Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission settling a lawsuit isn’t the story; the double standard is. 

The Settlement Isn’t the Story. The Double Standard Is.

The recent settlement between the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission (via the state attorney’s general’s office) and a coalition of hunting advocacy groups marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle for ethical, science-based wildlife management. While the agreement includes a minor financial payment and additional training for commissioners, it’s essential to recognize the broader implications.

This lawsuit was never solely about procedural concerns; it was an attempt to suppress voices advocating for a more inclusive and ecologically sound approach to wildlife management. 

The terms of the settlement? Technically minor. The state agreed to conduct trainings on open meetings (which it already did as part of annual compliance training), as well as to pay a portion of the litigant’s legal fees (under $3,000). No one was removed from the commission. No wrongdoing was admitted.

And yet, the Sportsmen’s Alliance and its allies are declaring victory. Why? Because this was never about process. It was about power.

This legal action was part of a broader backlash against progress—an attempt to chill participation by commissioners who bring new, science-based, and ecologically grounded perspectives to the table. We’ve seen this play out across the country, from ideologically motivated attacks on Commissioner Lorna Smith in Washington or a similarly frivolous lawsuit against Michigan’s commission after they voted to give coyotes a three-month break from being killed every year. 

At Wildlife for All, we reaffirm our support for commissioners who prioritize ecological integrity and public interest over narrow special interests. We encourage continued public engagement to ensure that wildlife policies the CPW Commission puts forward reflect the values of all Coloradans.

Commissioners Beaulieu and Murphy stood firm in their principles and continued to advocate for wildlife and the public trust. Their courage matters.

And while the settlement may appear minor in content, its symbolic implications are significant. 

The way the Sportsmen’s Alliance and Safari Club International are celebrating the settlement absolutely suggests they see it as a win for the status quo—keeping decision-making power in a narrow set of hands and pushing back against any attempt to broaden representation on the commission. 

Their messaging is loud, triumphant, and clearly aimed at reinforcing the idea that conservation must always revolve around hunting interests. And their victory lap is less about emails and more about reasserting control, ensuring that conservation continues to center on hunting and trapping interests.

The state attorney’s general office, to its credit, did fulfill its legal responsibility to defend the commissioners. But the muted tone of the agency’s response has left many advocates disappointed. It’s possible they chose a quiet posture to avoid further inflaming tensions—and we can understand the instinct to keep the temperature down in a politically sensitive environment.

Still, silence has consequences. When one side is loudly declaring victory and shaping the public narrative, and the agency tasked with serving all Coloradans remains mostly quiet, it can appear as though the state is stepping back from its duty to protect inclusive governance and defend science-based perspectives.

It’s also telling that the first and most vocal commissioner response came from someone who publicly opposed both Prop 127, yet almost no one knows this op-ed exists. This commissioner was even at a rally in opposition of Prop 127 publicly, an action which passed without comment from most. That’s not just a coincidence—it reflects longstanding comfort with traditional views, while reform-minded voices are often treated with suspicion or sidelined entirely.

The CPW Commission is supposed to represent all Coloradans. But even modest steps toward including more diverse voices—people who view wildlife as more than just game—are met with legal challenges, smear campaigns, and, too often, institutional reticence.

When commissioners aligned with hunting interests speak out, it’s “normal.” When others speak from a conservation science or ecological justice perspective? It’s “controversial.”

That’s the double standard. And it’s deeply entrenched.

When hunters, anglers, and trappers dominate commission seats, it’s considered tradition. When someone from a biology, animal advocacy, or conservation science background is appointed? Suddenly, it’s political. 

The hypocrisy is staggering.

And notably absent from the hunting groups’ narrative? Commissioner Rich Reading’s independently authored op-ed in support of Prop 127, which clearly articulated how coexistence aligns with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The lawsuit authors ignored it because it didn’t fit their storyline of secret coordination or political scheming. When the facts don’t serve the narrative, they’re simply left out.

The story here isn’t just that hunting groups sued. It’s that our system—intentionally or not—still reinforces a narrow definition of who gets to lead and who has a voice. And unless we actively work to change that, progress will always come under attack.

This moment should be a wake-up call: the fight for fair, inclusive, and ecologically sound wildlife governance is far from over. Reform isn’t just political—it’s necessary. Wildlife needs commissioners who understand ecosystems, not just sport hunting. And the public deserves a system that values all voices—not just the loudest ones.

The lawsuit may be over. But the deeper story—the one about fairness, power, and representation—is far from settled. That story is just beginning.