This year Colorado voters are being presented with a ballot measure, Colorado Amendment 83, that would enshrine the ‘Right to Hunt and Fish’ in the State’s constitution. While many might on its face believe that it probably isn’t necessary, it would seem that the last few years have seen a good deal of attacks on hunting and angling in the state.
For reference, according to Ballotopedia twenty four states have a constitutional right to hunt and fish. So just under half have some measure of protection for hunters and anglers. This isn’t exactly an old timey concept either. The most recent addition to a state’s constitution was in 2024 by Florida! Between the country’s founding and the 1990’s only one state had put some measure of protection for hunting and angling in their state’s constitution, and it should come as no surprise that it was the Green Mountain State — Vermont that did it.
So when Governor Polis took to Facebook to urge people to vote no on Colorado Amendment 83, it struck a chord with me. This is the same administration that urged a release of wolves to both introduce predators and to balance the wildlife ecosystem in the state, a program that has been fraught with issues and has alienated hunters and ranchers. The way that Governor Polis frames his argument seems to be one that people can get behind, his post included below in its entirety.
But when you read it, it reduces hunter and angler contributions to the state’s economy, one that he is likely keenly aware of and he focuses on the ‘why do you protect one person’s hobby and not mine?’ He and his communications team likely feels that being reductive here while simultaneously ignoring the benefits that come along with the hunting and angling community’s economic impacts to the state and the state’s budget is the way to fire up his voting base. So what is actually being voted on, now that we have the governor’s perspective? Below is the full text of the measure to be put on the ballot this election cycle.
The Argument
I think the core of what the governor is trying to say here is that hunting and angling in Colorado should not be held up as any more important than any other recreation in the state. While that may cause some head nods at a rally, as it’s easy to see that the state contains a multitude of recreation opportunities from whitewater rafting, to peak bagging, and rock climbing, to hiking and bird watching — the fact remains that very few of them can touch the economic and conservation benefits seen both directly and indirectly by hunters and anglers.
In terms of the legal standing of competing forms of recreation, that happens now to very little ill effect. Every fall hunters take to the woods and waters. Particularly here in Colorado where there’s a mixed use of nearly all public lands, the amount of altercations in which a conflict of two legal uses need to be litigated in court is extremely rare. There’s already a law on the books preventing hunter harassment, but perhaps the opposite might also need to be encouraged if the data backs up that it is even more than a blip on the legal radar.
Budgetary Contributions
According to the US Fish and Wildlife Services 2022 2022 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Report hunters spent $45.2 billion dollars and anglers spent $99.4 billion dollars on their hobbies, with around a third of those expenses being towards trips. If the rest of the expenses were equipment related, they fell under the use taxes described below. For the third spent on trips, that’s real life economic impact along the route the individuals chose. From gas to snacks to guides or hotels and campgrounds.
Not to say your average bird watcher doesn’t spend money to go on trips or stay places — just the only piece of equipment generally taxed under a use tax for them is optics — which was meant to target hunters and recreational shooters.
Use Tax
One of my counter arguments when someone brings up that hunting and angling should not be treated as more important than other forms of recreation is the inherent use taxes that are levvied against them, putting dollars back into conservation and the economy. I’ve written about it in this blog before, but firearms related purchases are subject to the Pittman-Robertson Act, and angling purchases are subject to the Dingell-Johnson Act. Both place a tax on equipment for those explicit purposes. Pittman-Robertson funnels money from firearms, accessories, and hunting licenses directly back into wildlife conservation efforts. Similarly Dingell-Johnson works for angling and related projects. Most importantly projects that are funded using this money are generally state and or federally fund matched, multiplying the impact of the use tax.
Meanwhile, time and time again the Outdoor Industry has refused to adopt a similar use tax. I capitalize Outdoor Industry here because it’s usually the Outdoor Industry Association that front runs the efforts in lobbying against a so-called backpack tax. I’ll be honest, its disappointing to see so many organizations be willfully blind to the contributions of one group of outdoor users while simultaneously lobby to not have to pay their share because they see it as unfair.
Interestingly enough, there’s another Proposition being handled during the election this year that could see tax money from tents and recreation gear go into the GOCO (Great Outdoors Colorado Fund) if passed. Proposition 137 would handle that, more on that in another article.
Ballot Box Biology vs Ballot Box Protections
The fact that Colorado Amendment 83 is on the ballot this season is enough to give me a little bit of hope. It means that the efforts have thusfar cleared several hurdles for signatures required to get on the ballot, and at this point the text should have been normalized that we won’t see additional edits as to what the “question” is when presented to the voter.
Colorado Amendment 83 isn’t looking to attack other forms of recreation, but is looking to protect hunting and angling. After having years of ballot measures attack hunting and trapping specifically, and seizing power from the appointed wildlife commission and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologists and put in the hands of the electorate, I can see why this seems touchy.
Colorado has seen the electorate ban leghold traps, attempt to ban hunting and trapping of cougars and large cats, reintroduction of wolves (in locations where the voters didn’t vote for it), banning the spring bear hunt, among many other restrictions that have been considered. Enshrining the right to hunt and fish in the state’s constitution should bring legal standing to empower those that should be making science based wildlife decisions — the Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologists.
For me, I’ll be voting yes on Colorado Amendment 83 and encourage other likeminded hunters, anglers, conservationists and their friends to do the same if Colorado residents.
