Colorado Legislative Council leaves proposed hunting and fishing amendment unchanged

The Colorado Legislative Council completed its review of Amendment 83 without changing the draft language, leaving voters to consider a proposed constitutional right to hunt and fish by traditional methods and a declaration that hunting and fishing are the preferred ways to manage wildlife.

The review was part of the council’s preparation of the state’s 2026 voter information booklet, commonly called the Blue Book. The council does not approve or reject ballot measures; it reviews their language and proposed voter information. No amendments were offered before the chair closed the review, according to the Sept. 3 Legislative Council recording.

The proposal, identified by the Colorado Secretary of State as Initiative 302, would add to the state Constitution a right to “hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife by traditional methods.” The right would apply to state-managed fish and wildlife, with exclusions for nongame species, endangered species and species illegal to hunt under federal law. It also would not authorize trespassing on private property, according to the Secretary of State’s ballot information.

The measure would declare hunting and fishing the “preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations” while retaining state authority to regulate those activities and wildlife management when necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety or preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities.

That language prompted questions about how courts could interpret “traditional methods,” “preferred means” and “necessary.” Legislative Council staff said the measure would not immediately change existing hunting and fishing regulations, but its effect on future policymaking could depend on court interpretation. Staff also said legal costs could rise if the amendment led to challenges.

Opponents predicted potential lawsuits involving trapping, leg-hold traps, snares, bear baiting, hunting bears with hounds and spring bear hunting. They did not identify a court ruling establishing that any of those practices would be protected or restored. Critics also questioned whether the preferred-means language could limit Colorado Parks and Wildlife or local governments in using nonlethal approaches such as relocation, deterrence, habitat work or disease management. Supporters and opponents disagreed about the measure’s implications for conservation and the economic importance of hunting and fishing compared with wildlife viewing.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife currently operates under statutes, commission regulations and permits governing wildlife management and methods of take. Its Chapter W-17 regulations address wildlife-damage situations and allow authorized personnel to designate lawful means of taking problem bears or mountain lions. The agency also describes regulated, science-based use as part of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

Those rules do not resolve how a constitutional right would interact with particular restrictions. The available record does not establish whether trapping, baiting, hound hunting or specific nonlethal practices would be covered by “traditional methods,” nor does it identify a controlling court opinion or attorney general ruling interpreting the proposal. The amendment is proposed law, not current law; its practical effect on state and local wildlife rules would depend on the final text and potentially on future legislation, agency action and litigation.