Colorado committee weighs ban on recreational beaver take on public lands; sponsors say it boosts wildfire resilience, opponents cite CPW strategy and water-in‑

Representative Lindsey and co-sponsor Representative Velasco opened the hearing for HB 26-13-23 by framing beavers as a nature‑based tool for drought and wildfire resilience and saying the bill ‘‘simply prohibits recreational and commercial take of beavers on public lands.’’ They emphasized the measure preserves private‑land management, allows nuisance removals and includes tribal exemptions. Lindsey said an amendment developed with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) would preserve agency authority for scientifically justified removals and allow limited emergency licenses.

Opposition testimony was broad. Colorado Parks and Wildlife stakeholders and conservation groups said CPW recently completed a yearlong Beaver Conservation and Management Strategy and urged the committee to let the agency implement its recommendations first. Several witnesses pointed to agency harvest estimates — ‘‘the avocational take was 381 beaver in 2024’’ — and described that level of legal harvest as biologically insignificant (testimony cited a 2–4% estimate of take). Water providers and municipal officials warned the bill’s rulemaking language could create conflicts with water infrastructure and water‑right administration and discussed concerns about beaver impoundments affecting intakes and stream flows.

Technical witnesses and retired agency officials disputed the bill's wildfire claim at landscape scale, noting riparian areas occupy a small share of the state (one witness stated riparian areas ‘‘occupy 1% of this state's land area’’) and that beaver wetlands can be effective as local refugia but do not substitute for broad fuels work. Proponents countered with peer‑reviewed studies and field observations showing beaver‑influenced reaches often stay greener during fire and can serve as refugia and sediment traps after fires.

The committee adopted amendment L001, which clarifies the bill's scope (defining recreational/avocational take versus nuisance or vocational removal), reduces the maximum fine, and allows CPW to issue limited harvest licenses where biologists determine a need. After adoption of L001, the committee took a roll‑call vote on advancing the bill to Appropriations; the motion failed on a recorded vote (3 yes, 10 no). Committee leadership then moved to postpone the bill indefinitely; with no objection recorded the motion carried and the bill was postponed indefinitely.

What happens next: with the committee's indefinite postponement, HB 26‑13‑23 will not advance this session. Sponsors said they will continue stakeholder work with CPW and other parties; opponents urged implementation of the CPW strategy and improved mandatory reporting before legislative action.

Sources and attribution: quotes and attributions in this article come from transcript testimony at the House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee hearing. Representative Lindsey (bill sponsor) and Representative Velasco (co‑sponsor) are quoted from their opening remarks; Suzanne O'Neil (Colorado Wildlife Federation), CPW staff, and multiple water and conservation witnesses provided the opposing testimony summarized here.

Next steps: Sponsors indicated ongoing collaboration with CPW on implementation details; the committee record shows no further action this session.