Petition to ban fur hunting would effect fly fishing

• 17 hrs ago

https://trinitymedia.ai/player/trinity-player.php?pageURL=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aspendailynews.com%2Fopinion%2Fpetition-to-ban-fur-hunting-would-effect-fly-fishing%2Farticle_a4649543-dd87-4849-b754-8485d2dc1aed.html&partner=Flex&FAB=fab&textSelector=I2FydGljbGUtYm9keQ%3D%3D&contentHash=81c36941b6a7b8a8a2761ce601d248d5ab2feab94015cda9cb12ef54d170b02a&unitId=2900003117&userId=6eb24a55-7bae-4a21-b77b-2a3d775ee43d&isLegacyBrowser=false&version=20260321_dc2ed940307454d6353f4201633eb9d731a1a904&useBunnyCDN=0&themeId=477&isMobile=0&unitType=tts-player

• Petition to ban fur hunting would effect fly fishing | Opinion | aspendailynews.com
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Print
• Copy article link
• Save

Editor:

(Re: “Thanks for supporting ban on fur hunting,” March 13, Aspen Daily News)

Mary, first, Delia Malone and John Emerick are friends of mine and I respect their opinions. I agree with the intent of this petition that was approved by the wildlife commission, with a couple major exceptions.

First, it goes far beyond the prohibition of trapping furbearing animals like pine martin and weasels. It would also ban the sale of furs for individual fly-tying, something many fly fishers do. This is straight from the petition:

“2. The sale, barter, or trade of furs from furbearers is prohibited, except as provided below:

a. Handtied fishing flies. This exemption applies solely to handtied fishing flies sold as a finished product. It does not include or permit the sale of raw, tanned, or otherwise processed furbearer parts, including fur, pelts, or other materials sold separately for fly-tying purposes.”

You are free to purchase flies already tied with “banned” materials, but you can’t buy those materials for your own use.

Most, if not all, fur material sold at local fly shops or online are commercially sourced, not trapped, elk and deer hair being among the most common. 

Yet the sale of these vital fly-tying materials would be banned. This has nothing at all to do with trapping small furbearing animals. It’s an animal rights agenda run amok.

https://cdn.broadstreetads.com/stencil-files/78b07abb-93fe-41b9-b9f1-9f984377fd25/index.html

Colorado Parks and Wildlife does have regulatory language defining furbearers, but that isn’t spelled out in the petition.

The petition is not based on science or reality either. Leg traps were banned in Colorado many years ago as inhumane (I agree) and trapping nowadays is pretty insignificant. CPW estimates it accounts for 2-3% of the population.

While I agree with the sentiment of the petition, it seems like a solution looking for a problem. What’s next? Banning catch and release fishing because some think it hurts the fish? Will hunting follow?

Ken Neubecker

Glenwood Springs