This commission completely disregards biological science in favor of social science. They made no attempt to hide this. They looked CPW in the face and said no, we know better than you biologists, and we'll do as we please.
ACTION ALERT: CPW Commission vote on fur ban
- Thread starter bayoublaster7527
- Start date
bayoublaster7527
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 746
Agreed. We need to bring it up at every commission meeting, never let it go. Also use this as a data point to fight every single commission appointment in the state senate.
Why do we even have an agency with biologists if thy are just going to be ignored by the commission? It’s crazy.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,533
Whats ironic - itd have been a lot better if they did ban the sale of antlers and not fur.
OverlordBear
Well-known member
Time to practice civil disobedience like Rosa parks to the CO residents. Time to lead a petition of wardens to refuse to enforce or investigate the regulation. How many trappers could be realistically trapped if they kept trapping animals with their traps that are effective for trapping. Then dispose of the animals but charge a recycle fee that is arbitrarily linked to a recycling market that ensures continued enjoyment of a recycled organic byproduct.
bayoublaster7527
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 746
Good recap from Outdoor Life
www.outdoorlife.com
Colorado Advances Fur Ban, Contradicting Public Opinion and Biologist Recommendations
Commissioners voted 6-4 to move forward a citizen petition that would ban the commercial sale of wildlife fur statewide.
www.outdoorlife.com
The anti-hunter commissioners kept saying they need specific population data by species, and until they have that they want to ban the harvest of furbearers. Why would that even matter? There is already sound biological data that all furbearer species are stable in Colorado. That would just be another biological datapoint they’d cast aside.
It’s also worth noting that it was pointed out to the commissioners that there have been no surveys of the public, so there is no social science data to support a decision based on social science. Clearly they don’t care.
I’m not sure who in the room said it, but one of the people from CPW said “I don’t need to count every blade of grass in my yard to know that I have a lawn.”
It’s also worth noting that it was pointed out to the commissioners that there have been no surveys of the public, so there is no social science data to support a decision based on social science. Clearly they don’t care.
I’m not sure who in the room said it, but one of the people from CPW said “I don’t need to count every blade of grass in my yard to know that I have a lawn.”
Last edited:
What a joke. Ludicrous to ignore CPW recommendations for social science.
We need to start organizing now to engage the next governor, likely Bennet or Weiser, on the current composition of the Commission. It’s going to be a long road, and a lot of damage can be done before new appointments start to rebalance the commission.
We need to start organizing now to engage the next governor, likely Bennet or Weiser, on the current composition of the Commission. It’s going to be a long road, and a lot of damage can be done before new appointments start to rebalance the commission.
It is a joke. But it fits the trend that has been evolving for the last 8 years (and in reality the last 16 counting Hickenlooper) of methodically chipping away at 2A rights, hunting, and now trapping rights while embracing more and more "feel good" policies of the welfare state mentality. Colorado is getting exactly what they have voted for as it has swung deep blue. My prediction - it will take 30-40 years before the pendulum starts to swing back more towards the middle.
Remember, it was voted on to move into rulemaking, it has not been decided on, yet.
So, it's not yet true defeat, cannot let up on the gas.
Do I feel good about our chances? No, not really. But there is opportunity for at least some solid changes to the petition, it not ultimate denial.
It is nonetheless a huge slap in the face to staff (and sportsmen and women). Even our new director who I assumed was just another handpicked Polis-Reis lackey gave a very sound recommendation against the petition. Maybe just a cover to save face with sportsmen knowing how the vote was gonna go? I dunno.
So, it's not yet true defeat, cannot let up on the gas.
Do I feel good about our chances? No, not really. But there is opportunity for at least some solid changes to the petition, it not ultimate denial.
It is nonetheless a huge slap in the face to staff (and sportsmen and women). Even our new director who I assumed was just another handpicked Polis-Reis lackey gave a very sound recommendation against the petition. Maybe just a cover to save face with sportsmen knowing how the vote was gonna go? I dunno.
bayoublaster7527
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 746
So it is not final. They will discuss specifics at the next meeting in May. The vote was to begin rulemaking based on the citizen petition. I believe it would be hard to completely reverse it but they may look for exemptions/exceptions and carveouts.
bayoublaster7527
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 746
Abso
It also makes it quite clear what we feared all along. The Center for Biological Diversity now controls a majority voting block (6 commissioners) that essentially grants them total control of wildlife management rulemaking, especially now that the commission feels comfortable rejecting Director/CPW recommendations.
But yes, stay on the gas. Email your state elected officials. Keep reminding those 6 commissioners that they sold out the sportsmen community and rejected science-based management.
