A contentious fight over fur stole the show at day one of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission March meeting. The drama centered around a citizen petition to prohibit the sale of some wild animals furs.

The public meeting was packed with hunting advocates and animal rights groups. A total of 120 people signed up to speak during public comment at the hours-long meeting, not including those who submitted written or virtual comments.

The turnout was so big that Colorado Parks and Wildlife increased security. The meeting was held at the DoubleTree Denver-Westminster. CPW said they conducted security checks at the entrance at the hotel’s request to enforce the venue’s ban on weapons.

Ultimately, the commission voted 6-4 to move a proposed fur ban into the rulemaking phase.

It’s a win for the animal rights groups that submitted the petition.

While the commission did not all-out adopt the petition as it was submitted. They chose to initiate a rulemaking process for a potential ban to be approved down the line.

When the motion was advanced, it was met by jeers and some cheers from an audience full of hunters, trappers and advocates.

“We were hoping that there would be an opposition to moving the petition forward for the variety of reasons,” said Dan Gates, executive director of Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management. “It’s kind of frustrating that you sit there that long and you go through that much back and forth. On so many different levels. So it’s kind of disappointing.”

“This is a win. So it’s a good day,” said Samantha Miller, the senior carnivore campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity.

Miller submitted the petition, which sought to ban the for-profit sale of fur from Colorado wildlife known as furbearers.

Those are 17 species including fox, bobcat, beaver, raccoon and coyote.

“Right now, furbearers are hunted and trapped in unlimited numbers in the state of Colorado, they also don’t enjoy the same protections against commercial markets that other big game species do enjoy, and in a time of biodiversity crisis and climate change, it’s critical that we up our management levels, modernize them, to reflect the crises we’re facing at the time, and ally for align for rare management with other species,” Miller said.

Colorado law already bans the commercial sale of big game.

As submitted, the petition would not limit the trapping or hunting of furbearers, just the sale of their furs and other parts, including hides, pelts, skins, claws and similar items. The sale of furs from farmed animals or wild animals killed outside Colorado would not be impacted.

The petition proposes exceptions, including fishing flies, western hats and scientific or educational materials.

The petition argues that commercial wildlife markets historically contributed to severe wildlife declines in North America and that modern conservation under the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation calls for eliminating markets for wildlife products.

“So what we’re saying is, let’s at least take this commercial piece off the table. We don’t allow this for any other wild animals, and let’s move forward with this petition,” Miller said.

Public comment speakers who supported the petition urged CPW to put compassion for animals ahead of commercial profits.
While the majority of speakers spoke against the proposed ban, saying the existing science-based wildlife management is working, and pointing out the Coloradans who rely on this industry for their livelihood.

Many pointed out that Denver voters rejected a similar fur ban in 2024.

“As a personal furbearer harvester over the course of the last 50 years, and a wildlife control operator and the president for the Colorado Trappers and Predator Hunters Association as well. We can adamantly say that we are for science-based wildlife management, and there’s been no indication whatsoever from the science-based wildlife managers that there’s a problem with any one of the 17 furbearers in the state of Colorado,” Gates said.

CPW staff recommended denial of the petition, saying the division does not have solid evidence that commercial fur sales are leading to unsustainable harvest levels of these animals.

Staff also worried about potential enforcement issues with proposed exemptions, and that the petition contradicts a state law allowing landowners to hunt, trap, and sell furs from furbearers causing damage to property.

“Colorado Parks and Wildlife laid a very good synopsis down when they were putting that recommendation for denial together, and some of these things will play out, and we’ll just have to see how it does,” Gates said.

The commission’s vote to initiate rulemaking leaves the door open for those concerns to be addressed.

“Rulemaking will clear up all of those misalignments that they have found or identified and make sure that it goes forward to the letter of the law and honoring the intent of the visit of the petition,” Miller said. “It’s a good day, I think, for wildlife to bring our regulations consistent and to start modernizing our furbearer management.”

“It seemed today that the vote was more social minded, more personal preference or ideological minded, as opposed to looking at the science and the data that was given by the agency,” Gates said.

See the petition below:

Colorado brewers are raising red flags over new bills that could increase taxes and fees on small alcohol businesses, many of which are already struggling to keep their doors open.

House Bill 1271, known as the Alcohol Impact & Recovery Enterprises bill, creates three government-run enterprises designed to fund programs for alcohol-related addiction prevention, treatment and recovery programs — all funded through fees imposed on alcoholic beverages. The bill is sponsored by four Democratic lawmakers.

Colorado per capita alcohol consumption is higher than the national average. The state also has one of the higher alcohol-related death rates in the country, with around 24 deaths per 100,000 residents as of 2023, according to data from Trust for America’s Health. 

