Colorado Fur Ban Moves Forward

Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission Meeting – March 4, 2026
Discussion of Citizen Petition Proposing a Fur Ban

Summary

• The commission spent the afternoon considering a citizen petition that would ban the sale of hides or furs obtained through trapping, effectively making their sale illegal.    This is clearly just another case of “ballot-box biology”.
• CPW staff delivered a detailed, science-based presentation recommending that the commission deny the petition. CPW’s new Director also recommended rejecting it.
• A significant number of people attended the meeting and provided public comments. Roughly 80% spoke against the proposed fur ban, while only 20% supported it. The commission heard approximately 90 minutes of public comments.
• After a great deal of additional discussion, the issue became increasingly muddled. The confusion peaked when, after a motion was finally made, one commissioner remarked, “I’m going to vote no because I have no idea what we’re voting on.”
• The commission ultimately voted 6–4 to move the proposed fur ban forward, going against staff’s recommendation.
• Important: This does not mean the ban has been adopted. It simply moves the proposal into the rule-making process, where CPW will draft and review potential regulations before the commission takes another vote at a future meeting.

What the Proposal Would Do

• The petition would ban the commercial sale, barter, or trade of wildlife fur in Colorado.
• Species affected would include common furbearers such as coyotes, foxes, beavers, bobcats, pine martens, and river otters.
• The proposal would not directly ban hunting or trapping these species. However, it would make selling or trading their hides or fur illegal.
• Critics argue that eliminating the legal market for pelts would effectively end most trapping, since trappers would no longer be able to sell the furs they harvest.

What the Meeting Was Like

• The meeting was packed and highly tense, with hunters, ranchers, trappers, and animal-rights activists all in attendance.
• Due to the expected crowd, the meeting was moved to a large hotel venue in Westminster and included additional security.
• As the discussion progressed, it became clear that several commissioners were struggling to fully understand the citizen petition, the CPW staff recommendation, and the implications of the proposal.
• The commission’s discussion grew increasingly convoluted and disorganized, ultimately devolving into confusion. The situation became so chaotic that the commission voted on a motion that at least one commissioner openly admitted they did not understand.

Major Arguments on Each Side

Supporters (animal-rights activists)

• Argue that wildlife should not be commercially exploited for fur (mostly emotionally based arguments, no science, ballot box biology stuff)

Opponents (hunters, trappers, ranchers, and wildlife-management advocates)

• View the proposal as an ideological restriction driven more by emotion than by wildlife science.
• Emphasize that CPW staff and the agency’s director recommended rejecting the petition after reviewing the biological and management considerations.
• Note that voters in Denver recently rejected similar restrictions, suggesting limited public support for additional bans.

What Happens Next

• CPW staff will develop the specific regulatory language for a potential fur-sale ban.
• The proposal is expected to be returned to the commission for another vote, possibly as early as May.
• At that point, the commission could approve the rule, modify it, or reject it entirely.

Bottom Line:
The commission did NOT approve a fur ban yesterday. Instead, the vote allows the proposal to move forward in the rule-making process, where regulations will be drafted and the commission will consider the issue again before any final decision is made. This isn’t over yet…

Footnote:
During the next day of the commission meeting, public commenters overwhelmingly urged the commissioners to reconsider their decision regarding the fur ban. Many speakers expressed concern that the commission appeared confused about what they had voted to advance. Several commenters also criticized the process, with some describing it as deeply flawed or a “disgrace.”