Protect Colorado’s Constitution

09/17/2026

AMENDMENT 83 WOULD GIVE HUNTING AND FISHING SOMETHING OTHER COLORADO WILDLIFE INTERESTS DO NOT HAVE: CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS.

That is the part people should be paying attention to.

Colorado wildlife does not belong to one group. Hunters use it. Anglers use it. Photographers build businesses around it. Tour operators depend on it. Wildlife biologists study it. Ranchers live with it. Wildlife watchers care about it. CPW commissioners and biologists are supposed to manage it for the whole state.

Amendment 83 would put one of those interests into the Colorado Constitution.

It creates a constitutional right to hunt and fish using “traditional methods” and declares hunting and fishing the “preferred means” of managing wildlife populations.

Think about what that means.

Photography does not get constitutional preference. Wildlife watching does not get it. Ecotourism does not get it. Nonlethal wildlife management does not get it. Wildlife biologists do not get constitutional preference for the tools they believe are best for a particular species or problem.

Hunting and fishing would.

That is not a small change.

Right now, wildlife fights are messy because democracy is messy. People argue before CPW. They argue before the Wildlife Commission. They argue at the legislature. They organize. They vote. They sue. They lose. They win. Then they come back and argue again.

Amendment 83 would put constitutional language behind one side of those fights.

That should bother people.

Why should a hunter enter the next wildlife dispute with constitutional language behind his interest while a Colorado photographer, wildlife biologist, tour operator, rancher, wildlife advocate or ordinary citizen does not?

Why should one use of wildlife be declared “preferred” before the next drought, disease outbreak, habitat problem or management fight even happens?

And this is not some made-up concern from people who hate hunting.

One of Amendment 83’s most visible Colorado supporters, Dan Gates, has talked openly about wanting another barrier around future wildlife ballot measures. He has said the amendment would help stop ballot initiatives and has talked about using the courts.

That tells us something about how supporters expect this language to be used later.

The real fight is not whether hunting and fishing should remain legal. They already are.

The fight is over who gets more power the next time Colorado disagrees about wildlife.

Hunters and anglers have every right to show up, organize, testify, vote and fight for the policies they believe in.

So does everybody else.

Colorado wildlife belongs to all of us.

No one group should get to walk into the next fight with the Constitution already putting its preferred tool on top.

Please help us keep the truth flowing. Help us reach more people.
https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate

09/17/2026

MAINE SPENT YEARS FIGHTING OVER THE SAME WORDS COLORADO IS NOW BEING ASKED TO PUT INTO OUR CONSTITUTION.

“Traditional methods.”

“Preferred means.”

Maine lawmakers have wrestled with Right to Hunt and Fish amendments for years, and one legislator finally put the problem plainly:

“The problem is, we didn’t get the words right. In fact, we don’t even know what some of the words mean.”

He specifically questioned “traditional methods,” saying the amendment would protect them, “but nobody seems to know what that means.”

That wasn’t an anti-hunting argument. Rep. Robert Duchesne said a constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish had “a lot of merit.” His problem was writing words into the Constitution when lawmakers themselves couldn’t clearly explain what those words meant.

And Maine’s actual proposal used another phrase Coloradans should recognize.

It declared public hunting and fishing “a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.”

Colorado’s Amendment 83 contains both concepts: “traditional methods” and hunting and fishing as the “preferred means” of managing and controlling wildlife populations.

Maine kept debating this language. A 2015 proposal was indefinitely postponed after a legislative committee’s majority recommended it ought not pass. Another attempt followed, and Maine still does not have this language in its Constitution.

This isn’t about whether you support hunting. I do.

It’s about whether vague words belong permanently in our Constitution when another state spent years arguing about what those same words actually mean.

If Maine lawmakers were asking what “traditional methods” means, Colorado should be asking too.

Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado. A No vote keeps them legal.

Vote NO on Amendment 83.

Help us protect the vote:
https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate



Paid for by Protect Colorado’s Constitution.

09/16/2026

BEWARE. BE INFORMED. READ THE WORDS.

“Preferred means” is exactly that: preferred means.

Amendment 83 says:
“Hunting is the preferred means of wildlife management.”

