Colorado anglers will find a question on their November ballot that has nothing to do with licence fees or bag limits, and everything to do with who gets to set them.
The Colorado Secretary of State certified signatures for the Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish initiative on 20 August, placing it on the 3 November ballot. Filed as Initiative 302 and going to voters as Amendment 84, it would write into the state constitution "a right of the people of Colorado to hunt, fish, and take fish and wildlife", and declare that "the policy of the state of Colorado is that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of responsibly managing fish and wildlife populations."
Backers turned in more than 184,000 signatures. Election officials validated over 145,000 of them, clearing both the roughly 124,000 needed for a constitutional amendment and the 2% threshold in all 35 state senate districts, Complete Colorado reported. Because it changes the constitution rather than statute, it needs 55% support to pass.
The campaign is led by the T. Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, with the International Order of T. Roosevelt, Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management and Howl for Wildlife backing the effort.
"Coloradans value the state's long-standing hunting and fishing traditions," said Luke Hilgemann, chairman of T. Roosevelt Action. "This measure delivers constitutional clarity and long-term protection for those practices, consistent with science-based wildlife management."
"For many families, hunting and fishing are traditions passed down from one generation to the next," said Josiah, owner of the Salida Gun Shop and founder of Pyrost.net. "Amendment 84 helps ensure that future Coloradans have the same opportunities to enjoy the outdoors, learn conservation ethics, and responsibly participate in wildlife management."
What the amendment actually covers matters for anglers. It applies to state-managed species other than those that are endangered, federally prohibited or classified as non-game. It preserves the ability of Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the legislature to restrict hunting and fishing where necessary for science-based conservation, public safety, or to protect future opportunity. It explicitly does not create a right to trespass on private land.
The timing is not accidental. Proposition 127, which would have banned trophy hunting and fur trapping of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx, failed at the 2024 ballot. A statewide fur sales ban recently failed at the wildlife commission. A beaver hunting ban bill died in the legislature this year, and the Prairie Dog Coalition has been pressing the commission on prairie dog shooting.
Opponents say that pattern is the whole point. Wildlife for All, which circulated a memo to newsrooms in June, argues the measure "vests all decision-making authority related to wildlife with the legislature and Commission while limiting those decisions to a narrow list of approved purposes." Its framing is blunt: "The central question for Colorado voters is: What future wildlife policies, and whose voice, will be locked out?"
The group points to proponents' own language. In an interview with Field & Stream, Travis Thompson, director of policy and coalitions for the International Order of T. Roosevelt, described right-to-hunt amendments as "a lock on the door" that makes future restrictions far harder to advance.
Thompson credited Florida's amendment with helping stop a proposed nighttime shark fishing restriction on Marco Island, which had been floated to protect nesting sea turtles from lights. Wildlife for All also cites Nebraska, which adopted a right-to-hunt amendment in 2012; less than two years later the governor invoked it in vetoing a bill to end the state's mountain lion hunt, warning of conflict and litigation.
If it passes, Colorado becomes the 25th state with hunting and fishing in its constitution. It will share a ballot that may carry as many as 14 statewide measures, including a competing pair of income tax questions, according to The Colorado Sun.