Absolutely. Sportsmen and women outnumbered the proponents both in attendance and providing public comment. It is a complete affront to democratic process, especially looking at Denver’s Ord 308 that was voted down in 2024. It sets a really dangerous precedent if the anti groups keep launching petitions and the commission keeps rejecting the agencies’ recommendation and the will of the people. What’s next- trapping?mountain lion hunting? Black bear hunting? Furbearer harvest?
It also makes it quite clear what we feared all along. The Center for Biological Diversity now controls a majority voting block (6 commissioners) that essentially grants them total control of wildlife management rulemaking, especially now that the commission feels comfortable rejecting Director/CPW recommendations.
But yes, stay on the gas. Email your state elected officials. Keep reminding those 6 commissioners that they sold out the sportsmen community and rejected science-based management.
Bluffgruff
Well-known member
Anyone want to submit a petition to require the commission follow recommendations from CPW?
I have emailed my rep, my senator, and Bennet and Weiser (one of whom will likely be the next gov). Feel free to use what I wrote but make it your own.
Dear Attorney General Weiser,
I am writing as a Colorado resident and voter to express serious concern about the direction of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission following its March 4 vote to advance a petition banning the commercial sale of wildlife fur.
At that meeting, the Commission voted 6–4 to move the proposal into rulemaking despite a clear recommendation from CPW’s professional staff and the Director to deny the petition. The majority of public testimony also opposed the proposal. When commissioners disregard both the scientific recommendations of agency biologists and the input of the public, it undermines confidence in Colorado’s wildlife management system.
Colorado’s success in wildlife conservation has long been built on science-based management guided by professional biologists. Hunters, anglers, ranchers, and conservationists have invested generations of work and funding into that model because it places biological science at the center of wildlife policy.
Increasingly, however, the current composition of the CPW Commission appears willing to set aside scientific recommendations in favor of activist pressure campaigns. Decisions about wildlife management should be based on biological data and professional expertise, not social or political movements seeking to erode established management frameworks.
Because the Governor appoints members of the CPW Commission, the next administration will have a critical opportunity to restore balance and confidence in the system. Appointing commissioners who respect science-based wildlife management and the role of CPW’s professional staff will be essential to maintaining Colorado’s conservation legacy.
It is also worth noting that Colorado voters have recently rejected several ballot initiatives aimed at restricting regulated hunting and wildlife management practices. These outcomes demonstrate that many Coloradans, including those who may not hunt themselves, still support science-based wildlife management and oppose efforts driven primarily by ideology. As future wildlife policy debates emerge, maintaining a commission that respects both scientific expertise and the broader public consensus will be essential.
This issue matters deeply to many Coloradans, including the sportsmen, conservationists, landowners, and rural communities who have historically funded and supported wildlife conservation in this state. As the next governor’s race takes shape, many voters will be paying close attention to how candidates view the role and composition of the CPW Commission.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important issue.
Dear Attorney General Weiser,
I am writing as a Colorado resident and voter to express serious concern about the direction of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission following its March 4 vote to advance a petition banning the commercial sale of wildlife fur.
At that meeting, the Commission voted 6–4 to move the proposal into rulemaking despite a clear recommendation from CPW’s professional staff and the Director to deny the petition. The majority of public testimony also opposed the proposal. When commissioners disregard both the scientific recommendations of agency biologists and the input of the public, it undermines confidence in Colorado’s wildlife management system.
Colorado’s success in wildlife conservation has long been built on science-based management guided by professional biologists. Hunters, anglers, ranchers, and conservationists have invested generations of work and funding into that model because it places biological science at the center of wildlife policy.
Increasingly, however, the current composition of the CPW Commission appears willing to set aside scientific recommendations in favor of activist pressure campaigns. Decisions about wildlife management should be based on biological data and professional expertise, not social or political movements seeking to erode established management frameworks.
Because the Governor appoints members of the CPW Commission, the next administration will have a critical opportunity to restore balance and confidence in the system. Appointing commissioners who respect science-based wildlife management and the role of CPW’s professional staff will be essential to maintaining Colorado’s conservation legacy.
It is also worth noting that Colorado voters have recently rejected several ballot initiatives aimed at restricting regulated hunting and wildlife management practices. These outcomes demonstrate that many Coloradans, including those who may not hunt themselves, still support science-based wildlife management and oppose efforts driven primarily by ideology. As future wildlife policy debates emerge, maintaining a commission that respects both scientific expertise and the broader public consensus will be essential.
This issue matters deeply to many Coloradans, including the sportsmen, conservationists, landowners, and rural communities who have historically funded and supported wildlife conservation in this state. As the next governor’s race takes shape, many voters will be paying close attention to how candidates view the role and composition of the CPW Commission.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important issue.
Similar threads
