The Money Behind Colorado's Amendment 83: Who's Paying to Put Hunting and Fishing in the State Constitution
Two weeks out from the November midterm election, money is still pouring into the fight over whether Colorado should add a right to hunt and fish to its constitution. The ballot question is Amendment 83. The campaign finance reports show a lopsided fundraising contest. They also show a fight in which most of the dollars on both sides come from outside Colorado's borders.
For a state that markets itself on elk bugles, backcountry trout streams and a deep-rooted outdoor culture, the stakes go well beyond a line of text in a legal document. The vote asks who gets the final say over how Colorado manages its wildlife: voters, the legislature, a governor-appointed commission, or the courts.
What Amendment 83 Actually Says
Colorado voters will be asked Nov. 3 to weigh in on Amendment 83, which would add a new right in the state constitution to hunt and fish certain wildlife. It would also establish hunting and fishing as the "preferred means" of managing fish and wildlife, and apply to "traditional methods" of both activities. The measure was placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and needs 55 percent of the vote to pass.
The Guardrails Written Into the Text
The amendment carves out some limits. It says the right does not apply to "nongame species, endangered species or any species that is illegal to hunt under federal law" and does not "authorize trespass on private property". That second point matters to landowners and to anyone who has argued over a fence line. The measure does not establish the right to trespass on private property when hunting or fishing.
It also says it doesn't limit the state's ability "to regulate hunting, fishing and wildlife management if the law is necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing opportunities for all species statewide."
What a Yes or No Vote Means
The official nonpartisan voter guide, known as the blue book, lays out the choice plainly. A "yes" vote establishes a state constitutional right to hunt and fish, while a "no" vote means hunting and fishing continue as allowed under existing state and federal law. Under a no vote, hunting and fishing would remain legal and regulated under existing state law as well as Colorado Parks and Wildlife rules.
Following the Money: The Yes Side
The numbers favor supporters by a wide margin. Proponents have raised over $2.61 million and spent around $2.51 million, as of the Colorado Secretary of State's Oct. 19 deadline. Groups formed to oppose the amendment had raised $224,190 and spent $142,784 as of the same deadline.
A Wisconsin Hunting Group Is the Main Backer
The campaign's biggest funder is not a Colorado organization. Amendment 83 started as a citizen petition filed by West Group but has been primarily backed by the International Order of T. Roosevelt, which has contributed around $1.6 million to committees supporting the measure. The amendment was brought by a conservative law firm in Colorado but has been largely funded by that hunting advocacy group, based in Marshfield, Wisconsin.
This is a group with a track record elsewhere. The advocacy arm of the International Order of T. Roosevelt has contributed more than $1.5 million to the campaign and worked to pass a similar ballot measure in Florida in 2024. Colorado is the latest stop in a state-by-state strategy.
Other Donors and Committees
The Wisconsin group is not alone. Farrell-Roeh, a family-owned private investment company based in Denver, gave $150,000. The Wild Sheep Foundation, a Montana-based nonprofit, donated $30,000 to Colorado's Wildlife Deserve Better. A third committee, Hunt to Conserve Colorado, shares an address with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Hunt 2 Conserve, which have publicly committed $125,000 to support Amendment 83. As of Oct. 19, that committee had reported no contributions or expenditures of its own.
The bulk of the early money went to getting on the ballot. The coalition behind Amendment 83, including T. Roosevelt Action, Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, Howl for Wildlife and the 76′ Group, submitted over 180,000 signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State on July 8, 2026. The Yes on 83 committee reported spending over $1.65 million on signature collection. In other words, most of the yes campaign's money bought access to the ballot rather than persuasion of voters.
Supporters defend that process. Hilgemann said the International Order of T. Roosevelt "came in, worked with many organizations and individuals to make sure that we collected the signatures legally," describing the process as in line with the "standard operating procedure" in Colorado.
Following the Money: The No Side
The opposition is smaller and more fragmented. Protect Colorado's Constitution is one of at least three issue committees and 11 organizations battling Amendment 83, along with Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation and Stop the Constitutional Power Grab. Protect Colorado's Constitution was registered in June by Clint Talbott, a Nederland-based journalist and vice president and co-founder of Science for Colorado Wildlife. As of the Colorado Sun's early October report, that group's contributions totaled $6,171.
