The trade deadline is less than 24 hours away and the Avalanche have already made the three moves that had been clear-cuts needs for the team.

They needed to improve their third pair. They did that by swapping Samuel Girard for Brett Kulak.

They needed to replace the recently departed Ilya Solovyov with a more capable No. 7 option on the blueline. That was accomplished with Wednesday’s trade for Nick Blankenburg.

Most importantly, the Avs needed a third-line center. On Thursday, they paid a hefty price to acquire Nicolas Roy from the Toronto Maple Leafs.

These are all things that had to be done. Now? They have nearly $7 million in available cap space (with Logan O’Connor on LTIR), with an opportunity to improve on the roster they have. This is the part of the trade deadline where general manager Chris MacFarland can bolster the team, find those luxury additions, and maximize his team’s chances and winning a Stanley Cup.

So what could that look like?

Most of the season has seen Ross Colton, Victor Olofsson, and even Gavin Brindley occupy the wings on the third line. With Roy expected to settle into that 3C role, there’s an opportunity to build on the wing. Elliotte Friedman mentioned last week that the Avs could move on from Colton. If so, that would give them a lot more cap space and a valuable asset they can use on the trade market to bring in a solid middle-six winger. Perhaps someone like Blake Coleman.

Olofsson has chemistry with Roy dating back to last season with Vegas, but you have to wonder if they’d be looking to upgrade on his position, too.

That leaves Jack Drury on the fourth line, centering Parker Kelly and Joel Kiviranta. Brindley slots down to the No. 13 forward (when everyone is healthy), while Zakhar Bardakov is the 14th option.

If O’Connor returns before the postseason, he instantly rejoins the fourth line. That would push Kiviranta out, and he’d be the 13th forward just like he was last year. Even in that scenario, I do wonder if the Avs decide to improve on Bardakov. He’s a young centerman who has impressed in limited minutes but has struggled to gain the full trust of the coaching staff.

There’s also the option to add another depth defenseman. Right now, an injury to Kulak or Devon Toews would again force Colorado to have five right-shot defensemen in the lineup. Blankenburg, who also shoots right, would be an ideal fill-in if an injury were to strike on the right side.

But what about another depth option? Colorado won the Cup in 2022 with both Ryan Murray and Jack Johnson on the outside looking in. After Girard’s injury, Johnson stepped in. But it didnd’t hurt to have multiple depth options just in case.

Could the Avs target another depth blueliner? If so, will they go for a bigger body? I’ve seen the name Urho Vaakanainen floated around. He would be the type of left-shot defenseman who could fill that role as an extra. Albeit his $1.55 million cap hit might be too large to take on without retention for such a limited role.

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.”