Tension over furbearer regulations has prompted increased security for the Colorado Parks and Wildlife commission meeting Wednesday, when commissioners will vote on petitions from opposing groups focused on hunting and trapping of animals for their fur, including fox, coyote, beaver, bobcat, pine marten and otters.
CPW has encouraged attendees to arrive early to the meeting at the Double Tree Inn in Westminster where the agency will enforce the hotel’s ban on firearms and weapons by conducting security checks prior to entry.
CPW is taking the extra precautions “given the hotel’s policy and the large number of expected attendees, along with detailed information about public testimony,” agency spokesperson Travis Duncan said. He said commissioners have received threatening calls and emails, and that the agency “develops venue-specific security plans for every PWC meeting.”
The agenda for Wednesday includes changes to CPW’s beaver conservation and management strategy, which is to increase and sustain the prevalence of beaver and beaver-influenced wetlands in suitable habitats for Colorado’s stream and wetland ecosystems and wildlife, and its furbearer stakeholder process management and policy recommendations, regarding bag limits for recreational killing of furbearers and inspection requirements.
CPW calls furbearer hunting “a time honored traditional hunt and a great starter hunt for new hunters.” Currently a furbearer permit is a $10 add-on option available to individuals who have purchased a $39 small game license. A furbearer permit is not needed to hunt coyotes. All bobcats or their pelts must be presented to CPW for inspection after which the agency will give the hunter a tag authorizing the possession, transport and sale of the pelt.
CPW sold 19,620 furbearer permits in the 2024-25 fiscal year, generating just under $200,000 in revenue. There are no limits on the number of furbearers a permit-holder can kill. The agency reports the number of permits has remained fairly consistent since 2021. The commission will consider new daily limits for recreational hunters and trappers targeting furbearers.
Stakeholder groups at odds from the beginning
The furbearer issue highlights ideological differences between pro-trapping and anti-trapping groups, represented here by Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity.
Last year members from both sides spent several months working in a stakeholder group with CPW trying to develop a state management plan for 16 furbearer species, but couldn’t agree.
Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife wants furbearer regulations to stay the same and says anti-hunting groups ignore the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, a framework of laws and principles in the U.S. and Canada holding that wildlife is a public trust resource to be hunted, and managed scientifically for sustainability.
But the Center for Biological Diversity says CPW’s current policy of allowing beavers, martens, foxes and ringtails, Colorado’s so-called “ecosystem engineers and iconic native species,“ to be trapped without limit or oversight for a $35 permit treats them “as commodities rather than integral parts of functioning ecosystems.”
The Center for Biological Diversity also opposes CPW’s policy of allowing furbearer pelts to be sold for profit in unlimited numbers; CPW only requiring hunters to submit bobcat hides for inspection; and the lack of reporting requirements for the 16 other species, which the center says makes it impossible to determine how many animals are killed annually.
Mark Surls, Northern Rockies coordinator for Project Coyote, which supports the Center for Biological Diversity’s petition, says his organization “doesn’t oppose legal hunting and trapping that is based on scientifically and ethically sound management approaches.”
“We have just consistently asked that hunting and trapping seasons align with each species’ reproductive timing along with reasonable bag and possession limits, and for these to be afforded to coyotes and all furbearers — just as they are for game species. It’s important to remember that less than 5% of Colorado’s population holds a hunting license and even fewer hunt furbearers,” Surls said. “CPW data show that over 70% of coyote hunters kill two or fewer per season. It’s not extremism to want wildlife management based on reality, science and the preponderance of public views.”
Dan Gates, executive director of Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, isn’t buying it. “The extremists pushing these narratives aren’t interested in better data or responsible reform — they’re interested in one outcome: zero harvest, zero use, zero tolerance for anyone who disagrees. Colorado’s wildlife belongs to all of us — and CPW has a statutory obligation to manage it for everyone, not just those with an ideological ax to grind.”
No compromise reached
Surls said he and Gates served on the furbearer working group, and “at no point during our meetings did Mr. Gates, or others representing ‘Group A,’ try to find a compromise to establish sensible bag or possession limits. I later reached out directly to Mr. Gates to explore potential middle ground on limits for these 17 species and I was told there was ‘nothing to discuss.’”
Samantha Miller, senior carnivore manager for the Center for Biological Diversity, said she doesn’t know how many people will attend the Wednesday meeting, but that “there has been significant public engagement around these petitions. A 2024 peer-reviewed study published through the Society for Conservation Biology showed “more than 75% of Colorado respondents disapproved of hunting large carnivores primarily for hide or fur,” she added.
For that reason and others she says she is disappointed that CPW Director Laura Clellan has recommended that the commission deny a petition put forth by the Center for Biological Diversity requesting CPW to prohibit the commercial sale of wildlife fur because the petition “lacks solid evidence that commercial fur sales drive harvest levels in Colorado.”
But Clellan also recommended the commission deny a petition submitted by Gates, Jerry Apker and the Colorado Trappers and Hunters Association asking for amended furbearer regulations to require bobcat jaw submission and mandatory checks and seals for swift fox and beaver. Clellan recommended denial because information on harvest of both species is already obtained through the divisionʼs current furbearer harvest survey, and the estimated cost of collecting and analyzing additional data doesn’t justify it.
Gates said his group hopes the commissioners take the recommendations from the agency and Clellan on the Center for Biological Diversity’s petition, “especially given the fact that ordinance 308 from 2024, which was also a fur ban, was denied by the city and county of Denver voters by 17% points.”
Duncan said CPW has received more than 150 pages of public comments via EngageCPW for the meeting, which runs Wednesday and Thursday and will address wolverine restoration, reptile and amphibian regulations and issues pertaining to wolves.
“We have not counted the total number of individual commenters,” Duncan said, “but it is likely more than 300.”