Data from the Colorado Health Institute shows not everyone who could benefit from treatment for alcohol use disorders currently receives it, largely due to factors like cost, accessibility and stigma.

Were the bill to pass, manufacturers and wholesale distributors would have to pay five cents in fees per gallon of beer, cider and apple wine, seven cents per liter of wine and 35 cents per liter of spirits to be used toward alcohol-related treatment and recovery programs. As state lawmakers plan cuts to balance a $850 million budget deficit, advocates for these programs argue the funding from the bill could help offset any potential losses.

For local breweries and wineries in the mountains, however, this would be a significant financial blow to an already struggling industry.

“This is not the time for us to be implementing new taxes on an industry that is hurting right now,” said Carlin Walsh, owner of Elevation Beer Company and chair of the Colorado Brewers Guild. “As a brewer, I feel like the state is looking a gift horse in the mouth.”

Beer, wine, cider and spirits generate around $22 billion in economic activity for Colorado, according to the Colorado Beverage Coalition. The state is home to nearly 420 breweries, 145 wineries, nearly 20 cideries and 100 distilleries. 

Faced with rising costs and waning appetites, however, over 100 Colorado breweries have shuttered their doors since 2024, marking the first time since 2005 that more breweries closed than opened. Meanwhile, national surveys confirmed alcohol consumption in the U.S. is at a 90-year low.

Walsh said breweries already pay eight cents per gallon in taxes, which for a company like Elevation translates to roughly $30,000 in taxes annually. Fees from the new bill would add another $12,000 to its yearly expenses.

“The alcohol industry at large is one of the most regulated industries in the United States, period. We already pay a very heavy tax,” Walsh said, adding that breweries provide tens of millions of dollars to Colorado’s general fund. “Our position is that there’s already money available. Those dollars go to the general fund, and it’s really up to the state to manage what we already provide and to decide what is their priority. We don’t feel like it should be on our shoulders to increase the amount that we pay to the state just because the state wants to endeavour on new programs.”

The Colorado Beverage Coalition said the imposed fees would be a 60% cost increase on alcohol businesses. Paired with an estimated 100% increase in taxes from a referred ballot measure proposed last week — House Bill 1301 — the impacts would be disastrous for the industry, Walsh said.

House Bill 1301 would refer a measure to the November ballot that would increase excise taxes on alcohol and increase sales and excise taxes on marijuana in order to fund a mental health hospital in Aurora.

“Our brewery and so many other breweries, we just don’t have capacity for that. We’re already a low margin business to begin with,” Walsh said. “If this happens, this is going to drive further consolidation amongst our members. It’s going to drive further closures.”

Larger alcohol companies may be in a better position to absorb some of the costs from increased fees, said Shawnee Adelson, executive director for the Colorado Brewers Guild. Small businesses in rural resort markets, on the other hand, are not in that position.

“At a certain point when costs just keep going up and up and up, there’s no more place to cut,” Adelson said.

Colorado jobs, tourism could see ripple effects

The Colorado Beverage Coalition estimates House Bill 1271 would jeopardize 131,000 brewery, winery and distillery jobs in the state, in addition to “greatly increasing cost on consumers.” Walsh said an average brewery would “no doubt” have to cut jobs if either, or both, bills were to pass.

“Depending on the size of a brewery, it could be the cost of a full-time staff or multiple full-time staff to cover the cost of these (fees), so there is a real concern about job losses due to increased costs,” Adelson added.

The Colorado Distillers Guild also argues the bill would be a blow to the tourism industry, as visitors could be deterred by increased consumer costs and a dwindling beer culture.

“A lot of (breweries) will either have to absorb that cost or pass it on to the consumer. And right now, in the current state of the economy, we understand that a lot of consumers are price conscious right now, which is also contributing to lower consumption,” Adelson said. “Passing on that price is going to be really hard for consumers to swallow as well.”

The bill is not entirely new, as similar legislation by the same name was proposed in 2024. The original bill, which died in committee, received significant pushback from Gov. Jared Polis due to concerns that it would end up raising prices for consumers. Polis also requested that sponsors exempt beer companies from the fees.

Aside from a stakeholder meeting ahead of the bill’s introduction, Adelson said the Colorado Brewers Guild had not been contacted by lawmakers about the plan for an excise fee increase.

“We’ve had two years to sit down and have discussions with lawmakers about this. Nobody has reached out. Nobody has sat down with us to say, ‘Hey, this is our goal. We wanna get this done. How can you guys meet us halfway?’” Walsh said.

Being an enterprise fee rather than a tax, House Bill 1271 would not go to voters for approval. Instead, the change would be implemented through legislation only and automatically go live in July 2027. Because the bill would create three separate enterprise fees for beer, wine and spirits — each capped at $20 million annually per state law — the state could collect up to $60 million from all three.

