Colorado to weigh daily hunting limits, ban on fur sales for wildlife hunted for fur 

At its upcoming meetings on July 20 and 21, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission will consider whether to impose daily hunting limits for furbearers and a ban on commercial fur sales. It’s the latest chapter in a years-long debate over how these species — which include beavers, foxes, coyotes, bobcats, martens and other mesocarnivores — should be managed.  

Both potential policy changes have emerged from a surge of public interest in furbearers following Proposition 127 — a failed ballot measure in 2024 that sought to ban the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx. 

The idea to impose a limit on the number of furbearers a recreational hunter can kill in a single day has been raised in public comments and was among several recommendations made to the agency in a 2025 stakeholder group. 

While Parks and Wildlife proposed a daily limit of 15 for all 17 furbearer species in March, wildlife advocates and some commissioners pushed back, arguing it didn’t go far enough and asked staff to consider a lower number. On July 20, the commission will discuss one new option proposed by the wildlife agency — though its recommendation remains a daily limit of 15. 

The idea to ban the commercial sale of furs in Colorado emerged out of a petition submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity in June 2025. 

The petition argued that it is a common-sense and ethical change that aligns furbearers with how the state manages other wildlife. In a controversial March vote, the commission approved the petition against the recommendation of Parks and Wildlife staff, sending it forward for additional debate. The first hearing will be held on July 21, with Parks and Wildlife offering two options for potential fur sales bans. The agency’s recommendation remains not to impose any ban.

A public divided on Colorado’s current furbearer management 

Public sentiment around furbearers is largely divided into two groups. 

The first, primarily represented by sportspersons and agriculture advocates, argues that the agency’s current management is driven by science and represents a critical part of Colorado’s hunting heritage that provides critical data to the agency. The second, held by wildlife conservation and welfare advocates, contends that the management of furbearers is outdated, unethical and leading to overexploitation of the species

Currently in Colorado, all 17 furbearer species can be hunted with the purchase of ​​a $10 permit. In its 2024-25 fiscal year, the agency sold 19,620 furbearer permits. There are no limits on the number that a permit-holder can kill. 

These species are grouped together as mesocarnivores, sharing high reproductive output, high natural mortality rates and qualities as habitat generalists, according to a March report. 

In a July memo to the commission, Parks and Wildlife Director Laura Clellan wrote that “current annual harvest rates range from 0.6-5.8% of the conservative population projections,” and that there is no scientific evidence that the current level of furbearer hunting is causing population declines. 

Parks and Wildlife staff have said that the allowed methods of trapping — which were narrowed significantly by a 1996 ballot measure in Colorado — act as a natural limit on how many furbearers can be hunted.

There have been some concerns and criticism that Parks and Wildlife lacks sufficient population estimates for these species. In the memo, Clellan clarifies that the wildlife profession tends not to use population abundance for small game and furbearer management because their populations are limited, not by harvest, but by factors like weather and habitat — meaning there are “often very large population swings year to year.”  

While Colorado law makes it illegal to sell or purchase wildlife for commercial gain, there’s an exemption that allows the sale of “nonedible portions of wildlife,” including furbearer pelts and hides. This includes allowing the sale, barter or trading of items like fur, feathers, teeth, horns, antlers, bones and more that were acquired legally.

Should Colorado implement daily hunting limits on furbearers?  

When it comes to imposing a daily limit on the number of furbearers a hunter can legally kill, the agency has offered two options. The first is a limit of 15 that applies to all furbearer species hunted for sport in Colorado. According to Clellan, this is still the agency’s recommendation. 

The second would apply a limit of eight or four, depending on the species. The higher limit of eight would be applied to species identified by state law as those that can cause property damage: badger, bobcat, beaver, coyote, muskrat, striped skunk, western spotted skunk, raccoon and red fox. The lower limit of four would be applied to mink, opossum, marten, ring-tailed cat, gray fox, swift fox, long-tailed weasel and short-tailed weasel. 

In her memo, Clellan said the reason Parks and Wildlife is considering a limit is in response to perceptions that there is a “regulatory loophole allowing unlimited, unsustainable harvest and a regulatory gap between how furbearers are managed in comparison to small game.”

She added that it would also help maintain “social acceptance” of recreational hunting of furbearers.

“There is no information that suggests reducing harvest is necessary to sustain adequate furbearer populations throughout their respective ranges in Colorado,” Clellan wrote, adding that daily limits would only “affect a small number of hunters or trappers, as the vast majority of Colorado furharvesters take only a few animals, even across the whole harvest season.”

Should Colorado ban the commercial sale of furs from furbearers? 

In a July issue paper identifying potential options for a ban on the sale of fur, the agency gives three potential options for the commission to consider. Parks and Wildlife indicates that the alternatives offered are “substantially different” from the petition to avoid potential regulatory conflicts.

The first — recommended by Parks and Wildlife staff — is not to implement a ban, citing its previous denial of the petition. Clellan wrote in the denial recommendation that there was no “solid evidence that commercial fur sales drive harvest levels in Colorado.” 

The second option would prohibit the sale of “fur products,” defined as the pelt, hide or any part of a furbearer hunted in Colorado. The third would ban the sale of “raw pelts,” referring to the skin or any part of the furbearer intact with skin that has not been tanned. Both would only apply to fur sales within the state, meaning an animal legally hunted in Colorado could still be sold in another state. 

The agency reports that both of these would have enforcement challenges. 

Both the second and third would exempt any furbearers killed for tribal uses or by private landowners and producers dealing with nuisance animals. The latter is currently legal under a state law that allows these individuals to kill nine of the furbearer species for causing damage to crops, private property or livestock without a license. 

In between the March and July meetings, Parks and Wildlife solicited feedback on a potential ban on its EngageCPW.org website and through several stakeholder groups.

The survey received 726 responses, with 57% opposing a commercial fur sales ban. Opponents said the proposal lacks scientific justification, goes against Parks and Wildlife staff recommendations, could hurt local economies and businesses, and would remove an important wildlife management tool.

About 38% supported the ban, citing animal welfare, ethics and the ecological importance of furbearers. Many said ending commercial fur sales would stop the commercialization of native wildlife, arguing that trapping and fur harvesting are inhumane and that the animals should be managed for their ecological value rather than commercial use.

The commission’s March decision to go against staff’s recommended denial of the petition has raised concerns about the overall direction of the board and agency. 

“The consequence will be that now there is an onslaught of petitions coming your way that will tie up your CPW staff,” said Rio Blanco County commissioner Callie Scritchfield at the commission’s May meeting. “Colorado is moving more and more toward ballot-box biology, and now petition biology. This allows for management based on emotions and politics, and I haven’t seen any evidence that that’s more successful than managing based on our science and experience on the ground.” 

Others, however, supported the commissioner’s decision to allow the petition a hearing. In May, Delia Malone, an ecologist based in Redstone, said the “vote to support an ethical, science-based relationship with our natural world by voting to protect native furbearers from commercialization has been one of the most important votes in Colorado in the last century.”

“The commission has made great progress in moving Colorado towards the ethical ecological light of the moral universe and out of the scientifically unethical world where guns dominate wildlife management, and killing is misconstrued as conservation,” she said.