In the months since the defeat of a ballot measure aimed at banning the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx, wildlife advocates have continued to press Colorado Parks and Wildlife on the ethical and scientific questions posed within the measure. 

One issue in particular has continued to dominate public comment at the agency’s regular commission meetings: the hunting of bobcats and other furbearer species. 

Not only have wildlife advocates pressed the agency to end or place limits on the trapping of bobcats and other furbearers, but it has received a citizen petition from the Colorado Trappers & Predator Hunters Association asking for regulation changes on bobcats, swift foxes, and beavers. 

---

---

At the commission’s March 5 meeting, Jeff Davis, the agency’s director, said that with the growing interest, the agency is preparing to take action and address questions and concerns raised by the public and the commission.  

The agency plans to convene a working group with various stakeholders over the next seven months to recommend changes to its hunting regulations for its 16 furbearer species. The recommendations could result in regulation changes being considered in 2026, Davis said. 

---

---

How are bobcats and other furbearers hunted?  

Bobcats are classified as a “furbearer” species in Colorado, meaning they are hunted for their fur. It is one of 16 species that carry this classification. Other furbearers include beavers, coyotes, foxes, weasels, raccoons, skunks, mink, muskrats, pine martens, badgers, and more. There are no limits on the number that a permit-holder can kill of these species. 

In its 2023-24 fiscal year, the agency sold 20,496 furbearer permits for a total of $248,037.  

At the commission’s March meetings, commenters raised several concerns with hunting furbearers. The most common issue is that, for furbearers, there are no limits on the number of animals permit holders can hunt. 

“I am most concerned about unlimited bag limits for all furbearer species, including species of greatest conservation need, like swift fox, and rare species like ringtails and pine martens,” said Sam Miller, senior carnivore campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity and a co-founder of the Colorado Wildlife Alliance. “Other species like bobcats, coyotes, and foxes are also allowed to be trapped and killed in unlimited numbers, despite playing essential roles in maintaining healthy ecosystems by controlling rodent populations, curbing disease spread, and balancing predator-prey dynamics.”

Miller also served as the campaign manager for the organization leading Proposition 127. 

Wildlife advocates also expressed concerns with the methods used to hunt furbearers, calling them cruel, barbaric, and inhumane. Many claimed that with bobcats specifically, hunters are trapping the animals and then killing them by bludgeoning, strangling, choking, and other methods. 

Parks and Wildlife staff addressed these concerns, emphasizing that all those methods are illegal in Colorado. 

Colorado regulations allow for live traps to be used on furbearers and require the animals to 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. 

Bobcats are currently the only furbearer species that hunters are required to submit the pelt and hide to Parks and Wildlife. According to Ty Petersburg, Parks and Wildlife’s assistant chief of law enforcement, looking at these pelts helps staff identify how the animal was killed. 

In addition to these checks, the agency accepts tips and information on the illegal hunting of all species through its Operation Game Thief program. 

Although illegal, concerns were raised around the agency’s ability to enforce some of these regulations and investigate illegal activity. 

“We file charges on those trapping violations annually,” Petersburg said. “We are doing the best we can. We’re stretched thin, but we do investigate those things.” 

Drawing on his experience in the field, Petersburg said, “the last thing we want to see was an animal suffer or a person doing things illegally — that gave a bad name to the other hunters and anglers and trappers out there. We are impassioned by going to catch the people that are doing it wrong.”

Dan Gates, president of the Colorado Trappers & Predator Hunters Association, as well as one of the main groups that opposed Proposition 127, Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management, referred to many of the claims as “fallacies and falsehoods.” 

“Everybody that I know adheres to the legal methods of take,” Gates said. “While there are bad apples in every bunch … we do our best to try to make sure that that practice is adhered to.” 

Several commissioners also agreed that these illegal methods of hunting furbearers reflected the actions of a minority of bad actors. 

“I think it’s a very small percentage, and we’re honing in on something that’s not a huge issue,” said Commissioner Marie Haskett. 

Gates referred to the trapping of furbearers as a “time-honored tradition” that “has happened since the beginning of time.”

He added that in some capacity, all states have furbearer rules and regulations geared toward a variety of “modern-day, regulated trapping applications … whether it’s nuisance related, whether it’s livestock protection and depredation, human health and safety, or avocationally.”

Additional concerns included that trapping is indiscriminate of the species, ethical concerns about how hunting for pelts commodifies wildlife and that the practice is outdated. 

“Trapping has no place in the world that is stressed by climate change and biodiversity losses — one of many time-honored traditions that must be retired to the history books,” said ​​Rainer Gerbatsch, a commenter from the public. 

Requests from commenters ranged from implementing reasonable limits on the number of furbearers that can be hunted to banning the practice altogether. Others requested to see the science that backs Parks and Wildlife’s current management of the 16 furbearer species. 

Citizen petition seeks more data collection from Parks and Wildlife 

In addition to these comments, Parks and Wildlife received a citizen petition on Nov. 18, requesting that the commission consider three changes to its furbearer regulations to enhance data collection. The petition was submitted on behalf of the Colorado Trappers & Predator Hunters Association. 

The requests include requiring a lower jaw bone to be submitted to Parks and Wildlife for all bobcats successfully hunted. Currently, the agency’s mandatory check requires that hunters submit a bobcat for inspection.

The petitioners argue that also requiring the submission of a lower jaw bone “will allow both age and gender composition of harvest to be examined at the various geographic scales established by (Parks and Wildlife) guidelines.” 

In addition to helping identify gender and age, an advantage of taking this bone is that it won’t compromise the animals’ pelts or hides, nor will it rely on the hunters’ memory, the petition argues. 

The petition also proposes requiring mandatory submissions to Parks and Wildlife of all swift foxes and beavers successfully hunted. Currently, no checks are required for either species. 

The petition claims that this will provide more accurate data on how many animals are successfully hunted, location demographics for the species, as well as age and gender composition of the populations. In turn, this will “enhance management of the species.” 

All citizen petitions are evaluated by Parks and Wildlife staff before the agency director gives the commission a recommendation on its requests. From there, the commission can vote to hold a rulemaking hearing or deny the petition.