In Colorado, the International Order of T. Roosevelt submitted signatures to the secretary of state on July 8, 2026, to qualify an initiative for the ballot to create a constitutional amendment protecting the right to hunt and fish.
The initiated constitutional amendment — Initiative 302 — would establish the right of the people to hunt, fish, and otherwise take fish and wildlife, including by traditional methods. It would also specify that the policy of the state of Colorado is that “hunting and fishing are the preferred means of responsibly managing fish and wildlife populations.”
Initiative 302 would exclude endangered species, nongame species, and species that are illegal to hunt under federal law from the right to hunt and fish. It states that the constitutional right to hunt and fish would not authorize trespassing on private property, or limit the ability of the state to regulate hunting and fishing.
In Colorado, the number of required signatures to qualify an initiative for the ballot equals 5% of the total number of votes cast for Colorado's secretary of state in the last general election. For 2026, that amounts to 124,238 valid signatures. Additionally, Colorado has a distribution requirement. For initiated constitutional amendments, campaigns must gather signatures from at least 2% of the registered voters who live in each of the state’s 35 Senate districts.
Support and opposition to the measure
The International Order of T. Roosevelt, the organization backing Initiative 302, stated that they submitted more than 180,000 signatures to the secretary of state for review. The secretary of state has until Sept. 2 to review the submitted signatures and determine if the campaign submitted enough to place the measure on the November 2026 ballot.
The International Order of T. Roosevelt gathered all 180,000 signatures between April 28 and July 8. Dan Gates, founder of Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, said, “In just over two months, Coloradans across the state have overwhelmingly shown up to support our rights to hunt and fish. This commitment by the people demonstrates the energy behind preserving our heritage here in the Centennial State this November.”
Luke Hilgemann, the executive director of the International Order of T. Roosevelt, said of the initiative, “Hunting and fishing is part of Colorado’s heritage. 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 referred to an initiative filed in Oregon that would criminalize hunting, fishing, and intentional injury to animals. He said 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.”
Protect Colorado’s Constitution is opposing Initiative 302. David Kane, a member of the organization, said the amendment’s language is too vague to support. He said, “You could probably ask 10 different people what ‘traditional methods’ are, and you’d get 10 different answers. That’s something that could be left to the interpretation of the courts if it was challenged.”
Kane also said that adding a right to hunt and fish to the state’s constitution is unnecessary, and that the rights can more effectively be protected in state statutes. He said, “This is really not something that falls within democratic principles around constitutions. 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.”
Right to hunt and fish in other states
As of July 2026, 24 states have constitutional amendments proclaiming a right to hunt and fish. Vermont’s constitution has contained these rights since 1777. Voters in the other 23 states approved ballot measures providing for these constitutional rights. Additionally, the state constitutions of California and Rhode Island include amendments guaranteeing the right to fish, but not to hunt.
[Insert map]
Alabama was the first state to adopt these constitutional rights, when 81.4% of voters approved the state’s Sportsperson's Bill of Rights in 1996. Most recently, voters adopted a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Florida; 67.3% of voters approved Amendment 2 in 2024.
Between 1996 and 2025, 25 measures concerning the right to hunt and fish have been on the ballot in 24 states. One measure, in Alabama in 2014, did not implement a right to hunt and fish, but instead amended the state’s constitutional amendment to state that the right to hunt and fish was subject to reasonable regulations to conserve and manage wildlife.
Of the 25 ballot measures concerning a constitutional right to hunt and fish, only one was defeated by voters. In 2010, 56.7% of Arizona voters rejected Proposition 109.
Arizona Proposition 109 would have:
- created a constitutional right to hunt and fish;
- stated that wildlife in Arizona belongs to the state and is held in a trust for the benefit of its citizens;
- granted the legislature exclusive authority to enact laws regulating the manner, methods, or seasons for hunting and fishing, thus prohibiting citizens from using the initiative process to enact such laws;
- stated that the constitutional right to hunt and fish would not authorize trespassing;
- stated that lawful hunting is the preferred means of managing wildlife in Arizona.
Initiative 302, if placed on the 2026 ballot, would be the first ballot measure concerning a right to hunt and fish to be initiated by citizens, instead of referred to the ballot by a state legislature.
Additional reading: