Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish

Twenty-four states guarantee the right to hunt and fish in their constitutions, and hundreds of thousands of people participate in these activities in Colorado each year.

Finding an exact count of individuals is difficult because people buy multiple licenses or visit from out of state, but recent data provides a snapshot: * The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that Colorado issued 370,736 paid hunting licenses in 2021. * A 2026 report by the Common Sense Institute estimates that about 975,000 people fish in Colorado, including non-residents.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 24 states have constitutional provisions protecting the right to hunt and fish. Vermont adopted its language in 1777, while the other 23 states—including neighboring Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas—passed their amendments since 1996.

Supporters argue a constitutional amendment is needed to protect outdoor traditions from future legislative bans, noting that license fees provide the majority of funding for Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Opponents argue the measure is unnecessary because state law already protects hunting and fishing, and they worry the new constitutional standard could invite lawsuits and limit the state's ability to manage wildlife scientifically.

As of 2026, 24 other U.S. states have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to hunt and fish.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures and Ballotpedia, Vermont was the first state to add this right to its constitution in 1777. The other 23 states have adopted similar amendments since 1996. Florida is the most recent state to pass one, doing so in 2024. Two additional states, California and Rhode Island, have constitutional provisions that protect the right to fish, but not to hunt.

If voters approve Amendment 83, Colorado will become the 25th state to establish a combined constitutional right to hunt and fish.

Supporters of these measures argue that constitutional amendments protect a state's outdoor heritage. They say it ensures wildlife management remains based on science rather than future political challenges or animal rights campaigns. Opponents counter that hunting and fishing are already legal and regulated under existing state laws. They argue this makes adding constitutional protection unnecessary.

Current Colorado state law does not legally define the phrase "traditional methods" of hunting and fishing. Because the text of Amendment 83 also omits a definition, the exact meaning of the term would likely be decided by state courts if the measure passes.

Supporters, including the International Order of T. Roosevelt and Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, say the amendment protects the existing heritage of hunting and fishing from future legislative bans. They argue it reinforces current state statutes that already use hunting and fishing as the primary tools for wildlife management.

Opponents, including Animal Wellness Action and the San Juan Citizens Alliance, argue the undefined language is vague. They warn that establishing a constitutional right to "traditional methods" could invite lawsuits attempting to overturn past voter-approved bans on specific practices. According to opponents, these previously banned methods include: * Spring black bear hunting * Hunting bears with hounds or bait * The use of steel-jawed leghold traps and neck snares

The state's Legislative Council notes that the lack of definitions for terms like "traditional methods" could increase litigation costs for the state as courts determine how the new right interacts with existing wildlife regulations.

While exact financial totals are not tracked, other states with similar amendments have faced lawsuits over wildlife management, and supporters actively use these provisions to challenge state regulations in court.

As of 2026, Ballotpedia reports that 24 states have a constitutional right to hunt and fish. These amendments have influenced legal and legislative battles elsewhere: * In North Carolina, a conservation group used the state's amendment to sue over coastal fisheries management, winning a state court ruling in August 2026. * In Nebraska, the governor vetoed a 2014 bill that would have banned mountain lion hunting, warning the state's amendment could expose the government to costly litigation.

Pro-hunting organizations, such as the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, state that they support these amendments specifically to provide a legal basis to defend hunting access in court.

Opponents of Colorado's Amendment 83, including university law professors, argue that leaving terms like "traditional methods" undefined will invite expensive lawsuits against existing wildlife protections. The 2026 Colorado Blue Book, the state's official voter guide, estimates no significant near-term spending changes. However, the guide's fiscal note confirms that Colorado Parks and Wildlife could face increased costs for legal advice and litigation as courts interpret the new constitutional right.

Designating hunting and fishing as the "preferred means" of wildlife management does not immediately change current state agency practices, but it elevates this policy to the state constitution. Under current law, Colorado already directs agencies to use hunting, trapping, and fishing as the primary methods for wildlife harvests.

Because current licenses and seasons remain in place, the immediate practical effect is minimal. The state's fiscal note estimates no significant near-term spending changes for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, though the agency may spend more on legal advice and future litigation.

The change primarily affects how future wildlife rules are made and challenged. Supporters argue this ensures the agency can continue using hunting and fishing for conservation without interference from future ballot measures. Opponents and some legal scholars argue that adding undefined terms to the constitution will constrain wildlife biologists and invite costly lawsuits over existing regulations, such as the state's 1996 ban on certain traps.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Colorado would join other states with similar rights: * As of 2026, 24 states guarantee the right to hunt and fish in their constitutions. * In states with similar "preferred means" language, like Nebraska, the provision has been cited to warn against proposed bans on hunting specific species.

Colorado law already declares hunting and fishing as the primary methods for managing wildlife, while Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) strictly regulates how, when, and where residents can participate.

Under Title 33 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the state is required to use hunting, trapping, and fishing to manage wildlife populations. State law also protects sportspeople in the field by making it a misdemeanor to intentionally disrupt lawful hunting or fishing activities.

At the same time, CPW and its Commission enforce extensive restrictions. They require licenses and establish specific seasons, bag limits, and gear rules. Additionally, past citizen initiatives have banned certain practices. For example, voters banned the use of bait or hounds to hunt bears in 1992, and outlawed steel-jawed leghold traps in 1996.

Supporters of Amendment 83 argue that while current statutes protect hunting and fishing, elevating these rights to the state constitution is necessary to prevent future restrictions by the legislature, CPW, or citizen petitions. Opponents argue that current laws already guarantee hunting and fishing opportunities. They warn that the amendment's protection of "traditional methods" could be used in court to overturn existing bans on traps and bear baiting.