorado felt the need to go this route, the answer is simple: they've been watching the terrain shift under their feet. In 2020, voters approved Proposition 114, requiring the state to reintroduce gray wolves. Then, in 2024, Proposition 127 sought to prohibit the hunting of mountain lions, lynx and bobcats. Colorado voters rejected it, but the proposal demonstrated how quickly a statewide political campaign can put hunting opportunities on the ballot and attempt to advance anti-hunting initiatives.
It hasn't stopped there. The Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity helped push a 2024 mountain lion hunting ban that failed at the ballot box, and they are back for a second try at a statewide fur sale ban after a previous failed attempt. The Boulder-based Prairie Dog Coalition is working to get a prairie dog shooting ban through the Colorado Wildlife Commission, which follows on the heels of an attempted beaver hunting ban bill that was killed in the legislature.
Amendment 83 is a response to that reality. Rather than waiting for the next ballot initiative, legislative proposal or regulatory campaign aimed at restricting hunting, supporters are asking voters to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish. Call it a pre-emptive strike if you want, but in the current political climate, a lot of guys who've spent decades hunting these mountains don't think that's an overreaction at all.
The Economic Weight Behind the Debate
Here's where things get real interesting — and where the conversation stops being just about tradition and starts being about dollars and cents. The numbers attached to hunting and fishing in Colorado are nothing short of jaw-dropping.
Colorado's 300,000-plus hunters and 950,000-plus anglers drive $3.25 billion in economic impact and support 25,000 jobs. Read that again. Three-point-two-five billion dollars. That's not some back-of-the-napkin estimate from a pro-hunting lobby group. Together, hunting and fishing bring over $3.25 billion to Colorado every year, impacting all 64 counties. Every single county in the state benefits — not just the rural ones, not just the ones with easy access to public land.
And the economic ripple effect is real. Think about what that money actually looks like on the ground. Every autumn, an army of hunters rolls into Western Colorado, leaving billions of dollars in its wake. They're filling up gas tanks, booking motel rooms, eating at diners, buying licenses, ammo, gear, and groceries. The typical nonresident hunter stays in the area they are hunting for seven days, supporting the local economy during that time. Small-town economies in places like Craig, Gunnison, and Steamboat Springs would feel the hit hard if that activity were significantly curtailed.
When it comes to sheer spending power, hunters also punch well above their weight. Hunters spend more per day than non-motorized snowsports participants: $253.67 a day for hunters, compared to $118.32 for non-motorized snowsports participants. When people start talking about outdoor recreation and the Colorado economy, skiing gets all the glory. But hunters are out here spending twice as much per day, and they don't get nearly the same PR.
Who's Funding Conservation? Sportsmen Are.
One thing that gets lost in these political arguments is the direct line between hunting and fishing licenses and actual wildlife conservation. This isn't a soft, feel-good story — it's a financial reality backed by hard data.
Colorado's nearly one million licensed anglers are part of a sportsmen community that provides 58 percent of Colorado Parks and Wildlife's annual funding. That means the agency responsible for managing Colorado's wildlife — protecting species, maintaining habitat, enforcing regulations — is funded primarily by the very people anti-hunting groups want to restrict. That's not irony, that's a structural reality that gets conveniently ignored in a lot of these ballot campaigns.
Zoom out to the national picture and the numbers get even bigger. Since its inception in 1937, the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Act, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, has generated more than $29 billion to monitor and manage the nation's fish and wildlife resources, support hunter and aquatic education, and improve access for outdoor activities like hunting, fishing and boating. That money comes directly from an excise tax that hunters and shooters pay on their gear. These funds, generated through a self-imposed 11% excise tax on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment, directly contribute to wildlife conservation, habitat management, hunter education and shooting range development.
