---
title: The Scoop on Colorado's November 2026 Proposed Measures | Amendment 83 | Part 3 of 14
description: Detailed PRO and AGAINST Colorado's Amendment 83 (right to hunt) arguments | Links to related resources | Colorado November 3, 2026, Elections
image: https://whatsupamericans.com/hubfs/Colorado%20Constitution%20Amendment%2083.png
---

[Skip to content](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election#main-content)

- [HOME](https://whatsupamericans.com)
- [INTERVIEWS](https://whatsupamericans.com/interviews)
- [TALK TO US](https://whatsupamericans.com/interview-sign-up)
- [PRIVACY](https://whatsupamericans.com/privacy)
- [TERMS OF USE](https://whatsupamericans.com/terms)
- [CONTACT](https://whatsupamericans.com/contact)
- [BLOG](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog)

 Oct 9, 2026, 8:01:36 PM

# The Scoop on Colorado's November 2026 Proposed Measures | Amendment 83 | Part 3 of 14

[Marek Bobik](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/author/marek-bobik)

Share: [facebook-f icon](http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election) [linkedin-in icon](http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election) [Twitter icon](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election) [pinterest-p icon](http://pinterest.com/pin/create/link/?url=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election) [envelope icon](mailto:?body=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election)

On November 3, 2026, Colorado voters will decide Amendment 83, a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning hunting, fishing, and wildlife management.

In plain English, Amendment 83 asks whether Colorado should create a **state constitutional right to hunt and fish** using traditional methods and declare hunting and fishing the **preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations** in Colorado.

Because Amendment 83 would amend the Colorado Constitution, it requires approval from **55 percent of voters** to pass. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-blue-book-en-accessible.pdf?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

## What Your Vote Means

From the **2026 Colorado State Ballot Information Booklet**, also known as the Blue Book:

**A “YES” vote on Amendment 83** establishes a state constitutional right to hunt and fish.

**A “NO” vote on Amendment 83** means that hunting and fishing will continue as allowed under existing state and federal law. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-blue-book-en-accessible.pdf?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

## Official ballot language

According to the Colorado General Assembly’s ballot analysis page, Amendment 83 is titled **“Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish.”** It is listed as **Ballot Number: Amendment 83**, **Election Year: 2026**, **Ballot Type: Constitutional**, and **Ballot Status: Active**. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/constitutional-right-to-hunt-and-fish-2?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

The official ballot title asks:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution creating a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife by traditional methods, including all species of fish and wildlife managed by the state except non-game species, endangered species, or any species that is illegal to hunt under federal law, and, in connection therewith, establishing hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations; and preserving the right of the state to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management if necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing opportunities for all species? ([ballotexplained.com](https://ballotexplained.com/measures/colorado/amendment-83?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

## The Blue Book summarizes the measure this way:

Amendment 83 proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to:

- establish a constitutional right to fish and hunt certain wildlife; and
- create a policy that states hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations in Colorado. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-blue-book-en-accessible.pdf?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

The right would apply to traditional hunting and fishing methods. It would not apply to nongame species, endangered species, or any species that is illegal to hunt under federal law. The measure also does not change existing laws related to trespassing on private property. It preserves the state’s ability to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management when necessary for sound scientific reasons, public safety, or preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-blue-book-en-accessible.pdf?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

Official source: **Colorado General Assembly — Amendment 83: Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish**. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/constitutional-right-to-hunt-and-fish-2?utm_source=openai))

Blue Book source: **2026 Colorado State Ballot Information Booklet**. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-blue-book-en-accessible.pdf?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

## Sponsors and designated representatives

The Colorado Secretary of State’s initiative filing page lists the earlier initiative version under the **2025–2026 Initiative Filings, Agendas & Results** page. The measure originated as a citizen initiative and appears on the 2026 ballot as Amendment 83. ([coloradosos.gov](https://coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/index.html?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

The Colorado General Assembly’s ballot analysis page identifies Amendment 83 as an active constitutional measure for the 2026 election. Because it amends the Colorado Constitution, it requires approval from 55 percent of voters to pass. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/constitutional-right-to-hunt-and-fish-2?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

Official source: **Colorado Secretary of State — 2025–2026 Initiative Filings, Agendas & Results**. ([coloradosos.gov](https://coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/index.html?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

---

## The case for voting YES on Amendment 83

### Hunting and fishing are part of Colorado’s heritage

The strongest argument for Amendment 83 is that hunting and fishing are not fringe activities in Colorado. They are deeply tied to the state’s history, rural culture, outdoor identity, food traditions, and conservation funding model.

Many families hunt and fish not for recreation, but for food, self-reliance, time outdoors, and passing traditions from one generation to the next. For many Coloradans, especially in rural and mountain communities, hunting and fishing are part of what it means to live in the state.

Supporters would argue that because hunting and fishing are so deeply connected to Colorado’s culture and way of life, they deserve constitutional protection.

#### Counterargument:

*Opponents would respond that a practice can be culturally important without becoming a constitutional right. Skiing, hiking, camping, rafting, ranching, farming, and mountain biking are also important parts of Colorado life, but the state Constitution doesn't protect them all. Critics argue that the Constitution should be reserved for fundamental rights and government structure, not every important tradition*.

### Amendment 83 protects hunting and fishing from political swings

Supporters argue that hunting and fishing are increasingly vulnerable to political campaigns, ballot-box wildlife management, and emotional reactions to controversial hunting practices.

Colorado has already seen major wildlife debates over wolf reintroduction, mountain lion hunting, trapping, predator management, and other issues. Supporters of Amendment 83 would argue that wildlife management should not depend on the latest political campaign, social media outrage, or urban-rural divide.

A constitutional right would make it harder for future legislatures, agencies, local governments, or ballot initiatives to restrict hunting and fishing for political rather than scientific reasons.

From this perspective, Amendment 83 is not mainly about changing hunting rules today. It is about preventing future bans or restrictions that could chip away at hunting and fishing over time.

#### Counterargument:

*Opponents would say this argument cuts both ways. If voters or lawmakers decide that certain hunting practices are unethical, unnecessary, or harmful, they should be able to regulate or prohibit them through ordinary democratic processes. A constitutional amendment could make it harder for future Coloradans to respond to new information, changing values, or specific wildlife concerns*.

### Hunting and fishing help fund conservation

Supporters argue that hunters and anglers pay directly into Colorado’s wildlife management system through licenses, fees, permits, excise taxes, and related spending. That funding supports habitat work, conservation programs, wildlife officers, research, enforcement, fish hatcheries, access programs, and management of both game and nongame species.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is responsible for fish and wildlife management in Colorado and administers regulations for hunting and fishing through rules adopted by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. State law requires wildlife and their environment to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of Colorado residents and visitors. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-blue-book-en-accessible.pdf?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

Supporters also argue that if hunting and fishing weaken, the conservation funding model may weaken as well. A constitutional right would help preserve the activities that pay for much of the system.

#### Counterargument:

*Opponents respond that conservation funding matters, but that doesn't mean hunting and fishing should be constitutionally preferred over other wildlife management tools. They may argue that Colorado can fund conservation through broader public funding, park passes, general fund revenue, tourism-related fees, or other mechanisms that do not require writing hunting and fishing into the Constitution.*

### Hunting and fishing are sound wildlife management tools

Supporters argue that regulated hunting and fishing are practical tools for managing wildlife populations. When animal populations grow beyond what habitat can support, consequences may include starvation, pressure on other species, disease, crop damage, degraded habitat, conflicts with humans, and vehicle collisions.

In that context, hunting and fishing can be more humane and effective than allowing overpopulation, disease, or starvation to run unchecked. Hunters and anglers can help manage deer, elk, fish, and other populations under science-based rules.

The measure preserves state authority to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management when necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or preserving future opportunities. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-blue-book-en-accessible.pdf?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

Supporters would argue that Amendment 83 therefore does not eliminate regulation. It simply recognizes hunting and fishing as important and preferred management tools.

