06/15/2026
We must pay attention and get involved now.
Colorado voters are being asked to lock vague, permanent language into our state Constitution through Amendment 302. Hunting and fishing are already legal and protected by state law. This measure doesn’t just affirm that; it creates a new constitutional “right” with undefined terms like “traditional methods” and “preferred means,” while setting a high bar (“necessary”) for any future regulations.
This isn’t a minor policy tweak. Once it’s in the Constitution, it stays there for generations unless voters amend it again. It opens the door to endless lawsuits challenging wildlife rules, increases costs for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and could complicate science-based management, habitat work, and protections for declining species that don’t fit the narrow carveouts.
This is exactly why it requires 55% voter approval. It’s not ordinary — it’s a fundamental change.
Read the actual one-page final text, not the slogans. Talk to friends and family. Share the facts. Show up at community discussions. Don't sign the petition for 302 and encourage others to do the same.
Don’t let Colorado’s Constitution become a blank check for future courtroom battles over wildlife. Stay informed, stay engaged, and protect smart, balanced management for the long term.
302 is short. Colorado could be stuck with it for generations.
The final text is only one page, but it would add a new section to the Colorado Constitution. It does not expire. If voters put it in, it stays there unless voters change the Constitution again later.
Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado. State law already says, “The state shall utilize hunting, trapping, and fishing as the primary methods of effecting necessary wildlife harvests.”
So 302 is not making hunting legal. It is creating a new constitutional right.
The final text says there is a “right of the people of Colorado to hunt, fish, and take fish and wildlife.” State staff already asked whether that right would be enforceable in court. The final text does not give voters a clear answer.
Then 302 says that right includes “traditional methods.” That phrase is still not defined. It does not say “methods currently legal in Colorado.” It does not say “methods allowed by CPW in 2026.” It does not say current bans are grandfathered in. It just says “traditional methods” and leaves the fight for later.
302 also adds a species carveout. It does not apply to “nongame species, endangered species, or any species that is illegal to hunt under federal law.”
That sounds broad, but look at what is missing. It does not say threatened species. It does not say state threatened species. It does not say Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It does not say species on Colorado’s concern list. A species can be struggling, declining, or in need of recovery work without being protected by the exact words 302 uses.
302 also says hunting and fishing are the “preferred means of responsibly managing fish and wildlife populations.”
Preferred over what? Habitat work, disease control, conflict prevention, relocation, wildlife crossings, recovery work, and nonlethal tools all matter too. The final text does not explain how those tools fit once hunting and fishing are written into the Constitution as the preferred means.
Then there is the regulation language. 302 says the state may regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management “if the law is necessary” for scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities.
The word is “necessary.” That gives lawyers something to fight over. If Colorado limits a method later, someone can argue the limit is not necessary. If CPW restricts a practice, someone can argue it violates the new constitutional right.
That is why the “it will not change current bans” talking point is not the full story.
No, 302 does not automatically erase current bans the next morning. But 302 also does not say current bans are protected forever. It does not say current rules are grandfathered in. It does not say banned methods stay banned no matter what. It does not use the words “ban,” “banned,” “prohibited,” “grandfather,” or “trapping.”
Maybe nothing changes on day one. But day one is not the whole story. The lawsuit later is the story.
The state fiscal statement already says CPW may need more legal advice when making rules under the new constitutional language. It also says litigation costs will increase if more people challenge rules and regulations based on that language.
That cost hits the agency. It hits the system. It hits the people who pay into it.
Because 302 changes the Constitution, the Title Board says it needs 55% voter approval. That should tell voters this is not a normal wildlife rule. It is permanent constitutional language.
This is not about whether hunting and fishing should be legal in Colorado. They already are.
This is about whether Colorado should put vague, permanent language into the Constitution and let lawyers fight over it later.
Read the final text, not the sales pitch.
Hell no on 302!
Decline to sign 302!
Don’t change Colorado’s Constitution.
Sources:
2025-2026 #302 Final Text, page 1.
Colorado Secretary of State, Initiative 302 Results page.
Legislative Council staff review and fiscal statement.
C.R.S. § 33-1-101(4).
