Newsletter · Sep–Oct 2026
The State of Colorado: Law Scholars Caution Against Amendment 83
What is Amendment 83 and what does it propose?
Amendment 83, which is on the November ballot, is a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning hunting and trapping. Hunting and trapping are legal in Colorado and are regulated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) under existing state laws and regulations.
Amendment 83 would hijack this existing process by making three drastic changes. First, it would establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish, including by “traditional methods.” Second, it would declare hunting and fishing the state’s “preferred means” of managing fish and wildlife populations. Third, it would allow the state to regulate hunting and fishing only when a law is “necessary” for “sound scientific” wildlife management, public safety, or preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities.
The amendment does not define several of these consequential terms, including “traditional methods,” “necessary” and “sound scientific.”
Animal Wellness Action, an affiliate of the All Life Institute, is actively engaged in Colorado in opposition to this extreme power grab by wealthy, out-of-state interests seeking constitutional access to Colorado’s precious wildlife and the nullification of voters’ rights regarding animal protection, both past and future.
Why is Amendment 83 a problem?
A democratic process for managing wildlife in Colorado has been in place for decades, and Amendment 83 threatens to dismantle this process.
These policies and regulations are collectively shaped through a democratic process that includes Colorado voters, state lawmakers, and CPW commissioners and staff. These channels for decision-making allow for citizen engagement and are designed to reflect the values of all Colorado citizen.
Amendment 83 would fundamentally change this existing system by enshrining hunting and trapping rights in the Colorado Constitution. It would give these activities a privileged constitutional status and make hunting and fishing the preferred means of managing wildlife, limiting the ability of Colorado voters, lawmakers and CPW to have a say in future wildlife-management policies.
The amendment would also elevate hunting and trapping above other forms of outdoor recreation by giving them constitutional status; consequently, hunters and trappers would receive constitutional protections that skiers, mountain bikers, runners, hikers and other outdoor recreationists would not have.
The result could be a significant shift in who has the power to determine Colorado’s wildlife policy.
All Life Institute Affiliated Scholars Contribute Their Expertise to Our Opposition Efforts to Amendment 83 in Colorado
Three affiliated scholars from the All Life Institute have been instrumental in our opposition to Amendment 83. University of Denver law professor Justin Marceau; Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commissioner and University of Denver Animal Law Program assistant director Jess Beaulieu; and University of Colorado Boulder adjunct professor of law Steven C. Silverman have written legal opinions shared in a recent media release, highlighting for Colorado voters why Amendment 83 threatens existing and future wildlife protection laws, handcuffs CPW and invites costly litigation in the future.
Justin Marceau, professor of law and Brooks Institute Faculty Research Scholar of Animal Law and Policy at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law
“As a constitutional law scholar, I find Amendment 83 an unsuitable use of a state constitutional amendment. Constitutions establish government structures and protect enduring principles, not enshrine a highly ideological wildlife-management philosophy,” writes Marceau.
He adds that wildlife management needs to be capable of changing as conditions and knowledge change: “Indeed, a defining feature of responsible wildlife management is the capacity to refine and revise the rules based on an ongoing understanding of wildlife populations, environmental conditions, and the innovations in technology that allow for more efficient taking of wildlife.”
The proposed amendment’s protection of “traditional” hunting methods are also of concern. He highlights that practices considered traditional in the past have not necessarily proved responsible or sustainable: “American history is full of wildlife practices that once seemed traditional and even sensible but later proved disastrous. In the nineteenth century, bison were slaughtered on an almost unimaginable scale; predators were systematically eradicated, and countless species were treated as essentially inexhaustible, with some, like the passenger pigeon, driven to complete extinction.”
“When Colorado achieved statehood in 1876, its ‘traditional’ legal system prevented women from voting, permitted racial discrimination, and accepted child labor. The drafters of Amendment 83 have deliberately avoided defining traditional. Why would they not want clarity on a key term in their constitutional provision?” he asks.
