Fort Collins Coloradoan
Updated April 25, 2026, 8:41 a.m. MT
Colorado fur ban debate, Polis appointments spark ‘culture war’
- A petition to ban commercial fur sales in Colorado has sparked a contentious debate between wildlife advocacy groups and hunting organizations.
- Opponents of the ban accuse Governor Jared Polis of political influence and appointing commission members with anti-hunting agendas.
- Proponents argue the commission’s makeup is evolving to better represent the diverse interests of all Coloradans, not just traditional hunting and agriculture groups.
Colorado’s contentious wolf reintroduction program isn’t the only wildlife issue gnawing at Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff and creating a culture war over wildlife management.
How the state should manage furbearers, which includes coyotes, foxes, bobcats, beavers and pine martin, is the next fight between many of the same players battling over wolf management.
Like the wolf debate, the furbearer battle has drawn large interest with loud voices from in and out-of-state interests.
More than 400 people packed the heavily secured DoubleTree Hotel in Westminster on March 4 for a chaotic Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission meeting that ended in the commission voting 6-4 to allow a petition to ban commercial fur sales to continue via rulemaking process.
That sparked outrage from hunting, outfitting and agriculture groups that heavily criticized the commission’s meeting proceedings and for voting against a CPW recommendation to deny the petition based on its studies that hunting and trapping of furbearers is well below what those populations can sustain and still remain healthy.
Now Colorado Parks and Wildlife is bracing for a large number of responses to pour in during a comment period that will help the agency create an issue paper outlining the regulatory considerations and potential changes to current regulations related to the ban.
That comment period ends May 3, with both sides of the issue reaching out via social media to encourage their supporters to submit comments.
CPW also is warning that due to anticipated high volume of attendees at the May 6-7 commission meeting in Grand Junction that not all public commenters will get a chance to speak. It is expected the furbearer topic will be discussed at the meeting but that meeting’s agenda has not yet been published.
CPW plans to present its full findings to the commission at a meeting July 16–17 in Ignacio with a final decision by the 11-member commission slated for its September meeting.
Does the opposition have a sole objective?
Dan Gates, who founded the hunting and wildlife conservation advocacy group Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, said it is clear the opposition has one goal.
“They say this is not a hunting or trapping ban but their ultimate goal is to stop hunting and trapping,” Gates told the Coloradoan. “They couldn’t get these things through one way so they go another way. This is a culture war. All you have to do to see that is their actions speak louder than words.”
Gates pointed out the opposition’s attempts to ban mountain lion hunting and fur sales in Denver, both of which were both defeated by voters in recent years, a bill aimed to ban recreational and commercial beaver trapping on public lands that failed this year and the current fur ban petition as evidence of the opposition’s end game.
Samantha Miller, the Center for Biological Diversity’s senior carnivore campaigner and fur ban petition initiator, countered the furbearer ban is not an attempt to ban all hunting and trapping. She also spearheaded Proposition 127, the failed attempt to ban mountain lion hunting.
“The petition would lead to the banning of commercial fur sales but for a small percentage of the population that does this recreationally,” Miller said. “This isn’t a ban of all hunting and trapping.”
Video surfaces that fur ban opponents say is a gotcha moment
Opponents of the fur ban have trumpeted claims of political influence by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis and First Gentleman Marlon Reis, an animal rights activist.
Most notably, Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, the group leading opposition of the fur ban petition, and other similar hunting organizations, posted on its Instagram a video of Miller, claiming it as proof wildlife decisions are being influenced by the governor and first gentleman.
“What we have been directed from the governor’s office is ‘don’t let us be shown up in Denver,'” Miller says in the video clip. “The next meeting will be in Grand Junction, but you guys are in Denver. ‘Don’t let them show you up in Denver.’ Everyone needs to show up.”
Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management posted the video, shot before the March 4 commission meeting, on its social media sites after the commission meeting.
Miller told the Coloradoan the video was secretly recorded at a private meeting of animal advocates preparing for the March 4 commission meeting and that the clip used by Gates took what she said out of context.
“The governor never told me that directly and it’s not like the governor was ordering you to show up to the meeting,” Miller said. “It’s accurate that the governor’s office wants the public to participate in wildlife management that they care about.
“I think it’s really important to have conversations with the governor’s office, but I don’t have that kind of relationship with the governor. Yes, I have had conversations with the first gentleman because he is an animal welfare advocate but his views are different than the governor’s.”
Gates disagrees.
“Nothing was taken out of context and she used the governor as a bargaining chip to rally the troops and influence public sentiment,” Gates said. “Yeah, I think she talks to the governor and first gentleman. If she talks to the first gentleman, she’s talking to the governor.”
Gates noted, as a Type 1 agency, CPW is designed by statute to make science-based wildlife management decisions without political influence.
The governor’s office has repeatedly said it doesn’t take positions on petitions or wildlife management decisions and has not influenced outcomes.
Exposing the Big Game 