Amendment 83: Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish

The law today

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is the state agency responsible for fish and wildlife management and administers hunting and fishing regulations adopted by the CPW Commission, a citizen board appointed by the Governor. State law requires wildlife and their environment to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people and visitors of Colorado. Current regulations cover where and when hunting and fishing can occur, license and permit requirements, methods and materials, and limits on how many animals can be taken (Blue Book).[1]

Official fiscal estimate

Per the Blue Book, the measure is not expected to significantly change state spending in the near term, but could increase legal costs for the state: CPW may have more workload and costs for legal advice on new rules, and litigation costs if hunting and fishing regulations are challenged. The exact amount cannot be estimated.[1]

Arguments made for

• Blue Book argument for: "This measure provides lasting protection against future attempts to restrict or eliminate hunting and fishing, and Colorado should join the 24 other states that similarly protect the right to hunt and fish in their state constitutions."[1]
• Chris Dorsey, a media executive and longtime host of hunting television programs, wrote in an opinion piece in the Craig Daily Press (as reported by The Colorado Sun) that Amendment 83 would not change methods CPW already uses, including bag limits, hunting seasons and method-of-take rules, but would "make more difficult eliminating hunting itself through emotional campaigns aimed at voters who may know little about wildlife management but are understandably fond of bear cubs."[6]

Arguments made against

• Blue Book argument against: "The state constitution should protect fundamental rights and not recreational activities." It adds that the measure "may restrict the ability to place guardrails on hunting, fishing, and trapping" and that vague language "could prompt costly legal challenges…"[1]
• Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation, an opposing issue committee, called the measure's language "intentionally vague" and "crafted to overturn the will of Colorado voters who banned some cruel practices decades ago" (as reported by The Colorado Sun).[6]

On record in support

• Vote Yes on 83, Colorado's Wildlife Deserve Better, and Hunt to Conserve Colorado: registered issue committees in favor.[3]
• Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, a hunting-focused nonprofit: funding the campaign to pass the measure (reported $1.5 million spent in support).[6]
• Safari Club International (San Antonio, Texas): contributed $50,000 to the Yes campaign.[4]

On record in opposition

• Protect Colorado's Constitution, Stop the Constitutional Power Grab, and Vote No 83: registered issue committees opposed.[3]
• Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation: opposing issue committee.[6]
• The Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, Science for Colorado Wildlife, Western Watersheds Project and Wildlife for All: among the organizations opposing the measure.[6]