Summary: The Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation (SAF) and Safari Club International (SCI) have sued the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission for unlawfully establishing a daily limit of two furbearers.
Today, the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and Safari Club International made good on their promise and sued the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (“Commission”) for unlawfully imposing a daily bag limit of two furbearers in the Rocky Mountain state.
Why did the Commission impose bag limits on furbearers?
Despite historically not having a daily bag limit, Colorado’s furbearer population was strong. There was no science-based need for a bag limit. Yet the issue was undertaken by a February 20, 2026, Issue Submittal Form, which acknowledges “The bag limit regulations proposed in this issue paper are a priority of the Governor’s Office.”
Following the Governor’s direction, the Commission took the issue up in March.
The Commission notified the public that it was considering two alternative daily bag-limits restrictions:
- Alternative 1: a daily bag limit of 15 furbearers, which was recommended by Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department (CPW) staff and considered “conservative, sustainable, and consistent with scientific literature.”
- Alternative 2: a tiered approach with a daily bag limit of eight or four furbearers, depending on the species, which was offered at the request of some commissioners.
The Commission then met on July 16, 2026. At that meeting, CPW supported Alternative 1, which would establish a daily bag limit of 15. CPW noted that the population was strong and sustainable despite not having a limit in place beforehand.
Members of the public were also allowed to comment on the two alternatives. Nobody had any indication that the Commission was considering anything but the two alternatives.
When did the daily bag limit of two get introduced?
After CPW’s presentation and public comment concluded, Commissioner Rebecca Niemiec asserted that CPW had no data on public acceptance of the proposed furbearer bag limits. She, however, just happened to have a “survey” that she herself conducted and released on the Colorado State University’s Animal-Human Policy Center’s website the day before. And according to her survey, 69% of Colorado residents believed that a daily bag limit of zero-two was “most reasonable.” So she introduced a motion to limit the daily bag limit to two.
Other commissioners raised concerns that the motion was “veering off the notice” and, if the Commission were to consider the new motion, the public should receive additional notice and comment opportunities. Yet the Commission proceeded, and six Commissioners voted in favor of the daily bag limit of two furbearers.
How are wildlife management decisions that are not based on science impacting management?
Coloradoans are no strangers to rushed wildlife decisions that are not based on sound science. After the people voted to reintroduce wolves into the state, CPW had to scramble to find wolves, which created a lot of controversy. This decision will do the same.
Commissioner Niemiec made clear on her blog “that this policy decision was based on social values.” But whose values is another question. The survey admits that the participants were disproportionately “younger, more female, and more Democrat than the overall population before weighting.” Commissioner Niemiec herself admits that “The sample wasn’t as large as I had hoped for and it was not yet peer-reviewed because I had just conducted it. I had very few resources and very little time to do this research.”
“From her admission, it sounds like she rushed the survey to get it out the day before the vote and, in doing so, put out a less-than-stellar product,” said Michael Jean, Litigation Counsel at Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “There was no need for the limit at all. The population was always healthy, and things were fine in the state.”
What does the lawsuit allege?
Like the federal government and most states, Colorado has an Administrative Procedure Act. These laws require that the agencies provide the public with notice of their proposed actions and an opportunity to comment on them. They also require final actions to be consistent with the proposals on which the public was invited to comment. And the final action must be well reasoned, supported by the record, and authorized by law.
“Here, the Commission didn’t meet any of those requirements,” Jean continued. “The notice was for completely different rules, and the motion for the daily limit of two did not come until after comments were closed. It was also based on rushed ‘junk science’ that nobody had an opportunity to review.”
Issues like these are at the heart of the Sportsmen’s Alliance mission, and we will continue to monitor this important matter. Don’t stand on the sidelines—join us as a member or as a donor of the Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund in protecting tomorrow’s hunting, fishing, and trapping heritage today.
The Sportsmen’s Alliance guarantees hunting, fishing, and trapping for the American sportsman now and forever. We’re there when sportsmen need us most. We are the only organization specifically created to protect the individual hunter, angler, and trapper – no matter the threat. We will never compromise when it comes to defending our way of life in the courts, in the legislatures, in the public
