Wildlife policies stir debate in Colorado
A wave of wildlife-related regulatory proposals is sparking intense debate across the state of Colorado, highlighting the growing tension between environmental and animal welfare advocacy groups and agricultural, hunting and rural communities.
Issues ranging from banning the commercial sale of fur and placing restrictions on beaver harvest to predator reintroductions and new bison protections have surfaced in recent months.
Supporters argue the measures will modernize wildlife management and promote ecosystem health, while critics believe the policies represent an ideological shift away from science-based management and the state’s traditional outdoor industries.
Public meetings and hearings surrounding the proposals have resulted in packed crowds and heightened tensions, reflecting Colorado’s deep division over how wildlife and natural resources should be managed.
Fur sale ban
One of the most controversial issues came about in early March when the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission advanced a citizen petition banning the commercial sale of wildlife furs and furbearer parts with a six-to-four vote, despite CPW staff making a recommendation against the ban and the majority of public comment asking the commission to deny it.
According to multiple sources, the proposal would prohibit the sale, barter or trade of furs and other parts like hides, skins, claws, etc. from 17 species of furbearing animals including beavers, bobcats, coyotes, raccoons and foxes harvested in Colorado.
If adopted, the ban would not eliminate hunting or trapping of these species, and the sale of furs from farmed or wild animals killed outside of Colorado would not be impacted.
The proposal also includes exceptions, such as fishing flies, Western hats and materials used for scientific or educational purposes.
Those in favor of the ban argue commercial wildlife markets have contributed to “severe wildlife declines across North America” and believe the proposal aligns with “more modern conservation practices” outlined in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which calls for eliminating commercial markets for wildlife products altogether.
Samantha Miller, Center for Biological Diversity senior carnivore campaigner, submitted the petition, contending by removing financial incentives tied to wildlife harvest, pressure on certain species may be reduced and biodiversity may be better protected.
“Right now, furbearers are hunted and trapped in unlimited numbers in the state of Colorado so they don’t enjoy the same protections against commercial markets other big game species do, and in a time of biodiversity crisis and climate change, it’s critical we up our management levels and modernize them to reflect the crises we’re facing at the time and ally for alignment for management with other species,” Miller says.
Opponents, however, believe the proposal ignores the advice of professional wildlife biologists and undermines the longstanding system of science-based wildlife management used by CPW.
“This is a travesty to the democratic process which guides wildlife management, and it shows a complete disregard for science-based wildlife management,” states Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management Executive Director Dan Gates in an interview with Outdoor Life.
Gates further notes, in February, CPW Director Laura Clellan recommended the commission deny the petition, noting the agency doesn’t have any evidence commercial fur markets are resulting in unsustainable harvest levels of furbearing animals in Colorado.
“The petition relies heavily on uncertainty about these species’ population trends and the possibility the commercial sale market is driving harvest past sustainable population limits,” Clellan writes. “But the petition lacks solid evidence commercial fur sales drive harvest levels in Colorado.”
She adds, “Even if the petition supported the claim commercial fur markets have a significant relationship to Colorado harvest levels, the division does not have data indicating this. While the division does not have perfect data on furbearer harvest levels, it does have good information collected through the furbearer harvest report. This more recent information collected by the division stands in contrast to the petition’s claims.”
Hunters, trappers and agricultural advocates also argue the proposal could harm rural economies and negatively affect conservation funding generated through license sales and outdoor recreation.
Several others believe the petition is part of a broader agenda by animal rights activists to chip away at Colorado residents’ hunting and trapping rights, and they caution the commission that by advancing the ban, they would be overriding the will of the people who voted down a similar proposal in 2024.
Known as Ordinance 308, this proposal aimed to outlaw the sale of new fur products in Denver, but 58 percent of voters rejected the ban.
While the commission’s recent vote does not finalize the new ban proposal, it will move into the formal rulemaking process and is expected to return to the commission for further consideration later this year.
Beaver protection bill
Another controversial measure moving through the Colorado Legislature would prohibit the harvest of beavers on public lands.
According to a March 11 article in The Colorado Sun, House Bill 1323 would ban private individuals from killing beavers on state and federal lands across the Centennial State, including areas managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
Advocates say the ban is necessary to protect a species which plays a critical role in addressing drought, wildfire risk and declining wetlands across the West, as beavers create dams which “slow water flow, raise groundwater levels and form wetland areas which can serve as natural firebreaks.”