The bill would also create a new 11-member board appointed by the governor to oversee the three enterprises, which would be made up of alcohol industry representatives, behavioral health professionals, public health experts and individuals in recovery.

On top of feeling that a financial change of that magnitude should be left up to voters, Walsh said he’s heard from businesses that are concerned about the potential for the board to increase fees in the future.

“There are very few guard rails around how this enterprise can operate, including the ability for them to raise the tax price that we’re currently paying. There’s very few restrictions within this bill that control how much they can increase that tax,” Walsh said. “In two years they could come back and say, ‘Oh we’re going to increase it another five cents or 10 cents.’”

For Adelson, the fees would impact more than just manufacturing facilities and business  operations.

“They’re community gathering spaces and they’re third places,” Adelson said. “They give back a lot and so I think I just want to make sure that the consumer realizes that we’re not just talking about production facilities, but your local neighborhood brewery that’s down the street and that your neighbours own or your friends work at.”

LONGMONT, Colo. — For Skye Beck and her husband, the decision to uproot their family of five from Nebraska and relocate to Colorado for a new job wasn’t easy — especially when it came to the cost of living.

“It was looking like it maybe was not going to be an affordable option for us to come out here,” she said. “We did find one eventually, but it was still just the two-bedroom apartment, and that was just a little tight for us for the year.”

After a year of cramped living, the Beck family moved into a much more spacious apartment at Ascent at Hover Crossing in Longmont. The newest affordable housing development in Boulder County, which officially opened its doors on Tuesday, includes four-bedroom units — a rarity in affordable housing.

“I think they only have six of those [units],” said Beck. “To have that much space for the five of us is a blessing.”

Katie Pung, housing development project manager for the City of Longmont, said the larger units were a deliberate priority.

“Having those larger units for families really came together in a way that we feel like is going to be meaningful for Longmont families,” Pung said.

The mixed-income apartments are available for a variety of incomes, with units ranging from 30% to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) — about $31,650 to $84,400 for a one-person household.

The development also includes an early childhood education (ECE) center on site, giving families an affordable childcare option.

OUR Center, a longtime local nonprofit specializing in subsidized early education for low-income families, will operate the center. The facility is set to open later this year, with availability for both residents and the broader Longmont community.

It reflects a growing statewide push to incorporate childcare into housing projects through state funding and technical assistance for developers.

p2-aff-housing-projects_030326AKB.mp4

A similar effort is underway in Denver’s Berkeley neighborhood, where the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless is partnering with the Denver Housing Authority to develop Charity’s House, a family housing development with 135 new units — also with an on-site child care center.

At least 40% of the units will be reserved for families earning 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) — currently $37,850 for a family of three and $42,050 for a family of four in Denver. All units will be income-restricted to those at or below 60% AMI.

Cathy Alderman, chief communications and public policy officer for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, said land partnerships help reduce both cost and construction time.

“If we can enter into a partnership with another organization that owns land, and we can build on that, that cuts our cost and time down considerably,” Alderman said.

The DHA Delivers for Denver (D3) bond program, a partnership between DHA and the City of Denver, has funded 11 property acquisitions since its inception in 2019, according to Denver Housing Authority Chief Real Estate Officer Erin Clark.

“It is public partnerships like that and public-private partnerships that, even us, working with a nonprofit here, that are what deliver more housing across the community,” said Clark. “It’s just people thinking outside of the box and leveraging resources and saying, ‘What do you do best, and what do we do best, and how can we work together to make all this happen?’”

Construction is slated to begin in late 2027.

Denver7 has heard from multiple experts through the years about the lack of affordable housing options for families and seniors.

Years-long waitlists and housing lottery odds often make it tougher. More than 15,000 children and youth are currently experiencing homelessness in Denver.

Colorado has been making significant housing investments since the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to more affordable housing developments across the state. But Alderman said there is still more work to be done.

“My biggest concern is that not all of that housing is being targeted for those households in the greatest need,” Alderman said.

Longtime Longmont resident Karen Howerton remembers a time when rents hovered in the $600 range.

“When I came back to Longmont six years ago, I was surprised at how much inflation had happened here and how big the town had grown,” she said.

The last affordable housing development she lived in didn’t quite fit all her needs.

Now, she joins the Becks as one of the first tenants at Ascent at Hover Crossing.

“What I wanted to come over here for was a washer and dryer — I didn’t have that at my other place — and the little balcony, you know,” she said. “I’ve met a few of the neighbors already, and I can’t say enough about it. It’s just a great place to be, for sure.”

Howerton and Beck say the little comforts go a long way toward making a place feel like home.

“I mean, everyone deserves to have a space and be able to afford it without worrying about all the other parts of life,” Beck said. “I feel like here we’re able to finally rest a bit and able to enjoy life, but it shouldn’t be limited to just a waitlist.”