If you live in Colorado, you’ve likely heard bits and pieces about wolves, mountain lion hunting, fur bans, or new wildlife-related legislation. Most people hear about these issues in isolation.
This post brings them together.
Below is a simple, plain-English look at five major wildlife policy events that have recently happened in Colorado. On their own, each one may seem like a separate issue. But when you step back and look at them together, a clearer picture starts to form.
The goal here is not to get deep into policy or technical details. It’s to make these issues understandable to anyone—whether you hunt, fish, or trap, or whether you’re simply a Colorado resident who cares about how wildlife is managed in this state.
At the center of all of this is one key idea:
Wildlife management in Colorado has historically been driven by science, data, agency expertise, and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
These five examples help show where that model is being challenged—and how those challenges are showing up across multiple levels, from statewide ballots to local ordinances to commission and legislative decisions.
Follow the events below, as we show the coordinated effort to dismantle science-based wildlife management in our state, how it affects sportsmen and women, and in part two of this blog, we’ll show you what you can do about it.
1. Proposition 114 — Wolf Reintroduction
In 2020, voters passed Proposition 114 by a narrow margin. This ballot initiative required Colorado to reintroduce gray wolves onto the Western Slope. On the surface, it sounded simple. In reality, it created a complex and costly program that the Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) was required to implement—regardless of feasibility, cost, or long-term impacts.
Where are we today? The program has run millions of dollars over budget, and over half of reintroduced wolves are dead due to various causes, and more reintroduction is being discussed.
Keep in mind, the CPW Commission and the CPW Agency are two different things. The Commission is a governor-appointed body responsible for making decisions on CPW policies and initiatives. The Agency, on the other hand, is made up of hundreds of wildlife biologists and thousands of supporting staff—park workers, wildlife officers, and others—who carry out the actual work on the ground.
This is an important distinction.
2. Proposition 127 — Ban on Mountain Lion, Bobcat, and Lynx Hunting
Shortly after wolf reintroduction passed, we saw another major push: Proposition 127. This initiative aimed to ban the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx in Colorado. This effort did not originate from local, grassroots Colorado groups. Instead, it followed a familiar pattern—organizations moving from state to state, testing ballot initiatives to see what will pass.
What happened? The measure was defeated decisively. Early projections suggested it might pass. Some groups were reportedly planning victory celebrations in advance.
Colorado voters rejected it as the science-based wildlife management did not justify such a ban.
3. Denver Ordinance 308 — Fur Ban
At the local level, we saw a similar effort through Denver Ordinance 308. This ordinance aimed to ban the sale and use of fur products in the City and County of Denver. Again, framed as a simple issue—but with broader implications for wildlife management, regulated harvest, and lawful commerce.
The results? The ordinance was defeated by a wide margin. Even in Denver, voters did not support it and they reinforced that people tend to support science-based wildlife management—even if they don’t hunt or trap themselves.
4. 2026 Citizen Petition to the CPW Commission — Statewide Fur Ban
In 2026, the issue returned—this time through a citizen petition brought before the CPW Commission. The petition sought to ban the commercial sale and trade of wildlife fur in Colorado. What makes this moment significant is not just the petition itself—but what happened next.
The CPW Director and CPW agency (the biologists with numerous pieces of supporting data) recommended the petition be denied. Despite this, the Commission voted 6–4 to move the petition forward into rulemaking.
What happened? The CPW Commission did not approve it—but they also did not deny it. Instead, they advanced it?
This created mass confusion and raised serious questions about process, governance, and the role of the CPW Commission relative to its own agency experts.
5. Senate Bill 26-1323 — Beaver Harvest Restrictions
Most recently, we saw Colorado Senate Bill 26-1323 introduced at the state legislature. This bill was framed around wildfire mitigation but included provisions that would eliminate beaver harvest for traditional, lawful purposes. The bill was positioned under the banner of environmental benefit without the considerations of the CPW agencies Beaver Management Plan, effectively ignoring science-based management.
The outcome? The bill was defeated in the House Agriculture Committee (10–3).
Connecting the Dots
Taken together, these five events are not random.
They show up in different places—ballot initiatives, city ordinances, the state legislature, and decisions within the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission—but they follow a similar pattern and often target the same outcome.
For most people, the difficult part isn’t understanding the issue—it’s knowing where to engage.
- What can I do?
- Should it happen at the Commission level?
- At the Capitol?
- Through public meetings, events, or direct outreach to elected officials?
That’s where many people stop—not because they don’t care, but because they don’t know what to do next.
In Part 2 of this blog, we’ll shift from the timeline to action. We’ll break down where individuals can engage, how these decisions actually get made, and the practical steps people can take to get involved.
Because at the end of the day, this isn’t about one big action.
It’s about a lot of people doing small, consistent things that add up over time.
That’s how these issues move—and it’s how they can be addressed.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Who should be making wildlife management decisions in Colorado?
Wildlife in Colorado has historically been managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) using data, field research, and long-term population modeling. Ballot initiatives and legislation can influence policy, but they are not designed to replace scientific management. Effective wildlife decisions require ongoing monitoring, adjustment, and expertise—not one-time votes.
2. What does “science-based wildlife management” actually mean?
It means decisions are based on measurable data—population counts, habitat conditions, reproduction rates, mortality, and long-term trends. CPW biologists use this information to set seasons, quotas, and regulations that keep wildlife populations healthy and sustainable over time.
3. Why are hunting, fishing, and trapping part of wildlife management?
These are regulated tools used to manage wildlife populations within sustainable limits. They also fund conservation—through licenses, fees, and excise taxes—which supports habitat work, species monitoring, and overall wildlife programs in Colorado. Removing these tools impacts both management capability and funding.
4. Are these recent policy efforts connected, or are they separate issues?
Each issue stands on its own, but they often follow a similar pattern—targeting specific species or practices through different channels like ballot initiatives, legislation, local ordinances, or commission actions. When viewed together, they show how wildlife policy can be influenced from multiple directions at the same time.
5. Why should someone care about this if they don’t hunt or trap?
Wildlife management affects everyone in Colorado. It impacts ecosystems, land use, public safety, and how taxpayer and conservation dollars are spent. A science-based approach helps ensure decisions are consistent, measurable, and sustainable—regardless of personal views on hunting or fishing.
Want the latest, related news?
A wildfire-focused bill to ban beaver hunting on public lands dies in committee
Stealing voters’ expectation of expert wildlife management | Rachel Gabel