Colorado hunters and anglers are trying to get ahead of the next wildlife ballot fight. A proposed constitutional amendment, currently listed as Initiative 302, would create a right to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife in Colorado. The measure has cleared the state Title Board, which means supporters can collect signatures. It has not yet qualified for the 2026 ballot.
To get there, backers need 124,238 valid signatures by early August. Because the measure would amend the Colorado Constitution, supporters also have to meet Colorado’s distribution requirement across all 35 state Senate districts. If it makes the ballot, it would need 55% voter approval to pass.
The campaign is backed by the International Order of T. Roosevelt and supported by Colorado hunting advocates, including Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management. HOWL for Wildlife has also been part of the public push. HOWL founder Charles Whitwam framed the measure as a response to repeated political fights over hunting, saying Colorado has become a “warning shot” for 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 Initiative 302 Would Do
According to the proposal, the major purposes of the proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution appear to be:
- Establishing the right of the people of Colorado to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife;
- Establishing hunting and fishing as the primary and preferred means of managing fish and wildlife in the state;
- Establishing that the right to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife created under the proposed initiative does not authorize trespass upon private property and does not modify statutes relating to trespassing or property rights; and
- Allowing the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission and the General Assembly to continue regulating hunting, fishing, and wildlife management as long as the regulation is reasonable and necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, for public safety, or to preserve the future of statewide hunting and fishing opportunities.
The language applies to species managed by the state, but it excludes nongame species, endangered species, and species that are illegal to hunt under federal law.
For supporters, the key piece is the “primary and preferred means” language. They see it as a defense of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, where regulated hunting and fishing help fund conservation and give wildlife managers tools to manage populations.
Opponents see the same language as a possible legal problem. They argue it could elevate hunting and fishing above other management tools or invite lawsuits over future Colorado Parks and Wildlife decisions.
The measure wouldn’t erase seasons, tags, bag limits, private property laws, or federal wildlife protections. It also wouldn’t make every hunting or fishing method legal. The real question is how much legal weight the constitutional language would carry when future wildlife regulations or ballot measures run into it.
Why Colorado?
Colorado has become one of the most active states in the country for wildlife ballot fights. In 2020, voters approved wolf reintroduction. In 2024, voters rejected Proposition 127, which would have banned hunting mountain lions and bobcats. Colorado voters have also decided previous wildlife issues at the ballot box, including bear hunting methods in 1992 and trapping restrictions in 1996.
That history is why supporters of Initiative 302 say Colorado needs stronger protection for hunting and fishing. Backers argue wildlife management should stay with wildlife professionals, not campaign ads.
HOWL for Wildlife’s message on Colorado tracks with the broader campaign: wildlife policy should rely on science-based management, not emotional ballot campaigns. For supporters, Initiative 302 is a way to stop fighting the same battle every election cycle.
The Conservation Money Behind the Fight
Colorado hunting and fishing are not small pieces of the outdoor economy. The Colorado Wildlife Council says hunting and fishing bring more than $3.25 billion into the state every year and support more than 25,000 full-time jobs. The group also says license fees help fund conservation work, including habitat projects, research, hatcheries, wildlife management, and other programs that do not rely on general tax funding.
That funding argument is central to the campaign. Hunters and anglers buy licenses, tags, stamps, gear, gas, lodging, food, and services in communities across the state. They also help fund wildlife agencies through license dollars and federal excise taxes on guns, ammunition, archery gear, fishing tackle, and related equipment.
Backers argue that if ballot measures chip away at hunting and fishing opportunities, they also chip away at the funding model that pays for wildlife work.
Critics do not necessarily dispute the economic impact. Their concern is whether economic and cultural values belong in the constitution.
The Opposition Argument
Opposition has started to organize around Protect Colorado’s Constitution, which argues the amendment would create costly legal fights and give hunting and fishing constitutional preference over other wildlife management tools. Wolf and Wildlife Advocates has also offered an early critique of the measure, arguing it would elevate hunting and fishing above habitat protection, coexistence, ecological science, and nonlethal management.
Opponents also point to the measure’s language around “traditional methods.” Their concern is that the phrase could be vague enough to invite lawsuits over trapping, predator management, hunting methods, and future Colorado Parks and Wildlife regulations.
The official fiscal analysis notes that CPW may need more legal guidance when developing regulations and that litigation costs could increase if parties challenge 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 adding a constitutional right creates legal leverage. Supporters see that as the point. Opponents worry about how that leverage could be used.
Where Things Stand
Initiative 302 has cleared the title-setting process. Supporters are now in the signature-gathering phase. Recent reporting put the campaign at about 90,000 signatures, but signatures still have to be submitted, verified, and spread properly across Colorado’s state Senate districts.
If the measure qualifies, voters will likely see a clear but loaded question: Should Colorado create a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife by traditional methods while preserving the state’s ability to regulate those activities for conservation and public safety?
