Here’s what you need to know about Colorado’s proposed “right to hunt and fish” Constitutional amendment—and why you should care even if you don’t live in Colorado.
Photo above by Victor Schendel Photography
Hunting is a way of life for many of us, but it is also much more than that. It is the basis for a century-old conservation model, and a crucial component of the science-based wildlife management system and funding mechanism that has built and maintained the abundant wildlife resources we enjoy today.
In the last few years, I’ve watched with growing dismay as the anti-hunting movement flexed its muscles across the country, including in the state I call home. Here in Colorado, there have been multiple attempts to ban specific types of hunting via end-runs around scientific management protocols. Meanwhile, some of our state wildlife commissioners have openly boasted about voting their “values” and “feelings” over the agency’s science.
In some states, things are even worse. Oregon came frighteningly close this year to placing a measure on the ballot that would classify hunting, fishing, raising livestock for food, and even trapping rats and mice as criminal acts. The measure, IP 28, fell short of the required number of signatures to make the ballot—but it did get 104,262 validated signatures, which is scary enough, and its proponents are likely to try again next year.
In Colorado, a strong coalition of sportsmen’s groups led by Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management (CRWM) has been successful in beating back the most egregious threats to our hunting heritage. Now this coalition has decided it’s time to stop playing only defense. It’s time to take back the ball, as it were, and go on the offensive to forestall radical proposals like the one in Oregon.
That’s the backdrop to a proposed ballot initiative that would establish a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife in Colorado. The measure would affirm hunting and fishing as preferred methods of wildlife management, while preserving the state’s authority to regulate these activities based on sound science, public safety, and long-term conservation goals.
It’s true that hunting and fishing in Colorado are already protected by state statutes, as they are in most states. But state laws can be changed relatively easily, and anti-hunting groups have figured that out. Constitutions are a lot harder to change than statutes, and that’s the whole point of the proposed amendment.
If the attempt is successful, Colorado would be the twenty-fifth state with a constitutional right to hunt and fish. The precedent goes all the way back to 1777, when Vermont amended its constitution to read, in part: “The inhabitants of this State shall have liberty in seasonable times, to hunt and fowl on the lands they hold, and on other lands not inclosed… under proper regulations…”
In more recent times, twenty-three other states have followed suit in amending their constitutions to protect hunting, angling, and trapping. They are: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The exact wording of Colorado’s proposed initiative is as follows:
“Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution creating a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife by traditional methods, including all species of fish and wildlife managed by the state except non-game species, endangered species, or any species that is illegal to hunt under federal law, and, in connection therewith, establishing hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations; and persevering the right of the state to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management if necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing opportunities for all species?”
This would not mean that hunters and anglers would have the right to go around trespassing or breaking the law, and it would not limit the authority of the state wildlife agency to set seasons, bag limits, and game laws. It simply establishes that hunting and fishing are the primary and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife populations.
The idea is that if someone tries to ban a commonly used method of hunting or fishing, or stop hunts for a currently hunted species without a solid scientific reason, hunters and anglers would be able to use this constitutional right to challenge it in court. Shortly after Florida passed its amendment in 2024, for example, activists attempted to stop the state’s black bear hunt. A court found that the scientific basis for the hunt was sound, so it was allowed to proceed.
Bottom line: A constitutional right to hunt and fish is another tool we can use to ensure that professionals, not politicians, make decisions about wildlife management. It can help state agencies continue to be guided by science rather than emotional rhetoric.
Time will tell whether this attempt by the Colorado sporting community to go on the offense is successful. No matter what happens, hunters in other states would do well to watch carefully what unfolds. You may be on the playing field sooner than you think.
