Updated 6/19/25with additional information on the CPW furbearer working group.

While Denver voters overwhelmingly rejected efforts to ban fur sales last November, animal rights activists are trying another tactic – a statewide ban on wildlife fur sales.

The Center for Biological Diversity submitted a petition for rulemaking to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission this week, which would ban the commercial sale of wildlife fur.

The petition submitted on Monday notes that the request covers only the for-profit sale of furbearer parts, including hides, pelts, skins, claws, and similar items, with limited exemptions, and does not impose any restrictions on the hunting or trapping of furbearers.

However, the petition could interfere with ongoing efforts by Colorado Parks and Wildlife to address the issue. The agency has convened a working group on changes to fur regulation, which has just begun meeting and includes representatives from both animal rights activists and the agricultural industry.

In a statement, the Center said, “In contrast to the protections given to the state’s other wildlife, the wildlife agency currently allows the for-profit sale of furs from all species classified as ‘furbearers,’ which can be trapped, killed, and sold in unlimited numbers. This includes beavers, ringtails, red foxes, pine martens and bobcats, as well as swift foxes, an imperiled species of special concern in the state.”

Samantha Miller, the center’s senior carnivore campaigner, founder of the Colorado Wildlife Alliance, and who submitted the petition, said, “It’s time for Colorado to close the book on commercial wildlife markets. Auctioning off piles of pelts from native animals is a relic of an era that drove iconic species, like beavers and bison, to the brink. We’re asking Colorado to align with the core principles of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAM) that it otherwise upholds. Our state needs to modernize wildlife management to confront today’s biodiversity crisis.”

Miller was also the campaign manager for Proposition 127, which would have banned hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx. Voters soundly rejected the initiative by nearly 10 percentage points in November.

The petition, however, appears to take issue with the North American model, stating “A core tenet of the NAM is the elimination of commercial markets for wildlife, which helped restore many species through habitat protection and science-based regulations. However, the NAM, with its origins in the 19th century, included exemptions for the sale of furbearer parts, rooted in the historical assumption that regulated fur trapping would be sustainable. Today, that assumption must be re-evaluated.”

In March, CPW Director Jeff Davis announced that he would convene a working group to review furbearer regulations, with action on those regulations expected in early 2026. That came in the wake of the failures of Denver’s Ordinance 308 and Proposition 127.

“It’s not good due process when there’s a working group in the process of addressing fur-bearing regulations,” and which includes stakeholders on both sides who are attempting to engage in a transparent process, said Dan Gates of Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management. Then comes a citizens’ petition that tries to create division between those stakeholders, Gates added.

He noted the working group held its first meeting this week, and with the assistance of a third-party mediator, is expected to meet for the next three to four months. 

“This petition spits in the face of due process and science-based wildlife management,” he added.

Travis Duncan, a spokesman for CPW, told Colorado Politics the stakeholder engagement process will conclude by October 2025, and the third-party facilitator will provide CPW with a final written report. CPW staff will review and evaluate recommendations following the conclusion of this stakeholder process in November/December 2025. Any recommended changes are tentatively scheduled to be considered by the Commission in early 2026, Duncan said.

The agency would not identify who is involved in the working group, stating that will come at the end of the process.

It’s the second year in a row that animal rights activists have taken aim at a ban on the sale of fur.

Last November, Denver voters rejected Ordinance 308, which would ban fur sales within Denver city limits, by 15 percentage points. The ordinance did not identify any specific animals whose fur could not be sold.

The arguments against 308 and a ban on fur included comments from Murphy Robinson, a former deputy mayor of Denver and a current CPW commissioner who was speaking on his own behalf and not representing the commission.

He wrote in an opinion piece for the Colorado Sun last October that the Denver ordinance was an overreach. “This ordinance would also directly impact cultural events like the Denver March Powwow and the Indian Market & Southwest Art Fest, where vendors sell authentic Native American products, many incorporating fur. These gatherings are not just markets; they are celebrations of heritage and identity for tribes across the country. The ban would make it nearly impossible for many of these vendors to participate, threatening the financial sustainability of these beloved events and stripping them of their authenticity,” he wrote.