> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.westernslopetrellis.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Western Slope Voters Face Choices on Hunting Rights and Wildfire Funding
- URL: https://www.westernslopetrellis.com/western-slope-voters-face-choices-on-hunting-rights-and-wildfire-funding/
- Published: 2026-09-23T13:30:41.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-23T13:30:41.000Z
- Description: Western Slope voters face two outdoor-related ballot measures this fall. Amendment 83 would establish constitutional hunting and fishing rights. Proposition 137 would direct existing tax revenue to conservation and wildfire prevention. Here’s what would change and how the measures differ.
- Author: Western Slope Trellis Staff
- Tags: Civic

Hunting, fishing and wildfire prevention all have a place on Colorado’s ballot this fall. Amendment 83 would put a right to hunt and fish into the state constitution. Proposition 137 would direct revenue from an existing sales tax toward conservation, water protection and wildfire prevention.

For the Western Slope, the questions touch both livelihoods and the places people spend their free time. Voters will decide the measures separately.

## Amendment 83: A constitutional right to hunt and fish

[Amendment 83](https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2025-2026/302Final.pdf?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com) would establish a right to hunt and fish using “traditional methods” and make hunting and fishing the state’s preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations.

The Legislature and Colorado Parks and Wildlife could still regulate hunting and fishing, but the amendment sets conditions: those regulations must be necessary for scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety or preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities.

The right would exclude nongame species, endangered species and species illegal to hunt under federal law. It would not authorize entry onto private property or change existing trespass laws.

Supporters include the International Order of T. Roosevelt and Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, led by Dan Gates. The national organization’s executive director, Luke Hilgemann, previously served as CEO of Americans for Prosperity.

Backers argue that hunting needs protection from future restrictions pursued through ballot initiatives. The 2020 wolf-reintroduction vote and the unsuccessful 2024 mountain lion hunting ban form part of the backdrop to that campaign.

Opponents see potential for lawsuits over what the new right would protect. Eric Washburn, a Steamboat Springs hunter opposing the measure, [has warned](https://coloradonewsline.com/2026/08/24/colorado-voters-could-adopt-a-right-to-hunt-and-fish-but-opponents-warn-measure-threatens-wildlife/?ref=westernslopetrellis.com) that the undefined phrase “traditional methods” could invite challenges to existing voter-approved restrictions on hunting practices.

Humane World for Animals also opposes the amendment, arguing that it could limit the ability of voters, lawmakers and wildlife officials to adopt protections. The dispute is over how much authority those decision-makers would retain once hunting and fishing become constitutional rights.

## What hunting is worth here

A [state economic study using 2017 data](https://oedit.colorado.gov/sites/coedit/files/EconomicContributionsOfOutdoorRecreationinColoradoStudy%5F2017.pdf?ref=westernslopetrellis.com) estimated that hunting generated $26.9 million in economic output in Mesa County that year and supported 392 jobs. In Garfield County, the estimates were $15.2 million and 217 jobs; in Montrose County, $8.3 million and 175 jobs.

Those are historical estimates, but they help explain why wildlife policy draws attention well beyond hunters themselves.

Voters in all three counties rejected both recent wildlife measures by wide margins. The statewide results were closer: the hunting-ban proposal failed, while wolf reintroduction passed.

| Share voting yes                       | Mesa County | Garfield County | Montrose County | Statewide |
| -------------------------------------- | ----------- | --------------- | --------------- | --------- |
| 2024 mountain lion hunting-ban measure | 33%         | 33%             | 28%             | 45%       |
| 2020 wolf reintroduction               | 31%         | 37%             | 24%             | 51%       |

*Percentages are rounded from the certified* [*2024*](https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Results/2024/2024BiennialAbstract.pdf?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com) *and* [*2020*](https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Results/Abstract/2020/general/amendProp.html?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com) *results.*

Amendment 83 presents a different choice. It asks voters to establish a constitutional right that would shape future wildlife decisions, rather than settle a dispute over one species.

## Proposition 137: Existing sales-tax revenue for conservation

[Proposition 137](https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2025-2026/308Final.pdf?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com) would create no new tax or increase the sales-tax rate. Beginning July 1, 2027, it would allow the state to retain revenue associated with sales taxes on certain sporting goods and equipment outside the TABOR limit, which restricts how much revenue Colorado can keep without voter approval.

The money would be divided among four purposes:

- 47.5% for Great Outdoors Colorado.
- 47.5% for a new wildfire prevention and water fund.
- 2.5% for outdoor equity grants.
- 2.5% for an outdoor recreation grant fund.

The [campaign estimates about $175 million annually](https://yesonprop137.com/prop-137-faq/?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com), although the amount would depend on revenue calculations and budget conditions. Beginning in fiscal year 2028–29, the exempt amount could be reduced if necessary to protect the family affordability or earned income tax credits.

The wildfire and water share would support existing state programs for work such as forest restoration, fuel reduction and watershed protection. In the first year, $10 million from that share would go to a prescribed-fire claims fund before the remaining money is distributed to the other programs.

## The funding trade-off

Supporters argue that conservation and wildfire prevention need a dependable source of funding. The Nature Conservancy backs the measure, and [Western Slope supporters](https://yesonprop137.com/supporters/?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com) include Aspen Valley Land Trust, Tri-State Generation and Transmission, Sen. Dylan Roberts, Rep. Elizabeth Velasco and Ridgway Mayor John Clark.

The financial choice is what happens to revenue the state already collects. Dedicating it to these purposes would affect money otherwise available for general state spending or TABOR refunds, depending on revenue conditions.

Lawmakers can already fund conservation and wildfire programs. Proposition 137 asks voters to authorize additional revenue retention and specify where that money goes. That creates a budget trade-off: dependable funding for the named programs also means less flexibility to use those dollars elsewhere.

## What a yes or no vote would do

A yes vote on Amendment 83 would add hunting and fishing rights to the constitution, subject to its exceptions and regulatory provisions. A no vote would leave the existing legal framework in place. The amendment needs 55% approval.

A yes vote on Proposition 137 would authorize the revenue exemption and dedicated funding allocations. A no vote would leave the current treatment of that revenue in place. The proposition needs a simple majority.

The [Western Slope Trellis voter guide](https://www.westernslopetrellis.com/2026-ballot-guide/?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com) links to both measure texts and covers the other statewide and local questions on this fall’s ballot.

*Next in the series: Amendment 82 and Garfield County’s natural gas economy.*