A group is seeking to make Colorado the 25th state in the nation with an established constitutional right to hunting and fishing through a proposed ballot initiative.

Backed by the International Order of T. Roosevelt, a group dedicated to preserving the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, Initiative 302 would amend the Colorado Constitution to include language establishing the people’s right to “hunt, fish, and take fish and wildlife” by the use of “traditional methods,” except when prohibited by state or federal law.

The amendment also states that hunting and fishing are the “preferred means of responsibly managing fish and wildlife populations” and underscores that it does not limit the authority of any state agency responsible for regulating fishing, hunting, or wildlife management.

The initiative has collected about 90,000 signatures so far, according to the group’s executive director, Luke Hilgemann. The group is based in Wisconsin.

To qualify for the ballot this November, an initiative needs about 124,000 valid signatures by August 4.

Hilgemann said 24 other states have a right to hunt and fish in their constitutions, with Vermont being the first in 1777 and Florida the most recent to adopt it, passing an initiative, also backed by his group, in 2024.

“Hunting and fishing is part of Colorado’s heritage,” he said. “It’s something that the state traces its roots back to, and we want to make sure that those are forever protected against an onslaught of threats that have come from the anti-hunting and fishing groups, not only in Colorado, but nationwide.”

Hilgemann noted a proposed ballot measure in Oregon that would effectively ban hunting, fishing, breeding, and killing animals — except in cases of self-defense or medical care. He said the proponents behind that measure are looking to do something similar in Colorado.

Initiative 302 is a “proactive measure that allows us to be offensive and prevent these types of radical policies from ever taking hold of an amazing place like Colorado,” he said.

Hunting and fishing bring in about $3.25 billion to the state’s economy every year, and the industry supports over 25,000 full-time jobs, according to the Colorado Wildlife Council.

“Tens of hundreds of jobs are supported in local communities all across Colorado, so (Initiative 302) is about protecting that economic impact, as well,” said Hilgemann.

Critics: an unnecessary right

Opponents of the measure argue that establishing a constitutional right to hunting and fishing is unnecessary, since both activities are already legal.

Some critics also expressed worries about the measure’s use of the term “traditional methods,” sparking fears that it could repeal a 1996 ban on certain kinds of traps, poisons and snares.

David Kane, a member of Protect Colorado’s Constitution, the coalition opposing the measure, said the group’s concerns come from two angles: the proposal’s legality and how it could impact the state’s wildlife and the agencies that manage it.

Kane argued the amendment could violate the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, as it establishes certain rights for only one group of individuals — hunters and fishermen.

“This is really disturbing to me that we have a proposal for a constitutional amendment for a very small, narrow group of people,” he said. “It seems very problematic and not very constitutional to me.”

The group believes the initiative’s language is too vague and could open the gates to a litany of lawsuits based on different interpretations.

“You could probably ask 10 different people what ‘traditional methods’ are, and you’d get 10 different answers,” Kane said. “That’s something that could be left to the interpretation of the courts if it was challenged.”

Kane, who noted he is an avid sportsman, said doesn’t oppose hunting and fishing but added he believes there is a better way to create protections for the activities, such as through legislation, which is much easier to make changes and adjustments to than a constitutional amendment.

“This is really not something that falls within democratic principles around constitutions,” Kane said. “This would just overload and bloat the Constitution even more. It weakens public trust; it could create potential budgetary chaos, and it kind of creates inequality.”

The group also raised ethical issues about the amount of outside money that, it said, is being poured into Initiative 302.

Finance records from the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office website for the T. Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, the coalition backing the initiative, show the group has brought in about $750,000 in contributions to date. The group brought in $5 million in revenue in 2023, according to ProPublica’s nonprofit records.

“This money is not coming from grassroots,” Kane said. “It’s coming from outside the state.”

Hilgemann dismissed the criticism, calling it “nothing more than scare tactics, lies, and fear-mongering.”

“This is just their way of trying to spread fear and lies to get people to believe that their ultimate goal isn’t to end hunting and fishing in Colorado, as we truly know that it is,” he said, adding that the measure’s language includes a provision clarifying that it does not limit the state from regulating hunting, fishing, and wildlife management if the policy is necessary for “sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing opportunities for all species statewide.”