#### Counterargument:

*Opponents focus on the word **“preferred.”** They would argue that wildlife management should use the best available science, not a constitutionally preferred method. In some cases, habitat restoration, relocation, contraception, fencing, nonlethal deterrents, fishing limits, temporary closures, predator protection, or no human intervention may be better than hunting or fishing. Critics worry that “preferred means” could tilt decisions before the science is even considered*.

### Amendment 83 still allows reasonable regulation

Supporters would argue that Amendment 83 is not a blank check for unlimited hunting or fishing. The text preserves the state’s ability to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, and preserving future opportunities. ([ballotexplained.com](https://ballotexplained.com/measures/colorado/amendment-83?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

That means Colorado Parks and Wildlife still sets seasons, bag limits, licensing rules, safety requirements, species restrictions, methods of take, area closures, and conservation rules. It also protects endangered species, nongame species, and species illegal to hunt under federal law.

The amendment protects the general right while still leaving room for professional regulation.

Counterargument**:**

*Opponents respond that the scope of “reasonable regulation” may end up being decided in court. If hunting and fishing become constitutional rights, routine regulations could be challenged tomorrow as infringing that right. Even if the state ultimately wins, litigation could become more common and expensive*.

### Amendment 83 could protect rural voices

Hunting and fishing debates often reveal a divide between urban voters and rural communities. People who do not hunt, fish, ranch, farm, or live near wildlife vote on wildlife issues without understanding the on-the-ground consequences.

In rural Colorado, wildlife is not abstract. Elk, deer, bears, mountain lions, wolves, and other species affect roads, livestock, crops, fences, pets, safety, and livelihoods. Hunters and anglers often have practical knowledge of land, habitat, seasons, migration, and animal behavior.

Amendment 83 protects rural communities' and outdoor users' ability to continue participating in wildlife management.

#### Counterargument:

*Opponents would argue that wildlife belongs to all Coloradans, not only hunters, anglers, ranchers, or rural residents. Urban and suburban residents also have a legitimate interest in biodiversity, animal welfare, public lands, ecosystems, and state wildlife policy. A constitutional amendment should not elevate one group’s preferred approach above the broader public’s ability to make policy*.

---

## The case for voting NO on Amendment 83

### Hunting and fishing are already legal

The strongest NO argument is simple: hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado.

A NO vote does not ban hunting or fishing. The Blue Book states that a NO vote means hunting and fishing will continue as allowed under existing state and federal law. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-blue-book-en-accessible.pdf?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

If something is already legal and regulated, there must be a strong reason to put it in the Constitution. So the question is: what problem is this amendment actually solving?

If the answer is mainly that supporters fear future restrictions, opponents may say that is not enough. The Constitution should not be changed based on speculative fears about what future voters or lawmakers might do.

#### Counterargument:

*Supporters would respond that constitutional protections often exist precisely to prevent future government overreach. The fact that hunting and fishing are legal today does not mean they will remain protected tomorrow. If activists or politicians slowly restrict methods, seasons, species, access, or management tools, the right could be hollowed out without an outright ban*.

### The Constitution should not be used for ordinary wildlife policy

The Colorado Constitution is the wrong place for this issue.

Wildlife management is complex, technical, and constantly changing. It involves population data, habitat conditions, disease, climate, migration, development, drought, wildfire, predator-prey relationships, and public safety. Those decisions are better handled by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the Parks and Wildlife Commission, the legislature, and ordinary regulation.

A constitutional amendment is hard to change if it causes unintended consequences. Opponents would argue that if hunting and fishing need protection, that protection should be statutory, not constitutional.

#### Counterargument:

*Supporters would respond that wildlife policy has become political enough that ordinary statutes are not sufficient. A future legislature or ballot measure could impose sweeping restrictions. By placing a right to hunt and fish in the Constitution, voters can create durable protection while still allowing science-based regulation*.

### “Preferred means” could distort wildlife management

One of the strongest arguments against Amendment 83 is its declaration that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations.

Opponents would argue that wildlife management should not begin with a predetermined preference. The best management tool depends on the species, location, population trend, habitat, disease risk, public safety, and ecological goals.

Sometimes hunting or fishing may be appropriate. Other times, the better answer may be habitat restoration, nonlethal deterrence, temporary closures, relocation, reintroduction, contraception, fencing, public education, or simply leaving wildlife alone.

By making hunting and fishing constitutionally preferred, opponents worry that Amendment 83 could pressure agencies to choose hunting or fishing even when another tool would be better.

#### Counterargument:

*Supporters would respond that hunting and fishing are already among the most proven, practical, and scientifically managed tools available. The amendment does not say they are the only tools. It preserves the state’s ability to regulate wildlife management for sound scientific reasons. “Preferred” simply recognizes that regulated harvest has long been central to wildlife management and conservation funding*.

### Amendment 83 may lead to more lawsuits

Creating a new constitutional right invites litigation.

If Amendment 83 passes, people may challenge future hunting and fishing regulations as unconstitutional. Lawsuits could arise over bag limits, season closures, restrictions on weapons or bait, local rules, species-specific limits, predator management policies, or bans on certain methods.

The Blue Book notes that the measure is not expected to change state revenue or expenditures, but if litigation occurs, state agencies and courts could see increased workload and costs. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-blue-book-en-accessible.pdf?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election))

Even if most regulations survive, the state may have to spend time and money defending routine wildlife decisions.

#### Counterargument:

*Supporters would respond that the amendment’s language preserves the state’s regulatory authority. Regulations based on sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities should be legally defensible. Litigation is possible under almost any constitutional right, but that does not mean the right should not exist*.

### The amendment may prioritize hunters and anglers over other Coloradans

Amendment 83 gives constitutional status to one group’s preferred use of wildlife.

Wildlife is held in trust for all Coloradans. Many people value wildlife for photography, hiking, birdwatching, ecological balance, tourism, education, spiritual reasons, or simply knowing that wild animals exist. Not everyone sees wildlife primarily as food.

Opponents would argue that the Constitution should not prioritize hunting and fishing over non-consumptive uses of wildlife, especially in a diverse, increasingly urban state like Colorado.

Counterargument**:**  
*Supporters respond that hunting and fishing do not exclude other uses. People can still hike, photograph wildlife, birdwatch, camp, and advocate for conservation. Amendment 83 protects a traditional use that has historically funded and supported conservation. It does not say hunting and fishing are the only legitimate ways to value wildlife*.

### “Traditional methods” are unclear

Opponents may also object to the phrase “traditional methods.” What counts as traditional? Rifle hunting? Bow hunting? Muzzleloaders? Trapping? Baiting? Electronic calls? Modern fishing technology? Methods that were traditional in one era may be controversial today.

If the phrase is unclear, agencies and courts may have to interpret it. That could create confusion over which practices are protected and which remain fully subject to restriction.

Opponents would argue that vague constitutional language can produce uncertainty, lawsuits, and inconsistent enforcement.

#### Counterargument:

*Supporters would respond that hunting and fishing regulations already distinguish among methods, seasons, equipment, species, and places. Colorado Parks and Wildlife can continue defining legal methods through regulation. The phrase “traditional methods” is meant to protect ordinary hunting and fishing, not every possible technique or abusive practice*.

### Wildlife decisions should be science-based, not ballot-based

A final NO argument is that Amendment 83 itself is an example of wildlife policy being made at the ballot box. Supporters may criticize wildlife management, but opponents would say Amendment 83 would constitutionalize a broad wildlife policy through the ballot rather than leaving the issue to scientific managers.

If the concern is that voters should not make species-specific decisions based on emotion, opponents may ask why voters should now make a broad constitutional decision that could shape wildlife management for decades.

From this perspective, the better approach is to strengthen independent, science-based wildlife management rather than adding a constitutional preference for hunting and fishing.

#### Counterargument:

*Supporters would respond that Amendment 83 actually protects science-based wildlife management by keeping hunting and fishing available as tools. It also expressly preserves state regulation for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management. Supporters would say the amendment sets a broad principle while leaving details to wildlife professionals*.

---

## Conclusion: Amendment 83 is a real tradeoff

**The best case for voting YES** is that hunting and fishing are deeply rooted Colorado traditions, practical wildlife management tools, and major contributors to conservation funding. Supporters see Amendment 83 as a way to protect these activities from political swings and future restrictions while preserving science-based regulation.

**The best case for voting** **NO** is that hunting and fishing are already legal, and wildlife management does not belong in the Constitution. Opponents worry that the amendment could elevate one form of wildlife use over others, create lawsuits, weaken flexibility, and make hunting and fishing the preferred management tool even when other approaches may be better.

I can see how things are changing in Colorado, and how new arrivals' opinions affect traditional activities like hunting for people who have lived here for generations. I get the (in my opinion) well-founded worry that new legislation driven by urban populations, many of whom have never set foot in the forest or mountains, will severely restrict hunting.

With that said, Amendment 83 seems poorly thought through. On the one hand, it does not seem to protect the right to hunt, because Colorado Parks and Wildlife can still hollow it out through legislation and policy changes.

On the other hand, the “preferred method” wording could restrict other useful population-management methods, such as reintroducing predators to their former habitats to help reduce elk, deer, and other animal populations.

## Share & Engage

[![Share on facebook](https://7528309.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hub/7528309/hubfs/raw_assets/public/mV0_d-web-default-modules_hubspot/img/facebook-color.png?width=24&name=facebook-color.png)](https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsupamericans.com%2Fblog%2Fcolorado-amendment-83-2026-election%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dfacebook) [![Share on linkedin](https://7528302.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hub/7528302/hubfs/raw_assets/public/mV0_d-web-default-modules_hubspot/img/linkedin-color.png?width=24&name=linkedin-color.png)](https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsupamericans.com%2Fblog%2Fcolorado-amendment-83-2026-election%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dlinkedin) [![Share on twitter](https://7528304.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hub/7528304/hubfs/raw_assets/public/mV0_d-web-default-modules_hubspot/img/twitter-color.png?width=24&name=twitter-color.png)](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsupamericans.com%2Fblog%2Fcolorado-amendment-83-2026-election%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dtwitter&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsupamericans.com%2Fblog%2Fcolorado-amendment-83-2026-election%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dtwitter&source=tweetbutton&text=) [![Share on pinterest](https://7528311.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hub/7528311/hubfs/raw_assets/public/mV0_d-web-default-modules_hubspot/img/pinterest-color.png?width=24&name=pinterest-color.png)](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsupamericans.com%2Fblog%2Fcolorado-amendment-83-2026-election%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dpinterest&media=) [![Share on email](https://7528311.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hub/7528311/hubfs/raw_assets/public/mV0_d-web-default-modules_hubspot/img/email-color.png?width=24&name=email-color.png)](mailto:?subject=Check+out+https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsupamericans.com%2Fblog%2Fcolorado-amendment-83-2026-election%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Demail&body=Check+out+https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsupamericans.com%2Fblog%2Fcolorado-amendment-83-2026-election%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Demail)

 

If you find this post useful, [sign up](https://whatsupamericans.com/interview-blog-alert-sign-up) for notifications of the following blog posts. 

Share your thoughts in the comments below.

---

Learn more:

1. [2026 Colorado State Ballot Information Booklet](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-blue-book-en-accessible.pdf?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election)
2. [Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish - Constitutional | Colorado General Assembly](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/constitutional-right-to-hunt-and-fish-2?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election)
3. [Colorado Amendment 83 — Constitutional right to hunt and fish | Ballot Explained](https://ballotexplained.com/measures/colorado/amendment-83?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election)
4. [2025-2026 Initiative Filings, Agendas & Results](https://coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/index.html?utm_source=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election)
5. [Amendment 81: Law Enforcement Communication with Federal Immigration Authorities](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-81-2026-election)
6. [Amendment 82: Constitutional Right to Purchase and Sell Natural Gas](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-82-2026-election)

 

[voting](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/tag/voting)

facebook-f icon linkedin-in icon Twitter icon instagram icon

- [Our Blog](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog)

- Privacy
- Terms of Use

[![WUA Favicon-1](https://whatsupamericans.com/hubfs/Branding/WUA%20Favicon-1.png "WUA Favicon-1")](https://www.whatsupamericans.com)

---

**9249 S Broadway, Unit 200-536, Highlands Ranch, CO, 80129**

Copyright © 2024,

```json
{
  "@context" : "https://schema.org",
  "@type" : "BlogPosting",
  "author" : {
    "@type" : "Person",
    "name" : "Marek Bobik",
    "url" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/author/marek-bobik"
  },
  "dateModified" : "2026-10-10T02:01:36.719Z",
  "datePublished" : "2026-10-10T02:01:36.000Z",
  "headline" : "The Scoop on Colorado's November 2026 Proposed Measures | Amendment 83 | Part 3 of 14",
  "image" : [ "https://whatsupamericans.com/hubfs/Colorado%20Constitution%20Amendment%2083.png" ],
  "mainEntityOfPage" : {
    "@id" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election",
    "@type" : "WebPage"
  },
  "publisher" : {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "logo" : {
      "@type" : "ImageObject",
      "url" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/hubfs/Branding/WUA%20Logo.png"
    },
    "name" : "WhatsUpAmericans.com"
  }
}
```

```json
{
  "@context" : "https://schema.org",
  "@type" : "BlogPosting",
  "about" : [ {
    "@type" : "Thing",
    "name" : "Colorado Amendment 83"
  }, {
    "@type" : "Thing",
    "name" : "Right to hunt and fish"
  }, {
    "@type" : "Thing",
    "name" : "Wildlife management"
  }, {
    "@type" : "Thing",
    "name" : "Hunting"
  }, {
    "@type" : "Thing",
    "name" : "Fishing"
  } ],
  "articleSection" : [ "Colorado Ballot Measures", "Hunting", "Fishing", "Wildlife Management", "Voting" ],
  "author" : {
    "@type" : "Person",
    "name" : "Marek Bobik",
    "url" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/blog"
  },
  "dateModified" : "2026-10-09T00:00:00-06:00",
  "datePublished" : "2026-10-09T00:00:00-06:00",
  "description" : "A research-based discussion of Colorado Amendment 83, Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish, including what a YES vote and NO vote mean, official ballot language, sponsors, and the strongest arguments for and against the measure.",
  "headline" : "The Scoop on Colorado's November 2026 Proposed Measures | Amendment 83 | Part 3 of 14",
  "image" : {
    "@type" : "ImageObject",
    "height" : 768,
    "url" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/path-to-colorado-amendment-83-hero-image.jpg",
    "width" : 1376
  },
  "inLanguage" : "en-US",
  "isAccessibleForFree" : true,
  "isPartOf" : {
    "@type" : "Blog",
    "name" : "What's Up, Americans? Blog",
    "url" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/blog"
  },
  "keywords" : [ "Colorado Amendment 83", "Amendment 83", "Colorado ballot measures", "Colorado 2026 election", "right to hunt and fish", "Colorado hunting", "Colorado fishing", "wildlife management", "Colorado Parks and Wildlife", "Colorado voting" ],
  "mainEntityOfPage" : {
    "@id" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election",
    "@type" : "WebPage"
  },
  "mentions" : [ {
    "@type" : "Place",
    "name" : "Colorado"
  }, {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "name" : "Colorado General Assembly"
  }, {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "name" : "Colorado Secretary of State"
  }, {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "name" : "Colorado Parks and Wildlife"
  }, {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "name" : "Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission"
  } ],
  "publisher" : {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "logo" : {
      "@type" : "ImageObject",
      "url" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/path-to-logo.png"
    },
    "name" : "What's Up, Americans?",
    "url" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/"
  }
}
```