Miller, who is also an advocate for the beaver harvest ban, says, “Colorado is in a crisis. We have had increasing wildfires. We are in drought conditions. We have a historically low snowpack, and we need every ally we can get in this fight against increased wildfires and drought. As we know, Colorado is also in a budget crisis. We can have more beavers for free. They make fires harder to ignite and slower to spread, and they create those natural wet corridors firefighters often use as breaks.”
“So, the hope is, while we’re in a budget shortfall and while we are in a pretty desperate drought and wildfire situation, we can use these free allies to help us and protect us naturally,” she adds.
Hunters, trappers and ag producers, on the other hand, strongly oppose the bill, arguing it bypasses an ongoing stakeholder process aimed at reviewing trapping regulations and that wildlife management decisions should remain in the hands of CPW biologists rather than legislators.
Some opponents of the proposal also believe the legislation represents part of a broader campaign to completely eliminate hunting and trapping opportunities in Colorado.
Wolverine reintroduction
Yet another wildlife initiative generating heated debate in Colorado is the state’s plan to reintroduce wolverines.
In January, CPW unveiled its Wolverine Restoration Plan which outlines a strategy to reestablish the elusive carnivore after more than a century of absence from the state.
The plan stems from legislation passed in 2024 directing CPW to pursue restoration of the species, which were historically present in Colorado but disappeared from the state decades ago.
Under the plan, wildlife officials could translocate up to 45 wolverines over several years into three high-elevation regions of the state, including areas north of Interstate 70, the Elk and West Elk mountains and the San Juan Mountain Range.
CPW Wolverine Coordinator Dr. Robert Inman estimates Colorado could eventually support an established population of roughly 50 to 100 animals.
“Wolverines naturally exist at very low densities wherever they are found. Fifty to 100 wolverines may not sound like a lot, but it is likely in the same ballpark as the historical capacity here in Colorado,” Inman says in a Jan. 14 press release announcing the plan. “It would also represent about a quarter of the population in the Lower 48 states. There never were thousands of wolverines in the Lower 48.”
Those in support of wolverine reintroduction view it as an important step toward conserving the rare species back to its native range.
Livestock producers, however, remain wary of adding another predator to the landscape following the state’s controversial wolf reintroduction.
“Colorado’s livestock producers are understandably anxious about another carnivore on public lands. However, the utilization of the 10(j) rule for management flexibility and CPW’s commitment to a fair depredation compensation program will hopefully reduce the impact of wolverine restoration on producers,” CPW states.
With this, CPW asserts wolverine depredation on livestock is not anticipated to be significant given the history in states where wolverines have lived for the last five decades – including Montana and Idaho – their small size and naturally low densities.
Other controversies
Other recent wildlife controversies making waves across Colorado include the updated classification of wild bison and ongoing issues with wolf reintroduction efforts.
Beginning on Jan. 1, a new state law designates wild bison as big game rather than livestock, which provides free-ranging bison additional protections and makes it largely illegal to hunt or kill them without authorization. This, however, does not apply to privately owned bison or animals managed by Tribal nations.
While state wildlife officials note Colorado does not currently have any confirmed wild bison herds, animals from Utah’s Book Cliffs Herd have been known to occasionally cross the state line.
The legislation was supported by several Tribal communities who advocated for greater recognition and protection of the culturally significant species, while others are happy the classification ensures wild bison will be managed similarly to other native wildlife species if a herd becomes established in Colorado.
On the wolf front, compensation for livestock losses caused by wolves has been up for debate following legislation passed by Colorado lawmakers in 2025 to shield the names of ranchers who receive state compensation for wolf-related damages.
The measure was intended to protect producers from harassment and threats following the reintroduction of gray wolves into the state, but transparency advocates argue the policy limits public oversight of taxpayer-funded compensation programs.
Meanwhile, ranchers say anonymity is necessary for safety and to prevent social media backlash or activism targeting producers who report livestock losses.
This debate underscores the continuing challenges surrounding wolf reintroduction, which remains one of the most polarizing wildlife issues in Colorado.
Hannah Bugas is the managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. Send comments on this article to roundup@wylr.net.