Where the Opposition's Dollars Come From
Committee totals understate the opposition's spending, because some of it is reported directly to the Secretary of State by outside groups. Two organizations have spent over $563,000 to oppose the measure, according to individual disclosures.
The largest of these is a pair of national animal welfare groups. Including a donation to Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation, The Center for a Humane Economy and Animal Wellness Action have contributed over $510,000 to advertise against Amendment 83, making them "the No. 1 organization on the no side," according to Pacelle, who is president of both. Animal Wellness Action has reported direct spending of $411,341 on advertising.
The Out-of-State Argument Cuts Both Ways
Both campaigns have been criticized for relying on outside money. On both sides, a small number of state and national organizations comprise the majority of funds raised, with concerns spiking around out-of-state interests getting involved in Colorado politics and wildlife.
Opponents frame the yes campaign as part of a national playbook. Mandy Culbertson, communications director for New Mexico-based Wildlife for All, which belongs to the opposition committee Stop the Constitutional Power Grab, described a "coordinated national push from groups like National Rifle Association, the Safari Club International, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation and the International Order of T. Roosevelt."
Supporters return fire by pointing to Washington, D.C. They single out the Center for a Humane Economy, run by Wayne Pacelle, the former CEO of the Humane Society, which helped lead the campaign for Proposition 127, a failed 2024 ballot measure to ban big cat hunting in Colorado. Hilgemann's argument, as reported, is that the same individuals and organizations are now throwing stones at the yes campaign for coming to Colorado to try and protect hunting and fishing, and that "We are there to protect hunting and fishing and people's access to the outdoors, not take it away."
The Backstory: Proposition 127 and the "Ballot Box Biology" Fight
It is hard to understand Amendment 83 without the 2024 election. Wildlife advocacy groups brought Proposition 127 to Colorado's ballot, asking voters whether the state should ban the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx, citing both ethical and scientific arguments. The measure failed, but the proponents of Amendment 83 say it is part of a larger attack against hunting and fishing in Colorado. Axios describes Amendment 83 as the latest ballot fight over who decides wildlife policy, following the failed 2024 ban on mountain lion, bobcat and lynx hunting.
The pressure did not stop at the ballot box. Over the last two years, some state lawmakers and animal rights activists have called hunting and fishing methods into question, pushing to make them optional conservation methods, to outlaw beaver trapping, and to ban mountain lion hunting. Dan Gates, a leading spokesperson for the yes campaign, said of the 2024 effort: "That was definitely an attack on hunting." He added: "It was a definite attack on the ability for the managing agency to utilize hunting as a management tool."
A Higher Bar for Future Ballot Measures
The structural effect may be the most important part of the amendment. Backers say the measure would not dictate wildlife policy. Whitwam, a supporter, put it this way: "Amendment 83 does not set a lion quota, season length, bag limit or population objective. It establishes a constitutional framework while leaving wildlife management in the hands of the agencies and professionals responsible for it."
The mechanics are less abstract. With a constitutional right in place, Whitwam said, future efforts like Proposition 127 would face a higher threshold, requiring 55% of the vote rather than a "simple 50% plus one" majority. Gates sees it as an added backstop against so-called "ballot box biology," as well as efforts to restrict hunting by the legislature and Colorado Parks and Wildlife's governor-appointed commission.
The Case for Amendment 83
Supporters argue that statute alone is too fragile. While state law already gives hunting, trapping and fishing an important role in wildlife management, proponents argue those protections can be eroded through the legislative process. They say the right to hunt and fish should not depend on statutes, future legislatures, ballot initiatives or changing commission philosophies.
The Commission Controversy
Supporters cite recent fights inside the state wildlife commission. They point to debates among the CPW commission over trapping and furbearer bag limits as illustrations of how wildlife-management policy is vulnerable to change. Hunters have accused Gov. Jared Polis of stacking the commission with wildlife advocates who oppose hunting as a form of wildlife management.
There was also a bill that supporters hold up as a warning. It was strongly opposed by hunting groups and failed to pass, but Backcountry Hunters and Anglers said it provided "a clear example of the difference between statutory and constitutional protections."
