Colorado: Feelings Trump Science – Fur Ban & New Daily Limits

 

During the July 16–17, 2026 Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission meeting the Commission addressed two different furbearer issues:

• Daily bag limits for recreational hunters and trappers.

• Commercial fur sales (whether to ban sales of pelts/hides). 

Throughout their discussions it became obvious exactly where some new commissioner’s priorities lie — and it isn’t science.

1. Daily bag limits, CPW staff recommended either:

• Their Preferred Option of 15 animals per day for all 17 furbearer species, or 
• Alternatively, a two-tiered system of 8 or 4, depending on the species. 

But tragically, during deliberations the Commissioner’s voted, by a narrow 6-5 margin, to reject their own staff’s science-based recommendations and randomly amended the proposal and adopted a much more restrictive limit of two (2) animals per day for all 17 furbearer species hunted for sport, including coyotes. This was a significant departure from CPW’s staff recommendation.

What makes this indefensible is not the outcome alone, but the science-based data the staff put in front of the commission before the vote. Deputy assistant director Matt Eckert even testified that harvest levels across furbearer species are at historic lows, that beaver populations statewide sit at roughly 53,000, and that observed take represents “a small percentage of the maximum allowable harvest for a sustainable population.” His data demonstrated there was no biological/scientific need for such a restrictive limit. 

This decision was made possible solely by three commissioners newly appointed by Gov. Jared Polis last month who have not yet been confirmed by the Colorado Senate. New Commissioner Becky Niemiec made it abundantly clear that she just wanted “to make sure people feel better” about trapping — not to correct any biological problem. 

Commissioner Frances Silva Blaney said it plainly: “Social acceptance is being confused with a political agenda that seeks to eliminate the hunting of furbearers. Furbearer populations are abundant. We don’t have a problem with furbearers.” Commissioner Tai Jacober pushed the Commission to side with science over social tolerance and was outvoted anyway. Commissioner Dallas May called it a “disservice to all the people.” 

Tragically, this Commission substituted feelings for science, opinion for expertise, and it’s Colorado’s hunters/trappers who lost.

2. Commercial fur sales: The Commission held a formal rulemaking hearing on the citizen petition to once again use “ballot-box biology”, this time to prohibit commercial fur sales in Colorado. This petition was originally submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity in June 2025 and, after a contentious 6–4 vote in March 2026, the Commission agreed to move it into rulemaking rather than reject it outright. 

The petition sought to prohibit the commercial sale, barter, or trade of furs from Colorado furbearers, with limited exceptions. The stated goal was to remove what petitioners viewed as the commercial incentive for trapping and hunting furbearers. 

The Commission considered three primary alternatives:

1. No change (deny the petition and retain current rules). 
2. Ban the sale of all fur products from Colorado furbearers, including pelts, hides, and products made from them. 
3. Ban only the sale of raw pelts, while allowing finished fur products to continue to be sold. 

CPW staff presented issue papers, public engagement results, and legal analyses. Staff reiterated that:

• They found no biological/scientific evidence that current harvest levels are causing population declines. 
• Harvest rates for Colorado furbearers are generally well below 1% of estimated populations for many species. 
• There was no clear evidence that commercial fur sales were driving harvest levels in Colorado. 
• Therefore, staff continued to recommend against adopting the commercial fur sales ban.

Following public testimony which was all over the place, and further discussion, the Commission approved a compromise version of the rule.

Instead of banning all fur products, the Commission voted to prohibit the commercial sale of raw pelts and hides from Colorado game furbearers, while not adopting the broader prohibition on finished fur products that the petitioners had requested. The adopted rule was narrower than the original citizen petition. 

This decision represents a middle ground:

• It does not prohibit trapping or hunting Colorado furbearers. 
• It does not prohibit possession of legally harvested animals. 
• It does restrict one traditional outlet for Colorado trappers by eliminating (or significantly limiting) the in-state commercial market for raw pelts from covered species. 

Once again, this Commission ignored the science-based recommendations of their own staff and substituted feelings for science, opinion for expertise, and adopted a “feel good” middle ground solution and it’s Colorado’s hunters/trappers who lost.