I write to urge the commission to pass the Center for Biological Diversity’s petition to prohibit the commercial sale of wildlife fur in Colorado. The move is a simple, common-sense initiative that would make Colorado’s management of furbearers consistent with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (which guides the state’s conservation efforts). Additionally, it would underscore the principle that science and science alone—not the desire to use public resources for private gain—guide Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s wildlife-management decisions.
As the CPW’s own summary of the North American Model (NAM) notes, the framework includes two basic ideals and seven guiding principles. The first ideal is that fish and wildlife are “for the non-commercial use of citizens.” Additionally, the seven guiding principles, also called the “seven sisters,” further emphasize the wisdom of banning the commercial sale of wildlife fur. NAM calls for the elimination of markets for game and notes that wildlife is held in the public trust, that wildlife is allocated to the public by law. Also, NAM recognizes “science as the basis for informed management and decision-making processes.”
When animals are trapped for commercial purposes, the practice flouts the clear implication of the North American Model. And to the extent that the demand for trapping licenses is driven by commercial interests, wildlife management hinges on forces other than legitimate conservation and sound science.
One argument against this citizens’ petition is that trapping animals to sell their fur reflects a “tradition,” and it is true that this kind of commercialism has a long history. The question commissioners should ask themselves, however, is this: Does a practice that is inconsistent with the state’s core values become acceptable merely because no one has yet made the state’s policies conform with its stated principles? The answer, obviously, is “no.”
Finally, some are arguing that the petition to ban the commercial sale of fur would ban the sale of hand-tied flies for fly-fishing and of furs for those who use fur to tie their own flies. The clear language of the petition shows this objection to be both false and moot. The petition includes “exceptions for the sale of furs and fur products used in legally acquired secondhand or vintage fur products: fly-tying materials and heritage western felted hats; and for scientific or educational purposes.”
Even if the petition did not exempt fur for hand-tied flies, the following workarounds exist:
- Major fly suppliers, such as Umpqua, are tied and manufactured overseas, not in Colorado. For example, Umpqua, has production facilities in places like India, Sri Lanka and Thailand where these flies are tied and then shipped and sold in the United States. These materials are sourced from the international market, so they can fill this gap when we eliminate commercial sale of fur in Colorado. https://www.umpqua.com/the-interview/. Further, Orvis’ flies are tied in China and South Korea.
- Since most common furs used in fly tying come from rabbit, which are not classified as a “furbearers” in Colorado; arctic fox, who do not live in Colorado; deer and elk hair, which are not classified as a “furbearers” in Colorado, this concern about the petition’s conflict with fly-fishing is irrelevant.
- Bobcat fur is not sold in fly shops in Colorado, so this species has nothing to do with fly tying.
- Coyote fur is occasionally used in saltwater flies (shrimp/crab imitations for Bonefish, Permit and Tarpon), but saltwater fishing does not take place in Colorado.
- Numerous alternatives to coyote fur include rabbit, squirrel and deer hair, plus of course synthetic options (EP Fibers) made by Enrico Puglisi that are sold in many fly shops: https://www.epflies.com/fly-tying.
- For those who insist on tying flies with furbearer parts to make their own special hand-made ties, passing this petition will not have any impact on the flies and materials sold in Colorado fly shops because this petition doesn’t change trapping regulations, so anyone can still trap and use the parts for their own fly tying. Alternatively, these folks could give them away to fly tying manufacturers and end-users of fly-tying materials. This would reduce the cost of ties.
- To the argument about natural materials being more biodegradable than synthetic materials, fishing people should not be littering the environment with their flies, regardless of the materials.
In short, the question before the commission is whether the state of Colorado truly believes in the wildlife-management principles to which it claims to adhere. If so, the path is clear on the proposed ban on sale of fur: Vote yes.
Sincerely
NAME HERE