That is not the same as saying:
“Hunting shall be preserved as a protected pastime and a choice of optional food harvesting into perpetuity for Colorado citizens.”

The amendment does NOT use language that simply protects hunting as a tradition, recreation, or source of food. Instead, it uses the words “preferred means of wildlife management.”

Those words matter.

The words reach beyond the act of hunting itself and into the way Colorado manages wildlife.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife currently relies on biologists, scientific data, changing wildlife populations, habitat conditions, disease, drought, wildfire, relocation needs, public safety, and public input when making wildlife-management decisions.

So ask yourself:
What happens when the Constitution establishes hunting as the “preferred means” of managing wildlife?

What happens to the flexibility of wildlife professionals?
What happens to the democratic process?
What happens when Coloradans have concerns about habitat, relocation, disease management, drought recovery or other wildlife-management decisions?

“Preferred” is the language. “Heritage” is the slogan. A history of hunting does not give hunting a constitutional entitlement to take precedence over every other modern tool of wildlife management.

Don’t let the word “heritage” do the work that the amendment’s actual language does.

Heritage is a slogan.

Words written into the Constitution are something else entirely.

And the amendment our children inherit will not simply be a statement about the past. It will establish a constitutional framework for the future.

Before you decide what Amendment 83 means, look past the slogans. Read the words. Consider what those words could mean for science, wildlife management, and Colorado’s public process.

Know what their words say.
Know what those words mean.
Know what Colorado’s children will inherit.

Please help us keep the truth flowing. Help us reach more people.
https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate

09/15/2026

MONTANA TRIED THIS THREE TIMES. THEIR OWN WILDLIFE AGENCY CALLED IT “AN ATTORNEY’S DREAM.”

Before Colorado puts Amendment 83 into our Constitution, take a hard look at Montana. Hunting was already constitutionally protected there, yet lawmakers made three attempts, in 2017, 2021 and 2023, to strengthen those protections with Right to Hunt, Fish and Trap amendments. None reached Montana voters.

In 2017, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks opposed the proposal. Its chief legal counsel called it “a solution in search of a problem” and warned that putting this kind of wildlife language into the Constitution could open management decisions to court challenges.

Then came the line Colorado hunters should remember:

“In truth, it’s an attorney’s dream.”

FWP warned that hunting and fishing license dollars could end up paying lawyers to defend wildlife regulations instead of paying for wildlife management.

Montana tried again in 2021 and again in 2023. The wording changed, but the same basic ideas kept returning: protected hunting methods, hunting and trapping given special status as wildlife-management tools, and constitutional limits involving what regulation was “necessary.”

Sound familiar?

Colorado’s Amendment 83 uses “traditional methods,” makes hunting and fishing the “preferred means” of managing wildlife populations, and requires regulations to be “necessary” for specific purposes.

The Montana proposals were not identical to Amendment 83, but Montana spent three legislative sessions fighting over these same kinds of constitutional restrictions. This wasn’t some anti-hunting state trying to eliminate hunting. Their own wildlife professionals were warning lawmakers about litigation, management restrictions and license dollars being pulled into court fights.

Montana looked at this kind of constitutional language three times, and all three attempts failed to reach voters. That should get Colorado’s attention, especially when Montana’s own wildlife agency was warning about exactly the kinds of legal and management problems Colorado could end up dealing with.

Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado. Amendment 83 goes further by putting undefined “traditional methods,” “preferred means” and a new “necessary” standard into our Constitution. Montana’s experience shows why those extra words deserve far more scrutiny than the Yes campaign is giving them.

That is one hell of a gamble with Colorado wildlife management.

Vote NO on Amendment 83.

Help us protect Colorado’s Constitution:
https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate



Paid for by Protect Colorado’s Constitution.

09/14/2026

A RETIRED CPW BIOLOGIST AND LIFELONG HUNTER IS TELLING VOTERS TO READ THE LANGUAGE.

Amendment 83 is not about keeping hunting and fishing legal. THEY ALREADY ARE.

It puts vague terms like “TRADITIONAL METHODS” and “PREFERRED MEANS” into Colorado’s Constitution, then leaves CPW, lawmakers, voters, and courts to fight over what they mean later.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT NEEDS FLEXIBILITY. AMENDMENT 83 LOCKS IN CONFUSION.

VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 83.

𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗛𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲



Gary Skiba, retired CPW biologist, hunter
The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction

09/14/2026

Ohio's own sportsmen pushed back on the Right to Hunt language

Something happened in Ohio that Coloradans should pay attention to.

The International Order of T. Roosevelt, one of the national organizations behind Colorado's Amendment 83, went to Ohio supporting another constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish amendment. IOTR CEO Luke Hilgemann testified for it and made the case for acting before hunting and fishing were actually threatened.

Hilgemann himself framed the question this way: "Why does Ohio need this amendment when hunting and fishing aren't in jeopardy here?" His answer was that Ohio needed to act before those rights came under threat.

Sound familiar?

Then some of Ohio's own hunters, trappers and sportsmen started raising serious problems with the language.

This wasn't an anti-hunting organization trying to stop hunting. The Ohio State Trappers Association opposed the proposal, representatives of the Ohio Houndsmen Association opposed it, and the League of Ohio Sportsmen told lawmakers the proposal needed more work.

One of their concerns should be very familiar to Coloradans: "traditional methods."

The Ohio State Trappers Association told lawmakers, "As trappers we were concerned with the thought that 'traditional methods' would protect trapping, or anything for that matter, but could actually be a term used against us..."

That deserves some attention. The very people you would expect to welcome constitutional protection for "traditional methods" were warning lawmakers that the words were vague enough that they weren't convinced the language protected them.

The association didn't mince words about the larger proposal either, calling it "neither a grassroots effort nor wording worth fighting for."

The League of Ohio Sportsmen had its own warning. Chairman Paul Brooks told lawmakers, "Passage in its current wording will leave many sportsmen with a false sense of security."

Brooks also raised the question of where this effort came from. He testified that "a group from outside Ohio has brought this to a Senator without contacting a single in-state sportsmen's group."

That gets to the heart of what makes the Ohio record so interesting. A national organization came into the state promoting constitutional language as protection for hunters. Some of the people who actually hunt, trap and organize sportsmen in Ohio read that language and questioned whether it delivered what was being promised.

IOTR was directly involved. Luke Hilgemann testified in support, IOTR's Travis Thompson and Spencer Gross later testified for the proposal, and Ohio lobbying records show T. Roosevelt Action actively advocating for it.

By the third Senate hearing, reporting counted 48 opponents and six supporters. The opposition included animal-welfare advocates, but it also included the trappers and houndsmen whose objections make this story so unusual.

After three hearings, the Senate proposal has not been reported out of committee. Ohio's separate House Right to Hunt proposal hasn't made it out of committee either.

Now look at Colorado.

Amendment 83 puts the same phrase "traditional methods" into Colorado's Constitution. It also declares hunting and fishing the "preferred means" of responsibly managing and controlling wildlife populations.

Ohio's experience gives us a pretty good reason not to wave those words away as harmless. Their own trappers questioned what "traditional methods" actually protects. Their sportsmen warned that the amendment's wording could create a "false sense of security." And they questioned why an outside organization was bringing constitutional language into their state.

Colorado should be asking the same questions before putting this language permanently into our Constitution.

Hunting and fishing are already legal here. A No vote keeps them legal. We don't need to gamble with undefined constitutional language because a national organization promises us what those words are supposed to mean.

Vote NO on Amendment 83.

Help us protect Colorado's Constitution:
https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate



Paid for by Protect Colorado's Constitution.

09/13/2026

Dan Gates is not some random guy online. He is one of the public faces selling Colorado the “Right to Hunt and Fish” constitutional amendment. He is the Executive Director of Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, President of the Colorado Trappers & Predator Hunters Association, and Vice President of Fur Takers of America.

So listen to what he says this amendment gives them:

“Down the road, you want to take this away? You want to prohibit it? You want to turn around and restrict it? We have the state constitution that denies you the opportunity to do that, and if you decide you want to do it, now we have legal standing and we can go to court.”

Who is “you”?

Colorado.

Future voters. Future wildlife commissioners. Future lawmakers. Future families who may look at trapping, cruelty, drought, habitat loss, crowding, development pressure, or new science and decide our wildlife rules need to change.

That is what this amendment is built to stop.

Hunting and fishing are already legal here by law. This is not about saving a legal activity. It is about putting permanent language in our Constitution so the people behind it can claim legal standing and go to court when Colorado tries to move.

Do not let them sell Colorado pride back to us while taking Colorado’s choices away.

NO to out of state power grab!

NO ON 83!

Protect Colorado’s Constitution!

Help us protect the vote!
https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate


!

Paid for by Protect Colorado’s Constitution.

09/13/2026

𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐨 𝐡𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞:

Vote 𝐍𝐎 on Amendment 83.

This campaign is not “Colorado sportsmen defending tradition.” It is an out-of-state political machine asking you to give away your say over wildlife.

𝐅𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲.
About $1.56 million, roughly 𝟖𝟖% of the Yes war chest, came from the T. Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, bankrolled by the 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐎𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐓. 𝐑𝐨𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐭 (𝐈𝐎𝐓𝐑) 𝐢𝐧 𝐖𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐧. IOTR’s job is running these amendments state by state. 𝐒𝐚𝐟𝐚𝐫𝐢 𝐂𝐥𝐮𝐛 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥, the national trophy-hunting lobby, wrote a check to the same committee. SCI’s Colorado chapter has funded the same local partners IOTR is using here.

They are not the same corporation. They 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐬’ 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐚𝐥: write into the constitution that hunting is the preferred way to manage wildlife. That is the point of the text. Other tools such as habitat, coexistence, non-lethal management, and leaving animals alone get second-class status.

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲?

Right now, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 still have a voice: the legislature, CPW Commission, ballot fights, public comment. Amendment 83 puts a 𝐡𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫-𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. After that, every limit the public might want has to climb over a constitutional preference for people whose organizing principle is 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥.

IOTR and the Safari Club do not live with Front Range bears, Western Slope mule deer, or your local creek. They want a legal shield so management starts with harvest and stays there. That is not “science-based conservation.” That is locking one interest group’s ethic over everyone else’s.

Colorado wildlife is a 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭. It does not belong to Wisconsin operatives or a safari lobby.

If you hunt ethically here, you already have seasons, tags, and CPW. You do not need their constitution.

If you don’t hunt, you should not be written out of the decision.

𝐃𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞. 𝐕𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐍𝐎 𝐨𝐧 𝟖𝟑.

You can find the donors here:
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Amendment_83,_Right_to_Hunt_and_Fish_Amendment_(2026)

09/12/2026

Oh, well, Luke Hilgemann “believes” Amendment 83 won’t bring back trapping.
Everyone relax. A national political operative has offered us his personal belief about constitutional language his own organization helped write.

Hilgemann is the CEO of the Florida-based International Order of T. Roosevelt, one of the national groups behind Amendment 83. IOTR has an “exclusive partnership” with Turning Point USA, the national MAGA organization founded by Charlie Kirk. Its political arm, T. Roosevelt Action, endorses candidates and pushes Right to Hunt amendments around the country.

So no, this isn’t some neutral Colorado wildlife expert explaining Colorado law. This is the head of a national political operation selling us its own amendment.

Hilgemann says Amendment 83 “explicitly” protects CPW’s authority over seasons, bag limits and which animals can be hunted.

Apparently “explicitly” now means “not written anywhere in the amendment.”

Amendment 83 does not explicitly mention CPW, seasons or bag limits.

He says other wildlife-management options won’t be eliminated. Another promise that isn’t in the language. What the amendment actually does is make hunting and fishing the “preferred means” of managing wildlife populations and allow state regulation “if necessary” for certain listed purposes.

He calls concerns about trapping a “scare tactic,” yet “traditional methods” is never defined. If trapping isn’t included, write that into the amendment. They didn’t.

This is their entire sales pitch: ignore the words they want permanently added to Colorado’s Constitution and trust Luke’s promises about what those words supposedly mean.

Colorado isn’t voting on Luke Hilgemann’s beliefs. We’re voting on the language lawyers will use later.

Help us protect the vote!
https://www.protectcoloradosconstitution.org/donate



Paid for by Protect Colorado’s Constitution.

https://www.kkco11news.com/2026/09/11/backers-colorado-hunt-fish-amendment-explain-measure-address-critics/