CO fur ban

[Bearded Gnome]

Oh no, you can't shoot vegans, unless they do a home invasion on you. BG.

 

[Phaseolus]

With the recommendation of his husband Marlon Reis

Yup, what a conniving dipshit

 

[justin davis]

Wild times. They want to ban the sale of fur but legalize prostitution. Sick world we live in here in commirado

 

[Hnthrdr]

Idaho has a senate bill that is cruising along that will make state agency directors governor appointees. The clown show down at the statehouse apparently has no clue that they may not always be the party in charge.
Idaho is changing fast and demographics could possibly change with it.

Best play would make sheriffs responsible for appointments, it will be the last form of gov to fall…

 

[Hnthrdr]

Oh no, you can't shoot vegans, unless they do a home invasion on you. BG.

Wut?

 

[ODB]

Your first clue this is happening is when they change an existing Fish and Game department to Department of Wildlife. Stop those changes and changes to charters before it happens.

 

[ElDiablito]

https://www.howlforwildlife.org/coloradosfurfight?utm_campaign=colorado_fur&utm_medium=email&utm_source=howlforwildlife

 

[ElDiablito]

From the Howl blog above

The Fur “Loophole” Narrative Is a Smokescreen. Colorado’s Wildlife System Is the Real Target.​

Colorado just watched a familiar play unfold: a well-organized campaign frames a values-based ban as “common sense,” invokes the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation as a weapon, and then tries to push a major wildlife-policy change through commission rulemaking—even after the public shows up in force to oppose it.

On March 4, 2026, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission voted 6–4 to move a citizen petition forward into rulemaking that would prohibit the commercial sale (and related transfers) of certain furbearer pelts and parts. CPW staff recommended against the petition, and news coverage reported that the meeting was packed and emotionally charged.

Roughly 400 Coloradans, some say 600—sportsmen and women, pro-sustainable harvest, pro-sustainable use—showed up anyway. Elected officials showed up. People took time off work, drove across the state, stood in line, and spoke for the public trust.

And the petition moved forward.

The moment that should shock every Coloradan​

Now there’s an additional issue that goes beyond fur: political coordination.

In a video circulating on social media, the petitioner, Samantha Miller (Center for Biological Diversity), is heard telling supporters: “We have been directed from the governor’s office…” and urging them not to be “shown up” in Denver.

Let’s be precise: that is her statement on video, and the public should judge it for themselves. If a citizen petition is being advanced while activists claim they’re being “directed” by the Governor’s office, that is an accountability issue that warrants daylight—especially when CPW is supposed to be guided by science-based wildlife management, not political muscle.

What the petitioners keep telling the public​

The pitch sounds tidy:

• “Commercial markets drove overharvest.”
• “The North American Model doesn’t support wildlife commerce.”
• “This is just aligning furbearers with big game.”
• “Wildlife shouldn’t be for sale.”

CBS Colorado captured the core storyline: a petition to prohibit the sale of certain wild-animal furs, in a meeting packed with opposing camps and extensive public comment.

But tidy stories are often how bad policy gets passed.

The North American Model: what it really says about “markets”​

The North American Model did not “save wildlife” by banning every kind of commerce forever. It corrected a specific historical failure: unregulated commercial market hunting, where demand and profit drove killing beyond sustainability—especially in meat markets and bird/feather trade.

Here’s the key fact that opponents keep omitting:

“A market in furbearers continues as a highly regulated activity.”

That line appears in a mainstream explanation of the Model, and it matters because it destroys the petition’s central implication—that NAM requires shutting down all furbearer commerce.

In other words: unregulated markets that drive harvest were the problem. Regulated use under public control is the solution the Model built.

Colorado’s furbearer system—whatever improvements you want to make to reporting, limits, or methods—is not a 19th-century free-for-all. It’s managed under public rules, with licenses, seasons, and enforcement. Even current reporting notes the commission is also considering new daily limits for furbearers—exactly the kind of “regulation through law and science” the Model was designed to do.

“Why allow fur sales for furbearers but not big game?”​

Because those categories evolved under different histories and risks, and modern furbearer trade comes with guardrails. A good example is traceability(inspection/sealing requirements for certain species in many states, including Colorado in practice), which is the opposite of a runaway market dynamic.

If petitioners want to claim “commercialization is destroying wildlife,” they should be required to present Colorado-specific evidence of:

1. conservation harm caused by the regulated fur trade, and
2. why CPW’s existing controls and enforcement cannot address it.

What we’re hearing instead is ideology dressed up as inevitability: “commerce destroys wildlife, that's clear as gravity.” - Commissioner Jay Tutchton. That’s not a management argument. That’s a moral conclusion looking for a regulation.

This is how the Model gets hollowed out​

When the public is told “the Model says you must ban this,” but the Model’s own mainstream explanations say regulated furbearer markets exist, you’re not watching conservation. You’re watching messaging warfare.

And when hundreds of citizens show up, CPW staff recommends denial, and the petition advances anyway into rulemaking, people begin to understand what’s really under attack:

• agency expertise
• public trust doctrine in practice
• science-based management
• and the idea that wildlife policy shouldn’t be decided by whichever faction can best weaponize a commission meeting

This isn’t just about fur. It’s about whether Colorado becomes a state where wildlife policy is made by biologists and public process, or by pressure campaigns and political alignment.

 

[Oregon]

I guarantee no Republican voted for the ban.
I had a long response to the thread that was just locked. There’s a difference between a Democrat and a Socialist/progressive Democrat. The latter are a bunch of radical crazies that are trying to change our way of life that we cherish. Old school democrats are still voting for the letter D, and then get upset with the results or just shrug it off.
Oregon Cali Colo Wash are lost causes.
Purple haired angry women with nose rings aren’t going anywhere. They will do their best to make everyone else miserable.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

That’s coming to but next will be hides, that’s whole point of this current cluster. It’s a pyramid of justification to end all hunting

But don’t forget democrats have no agenda to end hunting per what was told here one time

Yep. Some real revisionist history or reporting going on in the other threads. Roksliders who absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the anti-hunting initiatives at the state level in places like WA, CO, OR reside in one party and one party alone. Does that make the whole party anti-hunting? No. Does that mean there aren’t hunters in that party? Of course not.