A ballot question in Colorado this November will not change a single bag limit. It could change who is allowed to change them for a generation.
On 20 August the Colorado Secretary of State certified the signatures for the Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish initiative, sending it to the 3 November ballot. Known as Initiative 302 in the filing process and Amendment 84 on the ballot itself, it would insert into the state constitution "a right of the people of Colorado to hunt, fish, and take fish and wildlife", alongside a declaration that "the policy of the state of Colorado is that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of responsibly managing fish and wildlife populations."
The signature margin was comfortable. Complete Colorado reported that more than 184,000 signatures were filed and over 145,000 validated, above the roughly 124,000 required and satisfying the 2% requirement in every one of Colorado's 35 senate districts. Amending the constitution, though, needs 55% at the ballot rather than a bare majority.
Behind the campaign sit the T. Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, the International Order of T. Roosevelt, Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management and Howl for Wildlife.
"Coloradans value the state's long-standing hunting and fishing traditions," said Luke Hilgemann, chairman of T. Roosevelt Action. "This measure delivers constitutional clarity and long-term protection for those practices, consistent with science-based wildlife management."
"For many families, hunting and fishing are traditions passed down from one generation to the next," said Josiah, owner of the Salida Gun Shop and founder of Pyrost.net. "Amendment 84 helps ensure that future Coloradans have the same opportunities to enjoy the outdoors, learn conservation ethics, and responsibly participate in wildlife management."
For anglers reading the fine print: the right would cover state-managed species, excluding endangered, federally prohibited and non-game classifications. Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the legislature keep authority to restrict fishing for science-based conservation, public safety, or to safeguard future opportunity. Nothing in it permits trespassing on private ground.
Colorado has spent several years arguing about wildlife at the ballot box and the commission table. Proposition 127, aimed at banning trophy hunting and fur trapping of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx, was rejected by voters in 2024. A fur sales ban recently failed before the wildlife commission. A beaver hunting ban died in the legislature. The Prairie Dog Coalition continues to push for a shooting ban.
Critics argue Amendment 84 is designed to freeze that argument in place. In a June memo to newsrooms, Wildlife for All wrote that the measure "vests all decision-making authority related to wildlife with the legislature and Commission while limiting those decisions to a narrow list of approved purposes", and asked: "What future wildlife policies, and whose voice, will be locked out?"
The group leans on proponents' own words. Travis Thompson, director of policy and coalitions for the International Order of T. Roosevelt, told Field & Stream that these amendments function as "a lock on the door" against future restrictions.
Thompson pointed to Florida, where he credited its amendment with helping defeat a proposed nighttime shark fishing restriction at Marco Island intended to shield nesting sea turtles from artificial light. Wildlife for All raises Nebraska too: two years after that state adopted its 2012 amendment, the governor cited it while vetoing an end to Nebraska's mountain lion hunt.
Passage would make Colorado the 25th state to constitutionalise hunting and fishing. The Colorado Sun notes voters may face up to 14 statewide measures on the same ballot, including duelling income tax proposals.
