TL;DR
Get emergency and outdoor gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Political consultant and hunter Eric Washburn is leading opposition to Colorado’s Amendment 83, which would add a constitutional right to hunt and fish and make those activities the preferred means of wildlife management. Washburn’s campaign has also challenged the Colorado Wildlife Council’s use of public funds in a separate 2024 ballot fight; state wildlife officials have paused council funding pending a review. Most organized hunting and fishing groups cited in the report support Amendment 83.
Hunter and political consultant Eric Washburn is leading opposition to Colorado’s Amendment 83, a measure on the Nov. 3 ballot that would protect hunting and fishing in the state constitution and name them the preferred means of managing wildlife. The campaign has put Washburn at the center of a broader dispute over hunting practices, wildlife policy and the role of public agencies in election debates.
Amendment 83 would require approval from 55 percent of voters to pass, according to the ballot language described by Outdoor Life. It would establish a constitutional right to hunt, fish and harvest fish and wildlife using traditional methods, with exceptions that include non-game and endangered species and species whose hunting is illegal under federal law. It also states that hunting and fishing should be the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations.
Washburn, who describes himself as an avid hunter, heads Colorado Hunters & Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Management, the main opposition group identified in the report. He and co-signers have accused the Colorado Wildlife Council of using public money to influence the 2024 Proposition 127 campaign, a measure that would have banned hunting mountain lions, bobcats and lynx. Proposition 127 was defeated. Washburn’s claim that council activity may have affected that result is an allegation, not a finding established in the report.
Earlier in October, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Director Laura Clellan granted Washburn’s petition calling for council funding to be suspended and pledged a full review of the council’s involvement in political matters. The council’s public education work is funded by a $1.50 surcharge on hunting and fishing licenses, which the report says generates about $3.5 million annually. It does not report a final finding about the council’s conduct.
A Vote on Wildlife Management
The measure could put hunting and fishing protections into Colorado’s constitution while also giving those activities a stated preference in wildlife management. That makes the vote relevant beyond hunters and anglers: it concerns how wildlife policy is set, which methods are favored and how future disputes over hunting restrictions might be framed.
The debate also exposes a divide within the state’s hunting community. Supporters argue that protecting hunting and fishing helps preserve traditions and the existing wildlife-management system. Opponents contend that constitutional protections could lend support to practices such as trapping and predator management that they say are unpopular with many residents. Those are competing arguments about the measure’s effects; the article does not establish how courts or wildlife officials would apply its language in future cases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Proposition 127 to Amendment 83
The current dispute follows Colorado’s 2024 vote on Proposition 127, which would have prohibited hunting mountain lions, bobcats and lynx. Voters rejected it. Washburn’s complaint about the Wildlife Council concerns its public education activity around that earlier campaign, while Amendment 83 presents a separate question about constitutional protection for hunting and fishing.
Outdoor Life reports that 24 states have some constitutional protection for hunting and fishing, citing the National Conference of State Legislatures. Florida adopted such a measure in 2024, with 67 percent voter approval, according to the report. The International Order of T. Roosevelt has made passage of similar measures a priority and is working in more than a dozen states, the group says on its website.
In Colorado, most organized hunting and fishing groups cited by Outdoor Life support Amendment 83. That includes the Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project, described in the report as the state’s largest coalition of hunting, fishing and wildlife conservation groups. The opposition campaign is therefore a smaller organized voice in a contest where both sides say they speak for sportsmen.
“Hunting and fishing are integrally woven into the fabric of Colorado’s outdoor heritage and provide meaningful ways for families to connect with nature and harvest healthy, sustainable food.”
— Gaspar Perricone, chair of the Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project
The Council Review Remains Open
The outcome of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife review has not been reported. It remains unclear what the review will find about the Wildlife Council’s work around Proposition 127, how long funding will remain suspended, or whether officials will make policy changes afterward. The source describes Washburn’s allegations but does not provide a completed investigation or evidence establishing that council activity changed the 2024 election result.
The effect of Amendment 83, if voters approve it, is also not settled in the material available. The ballot language describes the right and preferred management approach, but the report does not establish how the provision would affect particular hunting practices, future regulations or potential legal challenges. The election result and any later interpretation remain unknown.
Colorado Voters Decide in November
Colorado voters are scheduled to decide Amendment 83 on Nov. 3, 2026. Passage requires at least 55 percent support, according to the reported ballot requirements. Until then, supporters and opponents are expected to continue making their cases to voters, though the source does not detail further campaign events.
Separately, the next key development is the outcome of Clellan’s promised review of the Colorado Wildlife Council. Its findings could clarify the council’s role in election-related public education and the status of its funding. No timetable or final determination is provided in the report.
Key Questions
What would Colorado’s Amendment 83 do?
It would create a constitutional right to hunt, fish and harvest fish and wildlife by traditional methods, subject to listed exceptions. It would also establish hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing wildlife populations.
Who is leading the opposition?
Eric Washburn, a political consultant and self-described avid hunter, leads Colorado Hunters & Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Management, identified in the report as the main opposition group.
Why is Washburn challenging the Colorado Wildlife Council?
Washburn and co-signers allege that the council used public funds to influence the 2024 Proposition 127 campaign. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Director Laura Clellan granted his petition for a funding suspension and said she would conduct a full review. The allegation has not been established as a finding in the source.
When will voters decide the measure?
The vote is scheduled for Nov. 3, 2026. Amendment 83 needs at least 55 percent support to pass, according to the report.
Do most hunting and fishing groups support Amendment 83?
Outdoor Life reports that nearly all organized hunting and fishing groups have backed the measure, including the Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project. The report characterizes Washburn’s opposition constituency as smaller than the organized support for the amendment.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
