DENVER–Colorado voters may well get the chance to weigh in this November on creating a constitutional right to hunt and fish, which proponents say is necessary to protect outdoor sporting activities from an ongoing onslaught of anti-hunting efforts.
The T. Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, a newly formed issue committee, launched Initiative 302, ‘Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish’ in early April. The ballot measure would amend the state Constitution, establishing hunting, fishing, and harvesting of fish and wildlife as a constitutional right to every Coloradan. It would apply to all species managed by the state except for endangered, federally prohibited, and non-game species.
“Coloradans value the state’s long-standing hunting and fishing traditions,” said committee chairman Luke Hilgemann in a recent press release on the effort. “This measure is intended to provide constitutional clarity and long-term protection for those practices, consistent with science-based wildlife management.”
While the provision generally prohibits infringement of hunting and fishing rights, the language says lawmakers may regulate such activities under certain conditions.
“This section does not limit the authority of an agency of the state of Colorado or the General Assembly to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management if the law is necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation management, public safety, or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing opportunities for all species statewide,” the initiative reads, in part.
The amendment also specifically says a right to hunt doesn’t include the right to trespass on private property.
According to the group’s frequently asked questions (FAQ) webpage, the initiative is necessary to protect Colorado’s 300,000 hunters and anglers who produce $3.25 billion economically and support 25,000 jobs statewide.
“With 40% of our 4 million registered voters connected to hunting or fishing, this amendment safeguards our outdoor legacy for future generations against potential overreach,” the FAQ reads.
Hunting in the crosshairs
Grasslands Colorado, an environmental conservation group, claims the initiative is both unnecessary and unjustified.
“From a liberty standpoint, we’re concerned that the measure creates constitutional language where none is needed,” Elise Elswood, Founder of Grasslands told Complete Colorado. “Colorado already protects hunting through statute, and participation remains strong. There is no credible threat to hunting access in the state. Creating a constitutional amendment to ‘protect’ something that is not under attack is unnecessary government expansion.”
But in recent years, Colorado has been the target of various anti-hunting efforts by both in and out-of-state groups.
The Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, for example, helped push a 2024 mountain lion hunting ban that failed at the ballot box, and they are back for a second try at a statewide fur sale ban after a previous failed attempt. A 2024 attempt to ban fur sales in Denver failed at the ballot box.
The Boulder-based Prairie Dog Coalition is working to get a prairie dog shooting ban through the Colorado Wildlife Commission, which follows on the heels of an attempted beaver hunting ban bill that was killed in the legislature.
Suzanne Taheri and Steven Ward are listed as proponents for Initiative 302. The initiative was filed in early April and approved by the Title Board on April 15.
Proponents must collect just under 125,000 valid signatures from registered Colorado voters by August 3 to make the November statewide ballot. As the measure amends the state Constitution, signatures must include at least 2% of the voters in each of Colorado’s 35 state senate districts.
