The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is preparing to take a deeper look at its furbearer regulations in the spring, which guide the hunting of species like bobcats, coyotes and foxes. 

It’s an issue that has continued to command attention during public comment at the commission’s meetings since a ballot measure seeking a ban on hunting mountain lions, bobcats and lynx was rejected by Colorado voters in November 2024. 

As the ethical and scientific questions brought forth by the ballot measure continue to be posed to the state wildlife agency, the commission has also received two citizen petitions seeking changes to how it regulates furbearer species. The first, submitted by the Colorado Trappers & Predator Hunters Association in November 2024, asks for regulation changes on bobcats, swift foxes and beavers that purport to improve data collection of the species. The second, submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity in June 2025, asks the agency to ban the commercial sale of furs in Colorado. 

In preparation to address the questions and concerns around how the Parks and Wildlife manages hunting for its 16 furbearer species, the agency convened a stakeholder advisory group in May. 

In early December, the recommendations made by the third-party moderator who oversaw the process emphasize the divide between hunters and wildlife advocates over how the agency manages its furbearer harvest policies. The engagement process included two focus groups: one composed of agricultural producers and sportspersons and the second of animal welfare and wildlife conservation advocates.  

“While overlapping interests create substantial opportunities for convergence around policy and management, both groups’ strong commitment to the diverging interests makes it challenging,” wrote Heather Bergman, a consultant with Peak Facilitation Group who oversaw the focus groups and recommendations. “These recommendations do not give either focus group everything they want in terms of furbearer management or policy. In fact, they may not give either group most of what they want.” 

The recommendations — which range from enhancing education to conducting population studies of furbearers and establishing harvest limits — aim to “strike a balance and give both groups some of what they want, while accounting for and mitigating against some of what they fear,” Bergman added.

The Parks and Wildlife Commission will consider the group’s recommendations and the two pending petitions at its March meeting. 

How does CPW manage furbearers? 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife manages 16 furbearer species: bobcats, beavers, coyotes, foxes, weasels, raccoons, skunks, mink, muskrats, pine martens, badgers and more.

Among these species, both stakeholder groups named four species with the highest priority for management action: gray fox, swift fox, ringtail cats and marten. 

The report notes that this is in addition to bobcats, which Parks and Wildlife is actively studying, citing a long-term study initiated by the agency in 2022 to examine Colorado bobcat populations and harvest levels. Additionally, beavers were excluded from the stakeholder process because Parks and Wildlife is in the midst of a separate process to guide conservation and management of the species. 

Colorado regulations allow the use of live traps for furbearers and require that the animals be immediately released or killed by a legal method. Per law, these traps cannot be moved from the capture site. In 1996, Colorado voters passed a ballot measure banning the use of leghold traps; instant-kill, body-gripping design traps; poisons; and snares for wildlife. 

The only legal methods of killing furbearers include rifles, handguns, shotguns, handheld bows and crossbows, and air guns. Furbearers may be taken with the aid of baiting, according to regulations. 

The furbearer permit is a $10 add-on option available to individuals who have also purchased a small game license. There are no limits on the number that a furbearer permit-holder can kill of these species. 

In its 2024-25 fiscal year, the agency sold 19,620 furbearer permits. According to the report, the species identified by the stakeholder group have seen “fairly consistent” harvest levels since 2021. In 2024-25, Parks and Wildlife estimates that 283 marten were harvested, 749 gray fox, 263 swift fox, 20 ring-tailed cats and 917 beavers. The agency tracks bobcat mortalities separately and reported 1,264 deaths from either hunting or live traps in 2024-25.  

Bobcats are also managed differently from the other furbearer species; they are the only one that Parks and Wildlife requires a mandatory check on after it is hunted. 

What do stakeholders want? 

Part of Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s challenge will be striking a balance between its two primary stakeholder groups as it evaluates changes to its furbearer policies. At a high level, the interests seem diametrically opposed.

In a chart, Bergman’s report shows that the best case for the group of producers and sportspersons is “no change” to the agency’s policy. The worst case for this group would be an end to the furbearer harvest. For the group of wildlife advocates, these are swapped: best case being the end of the agency’s furbearer harvest and the worst case being no changes made.

Bergman writes that the group of producers and sportspersons “highly value self-sufficiency and living off the land, Colorado’s hunting heritage, and the ability to get an economic return on the time, energy, and resources invested in hunting and trapping.”  

For the wildlife advocates, the priority is “the intrinsic value of furbearer species, the critical role furbearers play in food chains and ecosystems, and slowing or reversing the decline of furbearer populations in Colorado that they believe to be occurring,” Bergman adds.

Each of these priorities and values are seen as strong positions rooted in extremely different opinions on harvest limits, wastefulness, animal suffering, financial benefits, coyotes and more.

However, as the report aims to bridge the gap, Bergman notes that the agency may find mutual gain in data gathering, science-based management and public education. 

The seven recommendations in the report are as follows: 

• Expand hunter and trapper education, including adding an assessment to the process for obtaining furbearer licenses
• Increase public education regarding furbearers, including providing clear information around furbearers’ ecosystem roles, humane harvest, differences between species, population and harvest data and more
• Schedule population surveys for furbearer species
• Implement mandatory checks and sealing for gray fox, swift fox, ringtail cats and marten, in line with the existing requirements for bobcats 
• Establish and adjust annual harvest limits for the gray fox, swift fox, ringtail cats and marten based on the “best available science” about the species
• Develop and market a coyote-friendly communities program that encourages communities to take local, voluntary actions to better co-exist with the species
• Reconvene furbearer stakeholders to inform future management

Bergman notes in the report’s conclusion that these recommendations do miss some of the individual group’s priorities. 

The recommendations do not address the concerns the wildlife advocacy group expressed around the commercialization of fur and changes to coyote harvest levels or seasons. The advocates feel “strongly that banning the commercialization of fur and reducing (if not eliminating) coyote harvest are ways to lift up and institutionalize the high and intrinsic value they see in all animal lives.” 

However, this belief was up against the desire of the stakeholder group of producers and sportspersons who feel “equally strongly that these two policy changes are not biologically necessary and would unnecessarily and negatively impact their recreation and cultural choices, threaten their economic well-being, and infringe upon existing rights to protect agricultural and private property against predation.”

The challenge is that these issues reflect personal values more than scientific needs and make finding a middle ground “extremely difficult,” Bergman said. 

While not part of the recommendations, the commercial sale of furs will be addressed by the Parks and Wildlife Commission as it considers the citizen petition that would ban the practice entirely in March.