In fiscal year 2025 alone, the Pittman-Robertson Act provided $1.3 billion for conservation funding. Colorado specifically received its share of that pipeline — Colorado received over $27 million in Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration funds in fiscal year 2024. That's money going directly into habitat, wildlife management, and hunter education programs across the state. The next time someone tells you hunting is harmful to wildlife, ask them where they think the conservation budget actually comes from.
The Opposition's Arguments
Now, to be fair, not everyone is on board with Amendment 83, and some of the concerns aren't totally without merit — even if you disagree with the conclusion.
Critics like Project Coyote argue that the measure is being sold to voters as simply preserving hunting and fishing as they exist today, but in practice it permanently rewrites the balance of power between voters, the legislature, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, local governments, and the courts, moving wildlife decisions out of the democratic process and into costly litigation over what the amendment's vague terms mean.
Specifically, the language around "traditional methods" has raised eyebrows. By enshrining vague "traditional methods" language in the constitution, the amendment could give practices like trapping, which were already restricted by Colorado voters in 1996, new legal leverage to challenge that ban in court. Opponents also point out that the amendment will need approval from 55% of voters — a constitutional supermajority — to pass. That's a high bar, and it shows that this is being taken seriously, not rubber-stamped.
The opposition also frames this as a states'-rights issue, arguing that Amendment 83 is an unnecessary constitutional amendment pushed by out-of-state special interests that could limit Colorado voters' ability to shape future wildlife policy. That's a political argument worth having. But supporters counter that the out-of-state pressure has, for years, been coming from the other direction — from environmental organizations in Arizona and California funding Colorado ballot campaigns to restrict hunting.
With 40% of Colorado's 4 million registered voters connected to hunting or fishing, this amendment safeguards the outdoor legacy for future generations against potential overreach. That's a pretty significant constituency to dismiss.
Why This Goes Beyond Colorado
Here's the bigger picture that every sportsman in America should be paying attention to: what happens in Colorado doesn't stay in Colorado. These ballot campaigns have a way of spreading. Florida voters approved a comparable amendment in 2024, and Hilgemann says leaders in a dozen additional states have since reached out about pursuing their own measures. The movement to constitutionally protect hunting and fishing rights is gaining momentum nationwide, and the outcome in Colorado this November could either fuel that momentum or slow it down considerably.
Think about what's at stake beyond just the sport. Think about the rural economies — the bait shops, the outfitters, the sporting goods stores, the motels that fill up every fall. Think about the conservation funding that flows from licenses and excise taxes directly into the land and wildlife you care about. An outright ban on hunting would have profound implications for wildlife management and for the state's economy. We're not talking hypothetically — we're talking about a real possibility if ballot campaigns continue to chip away at the legal and cultural footing that hunting and fishing stand on.
"Hunters and anglers play a major role in sustaining Colorado's natural resources through their willingness to pay for conservation through the purchase of hunting and fishing licenses," said Bob Broscheid, director of Colorado Parks and Wildlife. That quote says it all. Sportsmen aren't just participants in the outdoors — they are the primary financial backbone of wildlife conservation in this country. The system we've built, from the Pittman-Robertson Act to state license fees to conservation club memberships, only works if hunting and fishing remain viable, protected activities.
The Bottom Line
Whether you're a hardcore elk hunter, a weekend bass fisherman, or just a guy who appreciates what this tradition means to American life, Amendment 83 is a conversation worth having. The economics are undeniable — billions in annual impact, tens of thousands of jobs, and the majority of wildlife conservation funding in the state all trace back to sportsmen. The political threat is real, and the track record of ballot-driven restrictions in Colorado proves it.
The men who built this country's conservation tradition weren't pencil pushers. They were guys who got up before dawn, paid their licenses, and took care of the land because they loved it. Amendment 83 is, at its heart, an effort to make sure that legacy doesn't get legislated away one ballot initiative at a time. Colorado sportsmen are drawing a line, and what happens next will tell us a lot about where the rest of the country is headed.
Some things are woth fighting for. This is one of them.