The vagueness of language creates a fundamental legal problem, according to Marceau. “Amendment 83 has noticeably vague language. Even as a law professor, I cannot make sense of what this amendment would prohibit and allow. The amendment would enshrine a right to use ‘traditional methods.’ But what does this mean? Traditional as of 2026? Or traditional as of 1876 (when Colorado became a state)?” he asks.
Attorney Jess Beaulieu, Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioner and assistant director of the Animal Law Program at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Beaulieu’s primary concern is Amendment 83’s vague and undefined language and the consequences that could follow when courts are required to interpret it: “The central problem is not that the amendment protects hunting. It is that the terms it uses are so open-ended that no one can predict how courts will apply them.”
She argues that constitutionalizing undefined terms could shift authority over wildlife policy away from the institutions and experts that currently make those decisions: “Once undefined constitutional language takes root, attorneys and judges, not wildlife biologists, not the legislature, not the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, become the ultimate arbiters of wildlife policy. That shift from administrative expertise to judicial interpretation is the real danger.”
Beaulieu also argues that the amendment conflicts with established principles of wildlife conservation: “The amendment also conflicts with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, the framework that CPW itself follows. The Model rests on principles that Amendment 83 would undermine: wildlife held in public trust for all residents and visitors, not just one stakeholder group; allocation of wildlife by law through democratic processes, rather than a permanent constitutional preference; and science as the basis for management decisions, adaptable as habitats, populations, disease, and technology change over time.”
With her experience as a law professor and as a CPW commissioner, Beaulieu points out why having flexible wildlife policies matters. “Colorado’s history shows why that flexibility matters. Voters have repeatedly revisited which wildlife practices they are willing to tolerate, banning bear baiting and hounding and spring bear hunting in 1992, and restricting leghold traps, poisons, and snares in 1996. Amendment 83 would give the current preferences of a minority of Coloradans, and powerful out-of-state interests, constitutional force, obstructing future democratic debate,” she states.
Steven C. Silverman, adjunct professor of law at the University of Colorado School of Law
Silverman is concerned about the effect Amendment 83 could have on Colorado’s democratic process for making wildlife policy. “By elevating the right to hunt to the exalted level of a constitutional right, and not just a statutory right (as already exists in Colorado for many game species), Amendment 83 threatens to shut down the deliberative democratic process with regard to hunting at a time when Coloradans are deeply engaged in an exchange of ideas over how to best manage wildlife in a state that reveres its natural resources,” he explains.
Silverman points to Colorado’s history and instances when the democratic process changed wildlife policy. “In 1992, Coloradans voted by a wide margin to prohibit spring bear hunting and the use of bait or dogs to hunt black bears. In 1996, Coloradans narrowly voted to amend the Colorado Constitution to prohibit leghold traps, instant-kill body-gripping traps, poisons, and snares, subject to specified exceptions. In 2020, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission voted to ban wildlife killing contests.”
He is concerned that Amendment 83 could erase these existing protections. “Moreover, it’s not even clear whether reforms adopted decades ago by voters, such as the 1992 ban on spring bear hunting, will survive judicial scrutiny if Amendment 83 succeeds and creates a constitutional right to hunt by ‘traditional methods.’”
“In sum, I see Amendment 83 as an attempt to turn back the clock on reforming hunting practices and hijack future wildlife management decisions from the people of Colorado…Enshrining traditional hunting practices in the form of a constitutional right not only contravenes Colorado’s values, it ensures that multitudes of the wondrous, wild, and increasingly scarce animals we treasure in Colorado will be maimed and killed, often without mercy,” he states.
The All Life Institute and Animal Wellness Action are also grateful to affiliated scholars Dr. Anja Heister and Dr. Kim Spanjol of Iona University for helping obtain footage of animals caught in steel-jawed traps that has been used in digital TV commercials currently airing in Colorado.
To read more about NO on 83 in Colorado, please visit our website: https://voteno83.org
Scholar letters can be found here: