In early counts, a ballot initiative to enshrine hunting and fishing in the Colorado Constitution is failing to receive the votes necessary to pass. 

As a constitutional amendment, the measure requires 55% of the votes to pass. So far, it is trailing, with support accounting for nearly 44% of the vote, as of 8:15 p.m. Unofficial results from the Secretary of State show that 1,048,826 had voted against Amendment 83, compared to 823,294 who voted in favor. The Associated Press estimates that around 54% of votes have been counted.

Amendment 83 seeks to add a right to hunt and fish to the Colorado Constitution, defining those activities as the preferred way to manage the state’s wildlife.

The ballot measure was brought forward by a conservative, Colorado-based law firm, West Group, but was largely funded and supported by the International Order of T. Roosevelt, a Wisconsin-based hunting advocacy nonprofit that has been working to establish similar constitutional rights in multiple states. 

During the campaign, Amendment 83 ignited debates not only over what kinds of activities belong in the state constitution, but also how Colorado wildlife, hunting and fishing should be regulated and managed. 

Currently, state law requires Colorado Parks and Wildlife to protect, preserve, enhance and manage wildlife and their environment for the use, benefit and enjoyment of residents and visitors. It adds that the state “shall utilize hunting, trapping and fishing as the primary methods of effecting necessary wildlife harvests.” 

It also requires the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to create policy that enables the agency to “develop, manage, and maintain sound programs of hunting, fishing, trapping, and other wildlife-related outdoor recreational activities.”  

Supporters of Amendment 83 have argued that a constitutional right is needed to add an extra layer of protection against what it sees as a growing number of threats against hunting and fishing in Colorado from ballot measures, legislation and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. They claim its passage will maintain the status quo in wildlife management in Colorado.  

Opponents argue that because hunting and fishing are already legal, adding it to the Constitution is not only unnecessary, but also an inappropriate place for recreational activities to be protected. They argue it could hinder Parks and Wildlife’s ability to flexibly manage wildlife as well as lead to increased lawsuits and a return of currently illegal methods of hunting and fishing like leghold traps, poisons, bear baiting and more.