Heritage, Food and Funding
The cultural argument runs alongside the political one. Proponents say "hunting and fishing are part of Colorado's heritage and cultural identity and are important to its tourism and recreation economy," according to the state's blue book. Gates said the activities are "imperative" in Colorado, not only as part of the North American Model of Conservation and as an economic driver that gives Parks and Wildlife critical funding, but as a food source for generations of people who have kept them as part of their heritage and lifestyle.
The funding point is concrete. One-third of CPW's current annual revenue, about $115 million, comes from license sales, the blue book said. Anyone who buys a license and a habitat stamp each fall is helping pay for the agency that manages the resource.
There is also a regional argument. Twenty-four states have "right-to-hunt" language in their constitutions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, including Idaho, Wyoming and Utah. A campaign supporter told reporters, "We feel like rural Colorado, in a lot of ways, is under attack."
The Case Against Amendment 83
Opponents make two main arguments. The measure is unnecessary, and it is poorly drafted. "Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado," said David Kane, a spokesperson for Protect Colorado's Constitution, adding that Parks and Wildlife already regulates hunting and that state law directs the agency to "use hunting, trapping and fishing as the primary methods of accomplishing necessary wildlife harvests." That has led opponents to describe it as a solution in search of a problem.
The "Traditional Methods" Problem
The phrase drawing the most scrutiny is "traditional methods." The amendment guarantees the right to hunt and fish by "traditional methods" but does not define them, and opponents say it could be used to repeal bans on leghold traps, bear baiting and wildlife killing contests.
Kane stressed that the concern is about process, not panic. "Our concern is not that every wildlife regulation would suddenly become invalid if the amendment passes," he said. "Our concern is that these undefined constitutional standards will ultimately have to be interpreted and applied by courts rather than by wildlife professionals and policymakers." Opponents argue this could lead to a rise in legal challenges.
Who Gets to Define "Necessary"?
The regulatory carve-out has critics too. Opponents say what is "necessary" is open to debate, and that the law uses vague language to create legal loopholes. They also worry it will give hunting and fishing preference over other forms of outdoor recreation, resulting in more places being closed off to hikers.
Their broader argument is about ownership of the resource. Opponents, including wildlife advocates, say the state's animals are an asset that must be managed for everyone, not just for fee- and permit-paying hunters and anglers. They also say recreational activities have no place in the constitution and that the measure would reduce the state's flexibility to make what they claim are ethical changes to wildlife management.
Not Every Hunter Is on Board
The split does not run neatly between hunters and non-hunters. Colorado Politics reported that some Colorado hunters oppose the measure, according to a group. That is the logic behind the opposition committee Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation, which gives skeptical sportsmen a vehicle of their own.
A Parallel Ballot Measure Worth Watching
Amendment 83 is not the only outdoor question on the ticket. A separate ballot measure, Proposition 137, will ask voters whether the state should divert $175 million to $180 million a year in already-collected sales taxes on sporting goods equipment toward conservation. The details of that proposal deserve their own look, but the pairing shows how crowded the state's outdoor-policy agenda has become this cycle.
What It Means for the Modern Outdoorsman
For a man who hunts or fishes in Colorado, the practical effects of Amendment 83 are real but uncertain. Nothing changes on opening day. Seasons, bag limits and license rules remain in the hands of the commission and the legislature, and the amendment does not set any of them. What changes is the ground rules for future fights.
If It Passes
A yes vote would put a constitutional floor under hunting and fishing. Any future push to ban a method, a species or a season would need to clear the amendment's standards, and any ballot initiative would need 55 percent rather than a simple majority. It would also invite the courts to rule on what "traditional methods" and "necessary" mean, and those rulings could take years.
If It Fails
A no vote leaves the status quo in place, which is what Kane and other opponents say is already adequate. Hunting and fishing stay legal, the commission keeps its broad discretion, and the next Proposition 127-style effort would need only a bare majority. Supporters would likely read a defeat as a sign that the 2024 fights were not the last.
Know What You're Voting On
Whichever way a voter leans, the finance reports offer a useful lesson. A campaign's biggest checks often come from far outside the state, and what looks like a grassroots fight over local tradition is frequently a contest between national organizations with their own agendas. Reading the blue book, checking the Secretary of State's campaign finance database and weighing who is paying for the ads are all worthwhile steps before filling in an oval. The election is Nov. 3, and the 55 percent threshold means this one will take a wide coalition to pass.
