The best way to stop this is to get a sportsperson in as a Governor! Until then we have to let our State Representatives know we are watching them and whom they appoint to the commission. As long as the Governor has the ability to pick and choose the Commissioners they want our hands are tied. Our State Representatives approved the 6 Polis appointees, and the vote was pure party line except for Dylan Roberts if memory serves me correctly.
ACTION ALERT: CPW Commission vote on fur ban
- Thread starter bayoublaster7527
- Start date
bayoublaster7527
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 747
More press surrounding day 2 of the fiasco…..
coloradosun.com
Parks and Wildlife Commission accepts petition to ban Colorado fur sales in “embarrassing … out of control” meeting
Commissioners voted 6-4 to advance Center for Biological Diversity’s petition to ban commercial fur sales amid public pushback and criticism
coloradosun.com
COEngineer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,654
Does CRWM have the funding and is there a legal path to fight this and future commission decisions? The commission is a total sham right now - not a single legitimate hunter, the outfitter rep has never outfitted a day in her life, the governor has directly worked against the department...I could go on, but are any of these things actually illegal?More press surrounding day 2 of the fiasco…..
Parks and Wildlife Commission accepts petition to ban Colorado fur sales in “embarrassing … out of control” meeting
Commissioners voted 6-4 to advance Center for Biological Diversity’s petition to ban commercial fur sales amid public pushback and criticism
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Cheaper to just send respectful messages expressing your concerns here.
www.michaelbennet.com
Michael Bennet for Governor | A Brighter Future & Opportunity for All
Michael believes that, as Americans, we have a responsibility to build opportunity for one another and the next generation. This core belief informed Michael’s work as the Superintendent of Denver Public Schools and, for the last sixteen years, as Colorado’s U.S. Senator.
www.michaelbennet.com
Nice quote in there:More press surrounding day 2 of the fiasco…..
Parks and Wildlife Commission accepts petition to ban Colorado fur sales in “embarrassing … out of control” meeting
Commissioners voted 6-4 to advance Center for Biological Diversity’s petition to ban commercial fur sales amid public pushback and criticism
“I’ve seen better demonstrations of parliamentary procedure and objectivity in the average 4-H meeting,” he said. “Your actions and behavior yesterday did more to destroy trust than any single action in the history of the CPW or this commission.”
I talked to a high level CPW employee last night about this topic who I will keep anonymous. This is basically impossible since it would remove the whole spirit of the commission, which is open democratic debate. Yes, I am well aware of the irony.
I would encourage anyone interested in this issue to read the statute on it.
The vague language in the statute is what allows the appointment gymnastics which have allowed unqualified candidates to be appointed. For example, one could buy a fishing license, never fish, and still be appointed within the current parameters as representative of sportsmen. A petition could potentially make that requirement more robust by shifting the language:
Current:
"Three members who are sports persons who can demonstrate a reasonable knowledge of wildlife issues and who have obtained a hunting or fishing license for at least each of the three years prior to their appointments."
Proposed change:
"Three members who are sports persons who actively participate in hunting or fishing in Colorado and who have held a valid Colorado hunting or fishing license for at least five of the previous seven years, including the year immediately preceding appointment. These members shall demonstrate a history of participation in wildlife conservation, wildlife management, or sportsmen’s organizations and shall represent the interests of Colorado hunters and anglers."
The same is true for the outfitter seat:
Current:
"One of the members appointed pursuant to this subsection must be an outfitter registered pursuant to article 145 of title 12."
Proposed:
"One of the members appointed pursuant to this subsection must be a currently licensed and actively operating outfitter registered pursuant to article 145 of title 12 who has provided outfitting services in Colorado for no fewer than five years prior to appointment."
Potential addition to the statute that is missing:
"In making appointments to the commission, the governor shall ensure that license holders who contribute to the funding of the division through the purchase of hunting and fishing licenses are meaningfully represented among the voting members of the commission."
None of this is perfect, just my thoughts. What has got us in this hot water is bad faith appointments, and when laws and statutes are vague or poorly defined, it leaves open opportunities for abuse. If we were to organize a petition, this seems like a potential focus for it.
Last edited:
Carnage2011
Well-known member
@elkduds Did you attend? Any feedback?
elkduds
Well-known member
I did not. The only upside I can glean is that we showed more unity and turnout than the opposition expected. Hopefully those voices resonate with candidates for Gov. The press I've read reports the Board as hapless, which helps us replace them later.
elkduds
Well-known member
This is from Howl for Wildlife:
Colorado’s Parks & Wildlife Commission voted 6–4 to push the furbearer “fur sale” petition into rulemaking.
THIS MEANS IT'S NOT OVER.
This isn’t just a debate about fur—it’s a direct pressure test on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation: public-trust wildlife, science-based management, and decisions made by experts instead of ideology.
I put together two pieces to help you understand what’s happening and share it clearly with friends and family.
What’s really going on?
Opponents are telling the public that any legal trade in furbearer pelts is “against the North American Model.” That’s misleading. The Model was built to stop unregulated market hunting—not to erase every form of lawful, regulated use. In fact, mainstream conservation sources explicitly recognize that regulated furbearer markets continue under strict public control.Next steps
- Educate yourself (10+ minutes):
The blog has tons of links at the bottom on the NAM and how it relates to furbearer harvest. - Share the truth:
Post the blog or reel with one sentence:
“Wildlife is public trust. Harvest is regulated by law and science. This petition is being sold with a misleading claim about the North American Model.” - Prepare to show up harder at the next Commission meeting: May 6-7 Grand Junction
Rulemaking is where this becomes real policy. Details to come; CRWM and the broader coalition will be working on that soon.
The goal
We win by staying calm, staying factual, and making Colorado understand what’s being attempted here: shifting wildlife management away from science and toward political pressure campaigns.More soon—thank you for being the kind of people who show up.
Similar threads
