Wildlife Management | Science & Policy
By Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management | savethehuntcolorado.com
Update: The measure previously known as Initiative 302 has qualified for the 2026 ballot and is now officially Amendment 83.
This post is a follow-up to a recent episode of Through the Gates, where Dan Gates breaks down what happened over two long days of CPW Commission proceedings in Ignacio, CO. If you want the full, unfiltered version, go listen to the episode or watch the Commission meeting yourself on YouTube. Everything we’re about to walk through is on the public record. You don’t have to take our word for any of it.
But if you want the short version — what happened, why it matters, and what it tells us about the direction of wildlife management in Colorado — keep reading.
What Happened at the July Commission Meeting
The headline issue was furbearer management. Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff — the biologists, managers, and enforcement professionals who actually work with these species every day — came to the Commission with a recommendation on bag limits for 17 furbearer species. Their recommendation, backed by decades of harvest data, was to maintain the status quo: no daily bag limits, the same framework Colorado has used for more than 50 years.
Staff also laid out alternatives at various levels, in case the Commission wanted to establish limits anyway. Those alternatives were built around species biology, harvest history, and population considerations.
The Commission rejected all of it.
Instead, on a narrow vote, the Commission set a daily bag limit lower than any option staff presented — a limit of two per species, per day. Not because the data supported it. Not because biologists recommended it. Because a majority of commissioners decided they wanted a number, and that was the number.
A single agenda item that was scheduled for roughly an hour took six hours to get through. Several other agenda items never got addressed at all and were punted to the September meeting. And this wasn’t a debate over 17 separate species with 17 separate discussions — this was one combined conversation that consumed most of a day.
The next day, the Commission took up a proposed fur ban — a prohibition that traced back to a petition filed by an out-of-state advocacy organization in 2025. That proposal failed. Even some commissioners who voted for the new bag limits couldn’t justify a full ban on top of them. That’s worth acknowledging. But the fact that a fur ban made it to a vote at all, after the agency’s own experts had repeatedly presented data showing no biological concern, tells you where this Commission’s attention is being directed.
What the Numbers Actually Show
Here’s the part that never seems to make it into the emotional testimony, so let’s put it plainly.
Colorado has had unlimited furbearer bag limits for over half a century. In all that time, there has been no biological evidence — none — that harvest has been a detriment to any furbearing species in the state.
Why? Because unlimited on paper doesn’t mean unlimited in practice.
Roughly 20,000 people buy furbearer permits in Colorado each year. According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s own data, around 86% of them never harvest a single furbearer. Many buy the $10 permit so that if they happen to encounter a bobcat while pheasant hunting or a fox while out with their kids over the holidays, they’re legal. That’s it.
The actual statewide harvest numbers are small. A few hundred swift fox across the entire state in a season — that works out to roughly three per day statewide. Bobcat harvest, under fully unlimited bag limits, averaged out to about a dozen animals per day across all of Colorado. Not per hunter. Statewide.
These are the numbers the Commission had in front of them. These are the numbers the professional staff explained, patiently, in public session. And these are the numbers a majority of the Commission chose to set aside in favor of a bag limit that no one — not staff, not stakeholders, not the harvest data — had asked for.
What Trapping in Colorado Actually Looks Like
Part of what fuels these debates is a persistent misunderstanding of what’s actually legal in Colorado, so let’s clear that up too.
Recreational trapping in Colorado is limited to cage traps. That’s it. Foothold traps, body-gripping devices, and cable restraints are legal only on private property, only for documented conflict and depredation situations, and only under a 30-day exemption period per calendar year, per property.
CPW staff walked through all of this in a detailed trapping presentation on the second day of the July meeting. The regulations are published. The brochures exist. The presentations were posted online in advance. Any commissioner could have picked up the phone before the meeting and asked staff to walk them through it — that’s something every commissioner has the ability to do.
Instead, the professionals delivering that presentation were questioned as if the basic framework of Colorado trapping law was news. When the people making decisions about wildlife management haven’t done the homework on what’s already legal and what isn’t, the process suffers — and so does the wildlife.
When Process Breaks Down, Wildlife Loses
Here’s the thing we want to be clear about, because our critics love to twist this: our frustration is not with Colorado Parks and Wildlife. It’s the opposite.
CPW employs roughly 350 scientists and over a thousand full-time employees who are statutorily tasked with managing 961 species of wildlife in this state. These are professionals whose expertise is sought out by other states and agencies around the country. When they present, people listen — everywhere except, apparently, in front of their own Commission.
What we watched in July was a process where staff recommendations were dismissed, where presentations were followed by lengthy monologues instead of questions, where data that took decades to build was set against opinions formed in weeks. A few commissioners consistently held the line for science, logic, and the data in front of them — and we’re grateful for that. But they were outnumbered.
This is what people mean when they talk about values-based voting replacing science-based management. Commissioners are entitled to their personal perspectives. But the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation — the most successful conservation framework in the world — doesn’t run on personal perspectives. It runs on data, professional expertise, sustainable use, and the public trust. When a commission substitutes its own preferences for the recommendations of the agency it oversees, the model erodes. And once it erodes, it’s very hard to rebuild.
If you think we’re exaggerating, don’t take our word for it. The full meeting is on YouTube. Watch how it played out. Watch the staff presentations, watch the questions, watch the votes. Then decide for yourself whether that’s how you want Colorado’s wildlife managed.
Where Initiative 302 Stands Right Now
This brings us to the constitutional right to hunt and fish — and there’s real news here.
In early July, we submitted signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State for Initiative 302, the proposed constitutional amendment protecting the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife in Colorado. Signature certification has been completed and we are awaiting the official amendment number that will appear on the November ballot. We should have that number on or before September 2nd.
And let’s be direct about what this amendment does and doesn’t do, because the opposition is already misrepresenting it.
Initiative 302 does not strip Colorado Parks and Wildlife of anything. Read the language. It preserves the full authority of CPW, the Commission, and the state legislature to manage Colorado’s wildlife and natural resources. It establishes hunting and fishing as the preferred method of wildlife management — not the only method — carried out under science-based decisions made by the experts.
It doesn’t legalize anything that’s currently illegal. It doesn’t prohibit anything that’s currently legal. What it does is put a constitutional backstop between Colorado’s wildlife and the endless cycle of ballot-box biology — the campaigns that have targeted mountain lions, bears, trapping, and fur, one species and one election at a time.
Critics will say we’re the ones bringing wildlife management to the ballot. No. We’re trying to end the practice of managing wildlife at the ballot. There’s a difference, and it matters. In 2024, Coloradans rejected Proposition 127 and Denver’s Ordinance 308 because voters saw through the emotional campaigns when they were given the science and the facts. Initiative 302 is about making sure the experts never lose the ability to manage wildlife in the first place.
The Commission Is Making Our Argument for Us
Here’s the irony of the July meeting: the commissioners who ignored staff recommendations, dismissed decades of data, and voted their personal values over professional expertise are demonstrating exactly why a constitutional right to hunt and fish is necessary.
When science can be set aside by whoever happens to hold an appointed seat, wildlife management becomes a function of politics instead of biology. Appointments change. Administrations change. Agendas change. The one thing that shouldn’t change with every election cycle is the commitment to managing wildlife with science, in perpetuity, for everyone.
That’s what we’re fighting for. Not against CPW — for CPW’s professionals, and for the model that built the most abundant wildlife populations in the developed world.
What You Can Do
The September Commission meeting is coming, and the agenda items that got punted in July will be back. Between now and November, here’s how you can help:
Watch the meetings. The Commission meetings are streamed and archived on YouTube. Pay attention to how decisions get made — not just what gets decided.
Follow the campaign. Once the amendment number is certified, we’ll be running hard through November. Follow us on Facebook and Instagram, and subscribe to Through the Gates for updates and analysis.
Support the effort. Learn more about Initiative 302 here, and support the issue committee for the amendment campaign at savecoheritage.org.
Talk to people. Most Coloradans have no idea any of this is happening. When they find out, they tend to agree that professional biologists — not politics, not ballot campaigns — should manage wildlife. Be the person who tells them.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the CPW Commission decide about furbearer bag limits?
At the July 2026 meeting, the Commission voted against the staff recommendation to maintain existing furbearer regulations and instead imposed a daily bag limit of two per species — a limit lower than any alternative CPW staff presented. The full meeting is available on the CPW Commission’s YouTube channel.
Was there any biological reason to change furbearer bag limits in Colorado?
No. Colorado had unlimited furbearer bag limits for over 50 years with no biological evidence of harm to any furbearing species. CPW’s own harvest data shows roughly 86% of the state’s approximately 20,000 furbearer permit holders never harvest an animal at all, and statewide harvest numbers for species like swift fox and bobcat are very small.
Did Colorado pass a fur ban?
No. The proposed fur ban failed at the July 2026 Commission meeting. The proposal originated from a petition filed by an advocacy organization, not from CPW staff or any biological concern.
Is trapping legal in Colorado?
Recreational trapping in Colorado is limited to cage traps only. Foothold traps, body-gripping devices, and cable restraints are legal only on private property for documented conflict and depredation situations, under a 30-day exemption period per calendar year, per property.
What is the current status of Initiative 302?
Signatures were submitted to the Colorado Secretary of State in early July 2026. The campaign is currently awaiting signature certification and the official amendment number for the November 2026 ballot. Once assigned, Initiative 302 will appear as a numbered constitutional amendment.
Does Initiative 302 take authority away from Colorado Parks and Wildlife?
No. The amendment language preserves the full authority of CPW, the Parks and Wildlife Commission, and the state legislature to manage Colorado’s wildlife. It establishes hunting and fishing as the preferred — not the only — method of wildlife management, guided by science and the state’s professional wildlife managers.
What is ballot-box biology?
Ballot-box biology is the practice of deciding wildlife management questions through public ballot initiatives instead of through professional, science-based management. It reduces complex ecological decisions to a yes-or-no vote, driven by campaign messaging rather than data. Colorado voters rejected two such measures in 2024: Proposition 127 and Denver’s Ordinance 308.
How can I get involved?
Follow CRWM on Facebook and Instagram, subscribe to the Through the Gates podcast, attend or watch CPW Commission meetings, and support the constitutional right to hunt and fish at savecoheritage.org.