By Dan Gates

Animal rights activists have introduced a new petition to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to ban the sale of fur in Colorado. Regardless of when commissioners take a formal vote on the petition — either at their March 4 & 5 Denver meetings or their May 6 & 7 Grand Junction meetings — it’s clear that science-based wildlife management and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAM) are once again under attack.

After the results of the last election cycle, one might have thought reckless wildlife proposals were in Colorado’s rearview mirror. The 2024 General Election saw citizens reject Proposition 127, a proposed ban on big cat hunting, by a ten-point margin. Even at the municipal level, about 60% of Denver voters denied Initiated Ordinance 308, which was materially the same as this new fur ban before the CPW Commission, with the only major difference being in scope. 

Like many Coloradans, the resounding defeats of Proposition 127 and Ordinance 308 — both of which were severely lacking in scientific evidence — made me optimistic that our state had turned over a new leaf when it came to wildlife management. In rejecting these two proposals, voters made it abundantly clear that science-based management practices should be the guiding voice in Colorado’s conservation efforts. While the animal rights groups backing these proposals incessantly argued that wildlife management issues should be decided by the will of the people, the people respectfully chose to abide by the NAM’s foundational principle of upholding science to inform wildlife-management decisions. One might hope these activists would finally take the hint and stop trying to impose radical wildlife policies that our communities don’t want.

Unfortunately, animal rights activists only seem to care about the will of the people when it’s convenient for them. Instead of letting the results of Proposition 127 and Ordinance 308 stand, they have made the calculated decision to subvert the will of voters by sneaking a fur ban through the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission unbeknownst to a vast majority of Colorado’s electorate.

It’s important to note that members of the CPW Commission are not the experts who are on the ground applying the best available science to effectively manage the state’s 961 wildlife species. Rather, they are a collective of politically appointed officials that are handpicked by the Governor. This is not to say that CPW Commissioners are fundamentally biased or should not have any oversight on wildlife policies; however, it is to say there are times when it may be inappropriate for the commission to take a vote on state wildlife policy.

This latest fur ban is one such instance, as the petition relies exclusively on appeals to emotion and poorly constructed reasoning to support the ban. For example, the petition implies that a lack of available comprehensive data for furbearer populations indicates these animals are being threatened by harvest for their pelts. This argument completely ignores the fact that it has always been difficult to extrapolate exact data on these species by virtue of their reclusive nature. Simply having a lack of precise data is not evidence that these species are in danger, especially when qualitative observations from CPW suggest otherwise.

Other pieces of “evidence” that petitioners use to support the fur ban include an unsubstantiated allusion to climate change negatively impacting furbearers, as well as an argument that the current sale of furbearer parts violates the NAM. This latter piece of support is particularly suspect when you consider the petition also acknowledges that the NAM historically provides an exemption for the sale of furbearer parts. In short, petitioners provide no real evidence that furbearer populations are in danger, instead relying on leaps in logic and full-blown contradictions to support the fur ban.

The 2024 General Election made it clear that Coloradans want their wildlife managed through the best available science. Inciting statewide policy through a bureaucratic vote on a petition lacking substantial scientific evidence would be a slap in the face to Colorado voters, experts at Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and Colorado’s wildlife populations. I strongly encourage members of the CPW Commission to reject this proposed attack on science-based wildlife management and encourage readers to attend the commission’s hearings to speak out against this dangerous proposal.

Dan Gates is executive director of Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management. He is the current chair of the Colorado Sportspersons Roundtable and vice chair of the Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project. Gates was previously appointed to the Colorado Wildlife Habitat Stamp Committee by Gov. Jared Polis and Gov. John Hickenlooper, eventually serving as chair to the committee. Gates also served as chair to the Colorado Wildlife Council and was campaign spokesman for Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better, the issue committee that successfully defeated Proposition 127 in 2024.