Coloradans will vote on an amendment this fall that would enshrine the right to hunt and fish in the Colorado Constitution. Proponents of Amendment 84 say hunting and fishing with traditional methods must be protected. Opponents say it is unnecessary and could irrevocably change future wildlife management in the state.
Amendment 84 is backed by conservative, Wisconsin-based, pro-hunting group International Order of T. Roosevelt (IOTR), national lobbying firm 76 Group and hunter advocacy group Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, which is led by Dan Gates.
Luke Hilgemann is the CEO of IOTR and its 501(c)(4) advocacy arm, T. Roosevelt Action. “Because of our previous work — we’ve tried to pass this amendment in multiple states — we were asked to come in and consult on the ballot language that was being proposed,” he told The Sopris Sun.
But, Gates said in a July 24 interview, that affluent Coloradans decided to run the language for the constitutional right to hunt and fish. “They reached out to the 76 Group, who’s a strategy company, a lobbying company and they do ballot initiatives and candidate forums and campaigns, and [76 Group] reached out to the International Order of T. Roosevelt about language.”
And, Gates said, IOTR reached out to him.
The T. Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, the issue committee registered in Colorado to support the campaign, spent $700,000 on petition signature collection this summer, according to the Colorado Secretary of State’s website. Joe O’Dea, a Republican businessman who unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Senator Michael Bennet in 2022, contributed $25,000. The Wyoming-based Synapse Group was on the receiving end of the $700,000 for signature collection. The company president Jefferson Thomas was senior political advisor to O’Dea’s 2022 campaign.
Twenty-four states have embraced the constitutional right to hunt and fish. Hilgemann would like to see all 50 states get on board. But, in Colorado, opponents like Eric Washburn, founder of Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation, say that hunting, fishing and trapping in Colorado are not in jeopardy and that Amendment 84 is about something else.
“[The Right to Hunt campaign] is about overturning past successful efforts by Coloradans to ensure that hunting in Colorado is done ethically and in keeping with the expectations and sensibilities of the majority of the public,” Washburn said.
Dan Gates said that Amendment 84 is meant to be a barrier. “It’s a device that can create obstacles in people’s attempts to try to take away hunting and fishing and traditional wildlife management opportunities.”
Hilgemann agreed, citing 2024’s Prop 127, against trophy hunting of mountain lions and other big cats, and the failed HB25-1258, which sought to change state statute 33-1-101 (4) that establishes hunting, trapping and fishing as the state’s primary wildlife management methods.
“Unfortunately, in Colorado, we’ve seen over the last eight years more than 22 attempts to try and whittle away at hunting and fishing rights,” Hilgemann said. “This is an affirmative step forward to say that hunting and fishing deserve to be protected as a fundamental freedom that is protected by the constitution and can’t be changed by a political whim.”
To that end, the language of the proposed amendment reads, in part:
“Hunting and fishing are the preferred means of responsibly managing fish and wildlife populations.”
But what happens if regulations — like closures or vaccinations — designed to protect wildlife or public safety, have the incidental effect of reducing hunting opportunities?
The right to hunt and fish became part of the Florida state constitution in 2024 and is beginning to hamstring local wildlife conservation. A Marco Island city councilor recently proposed an ordinance restricting night fishing during sea turtle nesting season. After months of heated discussions, state wildlife officials in May said the ordinance was likely unconstitutional and it was withdrawn. “This is a fishing ban disguised as a sea turtle ordinance,” Jay Kohlhagen said in public comment at a Marco Island, Fla., city council meeting.
Boulder resident and hunter David Kane formed Protect Colorado’s Constitution specifically to oppose Amendment 84 when it was still in its signature-gathering stage. “If CPW has to make certain decisions about wildlife management, they’ll have to always look through the lens of this constitutional amendment, if it passes,” he said. Kane disagreed with 84’s focus on game species and vague language about traditional methods.
Hilgemann explained that the language points to hunting and fishing as the first options for wildlife management. “So if there is a huntable species or fish population that are in need of management, hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing that wildlife,” Hilgemann said. “It doesn’t say ‘only.’”
Kane said that because the traditional methods’ language is vague, hunters could challenge existing wildlife statutes — the spring bear hunt, for example, that voters banned in 1992. “Leg-hold traps and certain body-gripping traps are illegal in Colorado,” he added. “There’s some question whether they could challenge that in court.”
But for Washburn, the language is clear. “We kind of see this as a very right-wing, MAGA culture war sort of initiative, which is really designed to repeal a lot of the wildlife reforms that Coloradans have established over the last 40 or 50 years to make hunting in Colorado more ethical, and frankly, less cruel,” he said.
Hilgemann views hunting and fishing as inherent human rights. “We trace our collecting and gathering of protein all the way back to the beginnings of human history,” he said. “It’s a tradition that I think has been passed down from generation to generation, not only in America, but across the globe.”
But, Justin Marceau, constitutional rights and criminal law professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, told The Sopris Sun that hunting is a state-regulated permission in Colorado — a license-based privilege — and not an inherent right. “I mean, there were lots of things that happened in the old days, including, you know, things that we’re not very proud of now,” he said. “But we don’t say that all those should be enshrined in the Constitution because they happened when we were Neanderthals, right? I mean, that’s just not the way we think about law and progress.”