Colorado’s commercial fur trade faces a potential ban after the Parks and Wildlife Commission voted 6-4 Wednesday to override its own staff and initiate rulemaking toward prohibiting the commercial sale of furbearers. The decision was so procedurally chaotic that commissioners spent most of Thursday trying to agree on what they had actually voted on.
Staff recommended denying the petition, filed in June 2025 by the Center for Biological Diversity and allied organizations. CPW regulations manager Hilary Hernandez told commissioners the agency lacked adequate population data on furbearer species, and that existing statute — specifically section 33-6-107(9), C.R.S. — already permits landowners to sell furs taken under a small game license, creating a legal constraint any rule would have to navigate. Director Laura Clellan backed the denial.
Commissioner Maryann Beaulieu moved to approve the petition and commence rulemaking instead. Commissioner Jay Tutchton seconded after roughly thirty minutes of confusion during which other commissioners asked repeatedly what the motion said. Chair Richard Reading later acknowledged he bore responsibility for allowing five furbearer sub-items to be collapsed into a single agenda heading, calling the result a procedural failure.
The vote split along familiar lines. Voting yes: Beaulieu, Emerick, Murphy, Tutchton, Vardy, and Reading. Voting no: Silva-Blaney, Jacober, May, and Otero.
Thursday morning, commissioners returned to the issue. Reading said he had listened to the Day 1 audio during the lunch recess and confirmed the official motion language for the record. Tutchton defended the substance of the vote while conceding the process was “inelegant.” May said she voted no in part because she did not understand what motion was before the commission. Silva-Blaney asked that future petitions be addressed as separate agenda items.
No commissioner moved to reconsider or reverse the vote. The decision stands: CPW staff must now draft a rule that prohibits commercial fur sales to the extent permitted by existing statute, with a final vote scheduled at the May commission meeting in Grand Junction.
Public comment on Day 2 ran heavily against the outcome. Trappers, outfitters, ranchers, and county officials argued the commission had ignored its own staff’s scientific findings and disrespected the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Several speakers cited procedural grounds and called on the commission to reconsider. Amy Hiltobrand of Fremont County argued the motion had bypassed the properly noticed agenda item and raised concerns under Colorado’s open meetings law. The commission took no action in response.
The second furbearer petition before the commission — requiring mandatory check stations for bobcat, swift fox, and beaver — was denied unanimously on staff recommendation without controversy.
Sources: CPW Commission meeting transcript, March 4-5, 2026; CPW staff recommendation, Item 14c; citizen petition, June 16, 2025; C.R.S. 33-6-107(9).
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 