Colorado hunters and anglers are trying to get ahead of the next wildlife ballot battle. A proposed constitutional amendment, currently listed as Initiative 302, would create the right to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife in Colorado. The measure has cleared the state title board, meaning supporters can collect signatures. It is not yet eligible for the 2026 ballot.
To get there, supporters will need 124,238 valid signatures by the beginning of August. Because the measure would amend the Colorado Constitution, supporters must also meet Colorado’s distribution requirement across all 35 state Senate districts. If it makes the ballot, it will need 55% voter approval to pass.
The campaign is supported by International Order of T. Roosevelt and is supported by Colorado hunting advocates, including Colorado for Responsible Wildlife Management. HOWL has also been part of public promotion for wildlife. howl Founder Charles Whitwam crafted the measure as a response to repeated political battles over hunting, saying Colorado had become a “warning shot” to the rest of the country.
Coloradans can already hunt elk and catch trout. The fight is over whether those activities should be protected in the state constitution, before another ballot campaign targets hunting or fishing species by species.
What will Initiative 302 do?
According to the proposal, the principal purposes of the proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution appear to be:
- To establish the rights of the people of Colorado to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife;
- To establish hunting and fishing as the primary and preferred means of managing fish and wildlife in the State;
- Establishing that the rights to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife created under the proposed initiative do not authorize encroachment on private property and do not modify statutes relating to encroachment or property rights; And
- To permit the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission and the General Assembly to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management, unless the regulation is reasonable and necessary for scientific wildlife conservation and management, for public safety, or to preserve the future of statewide hunting and fishing opportunities.
This language applies to species managed by the state, but does not include nongame species, endangered species, and species that are illegal to hunt under federal law.
For supportersThe main part is the “primary and preferred means” language. They see it as protecting the North American model of wildlife conservation, where regulated hunting and fishing helps conservation and gives wildlife managers the tools to manage populations.
Opponents see this same language as a potential legal problem. They argue that it could elevate hunting and fishing above other management tools or invite lawsuits over future Colorado Parks and Wildlife decisions.
This measure would not eliminate seasons, tags, bag limits, private property laws or federal wildlife protections. It would not legalize every method of hunting or fishing. The real question is how much legal weight the constitutional language will have if future wildlife regulations or ballot measures are enacted.
Why Colorado?
Colorado has become one of the most active states in the country for wildlife voting battles. In 2020, voters approved wolf reintroduction. In 2024, voters rejected Proposition 127, which would have banned the hunting of mountain lions and bobcats. Colorado voters have also decided on past wildlife issues at the ballot box, including bans on bear hunting methods in 1992 and snaring in 1996.
That’s why supporters of Initiative 302 say Colorado needs stronger protections for hunting and fishing. Proponents argue that wildlife management should remain with wildlife professionals, not campaign advertisements.
HOWL’s message runs with the broader campaign for wildlife on Colorado: Wildlife policy must rely on science-based management, not emotional ballot campaigns. For supporters, Initiative 302 is a way to stop fighting the same battles every election cycle.
conservation money behind the fight
Colorado hunting and fishing are no small parts of the outdoor economy. The Colorado Wildlife Council says hunting and fishing bring in more than $3.25 billion to the state each year and support more than 25,000 full-time jobs. The group also says license fees help fund conservation operations, including habitat projects, research, hatcheries, wildlife management and other programs that do not rely on general tax funding.
That funding argument is at the heart of the campaign. Hunters and anglers purchase licenses, tags, tickets, gear, gas, lodging, food and services in communities across the state. They also help fund wildlife agencies through licensing dollars and federal excise taxes on guns, ammunition, archery gear, fishing tackle and related equipment.
Supporters argue that if the ballot measures eliminate hunting and fishing opportunities, they also eliminate the funding model that pays for wildlife operations.
Critics do not necessarily dispute the economic impact. Their concern is whether economic and cultural values are in the Constitution?
opposition’s argument
The opposition has started organizing around Protect Colorado’s Constitutionwhich argues that the amendment would create costly legal battles and give constitutional priority to hunting and fishing over other wildlife management tools. wolf and wildlife advocate have also offered initial criticism of the measure, arguing that it would elevate hunting and fishing above habitat conservation, coexistence, ecology, and non-lethal management.
Opponents also point to the measurement’s language surrounding “traditional methods.” Their concern is that the phrase could be so vague as to invite lawsuits over trapping, predator management, hunting methods and future Colorado Parks and Wildlife regulations.
Officer fiscal analysis Note that CPW may need more legal guidance when developing the rules and that litigation costs may increase if parties challenge the rules under the new constitutional language.
The practical concern is litigation. The measure preserves CPW’s authority to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management, but adds legal leverage to the constitutional authority. Supporters consider this to be the only issue. Opponents worry how that leverage could be used.
where things stand
Initiative 302 approved the title-determination process. Supporters are now in the phase of gathering signatures. recent reporting The campaign reached nearly 90,000 signatures, but signatures have still to be collected, verified, and properly dispersed among Colorado’s state senate districts.
If the measure succeeds, voters will be faced with an obvious but fraught question: Should Colorado create a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife through traditional methods while preserving the state’s ability to regulate those activities for conservation and public safety?
