Chaos and contention dominate CPW Commission meeting
Sep 4, 2026 - Rachel Gabel - rgabel@thefencepost.com
CPW Commission Chair Jay Tutchton said he received a great deal of negative feedback on his unilateral decision to limit public comment — including from elected officials — and randomize who is able to speak rather than first-come, first-serve. He went on to say, “I know I received some negative criticism for that, I’m not sure I got any positive feedback, but I’m still going to do it.”
Commissioner Dallas May said changes to public comment is a decision of the commission as a whole, not the chair alone. He said the proposed changes would further erode the trust in the commission and the high volume of public comment requests are a reflection of the contentious nature of what the commission is tasked with.
“In no way should the amount of requests to speak be limited to shorten a meeting for the personal convenience of commissioners,” May said. “As a matter of fact, our meetings should be extended to whatever time is necessary to allow this commission to hear public comment.”
Elected officials are granted additional time and are allowed to address the commission first. They, May said, “speak for thousands of constituents and offer perspectives that are not readily available to everybody.”
May moved to adjust the agenda to allow more time for public comment than the hour allotted on the agenda and to maintain the existing public comment policies. Commissioner Fran Silva Blaney offered a second and later said she wouldn’t be willing to drive several hours without assurance that she would have the opportunity to speak. The motion to overturn Tutchton’s decision passed on a 6-5 vote with opposing votes cast by Richard Reading, Peter Maguire, Jessica Beaulieu, Rebecca Niemiec, and Tutchton.
ACCIDENTAL WOLF KILL
Silva Blaney said she has heard much feedback about the female wolf 2504 accidentally killed by a hunter who mistook it for a coyote. She asked if the regulatory remedy for addressing the situation should it happen again be clarified. Commissioner Niemiec said such a low fine ($140) is not sufficient to deter people in the future from killing wolves. Ty Peterson, chief law enforcement for CPW, explained that CPW officers work closely with elected officials across the state, including district attorneys, and know their priorities.
“I do stand fully behind what our officers did in that scenario,” Peterson said. “There’s always room to learn and change, but given our options, to touch on a point I heard earlier, we want to reward good behavior. We want to incentivize people to do the right thing. If you’ve spent any time in Rio Blanco County or Moffat County, or much of the West Slope or East Slope, you know how easy it is to walk away from things. There’s some danger in putting fines so high for an accident when people just walk away from it, we really have no compliance.”
Commissioner Niemiec again asked why the shooting of the wolf was not forwarded to the district attorney’s office for prosecution and added she would like a direct answer by the next meeting so she “doesn’t have to go to the district attorney’s office myself.”
Peterson said he did offer a direct answer, as did Laura Clellan. He explained again that the two options in a situation like the accidental take of a wolf are regulatory or statutory. He said CPW opted to pursue the regulatory path that offers the defendant the option to pay a fine or appear in court. Had CPW sought the statutory option, whether to pursue charges would be at the discretion of the district attorney.
Niemiec asked if the motivation to take regulatory action was to “get it over with quickly” for the defendant.
“No, ma’am, it’s not that we wanted to get it over quickly, we wanted to get it over efficiently and we thought it was the most appropriate charge given the situation,” he said. “What I would ask in this case is that reasonable minds can disagree on what the right thing is. And, a human being made a mistake here that he was truly remorseful for, so I hope that we all would avoid wanting to air each other’s worst moments out in the public.”
The alternate route, he said, was an automatic court summons with the potential of a $100,000 fine and a year in jail.
“In our view, that was not reasonable for the circumstances,” he said. He added that the case was forwarded to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and that agency handed it back to CPW because “it was not an investigatory or prosecution priority for the federal government.”
Peterson said there are numerous comments online suggesting that a fine and five license points is a “cheap license to go kill a wolf.” He said he has a team of investigators monitoring those comments and if an animal is poached, CPW will investigate and prosecute aggressively.
“This was not that case, it wasn’t,” he said. “We want to reserve the hammer for people who are really doing things in a nefarious fashion, that are doing it to poach, and we will come after you. And I can assure you that, Commissioner Niemiec, we have a team that’s itching to go out and catch poachers and bad guys. This was not that case.”
PRAIRIE DOGS
The next contentious topic was prairie dogs. Originally, the topic was to be heard in January when the chapter opens, but Director Clellan explained that Chair Tutchton requested the topic be added to the September agenda. Commissioner Beaulieu made a motion that a citizen petition to outlaw shooting of prairie dogs on public land move to rulemaking. A second was provided by Niemiec. May said the existential threat to prairie dogs isn’t recreational shooting, it is loss of habitat. He amended the motion to move to rulemaking in January and to move into a stakeholder process. There was, again, a great deal of confusion about the motion and Beaulieu’s intent. Clellan reminded the commission they could follow the staff recommendation to undertake rulemaking beginning in January. Beaulieu and Niemiec both appeared to desire moving into rulemaking prior to January and would not agree to May’s friendly amendment. The motion carried unanimously and, as promised, May proposed a motion to follow the agency’s timeline beginning in January. Commissioner Jack Murphy made an opposing motion to conclude the process in January. Niemiec seconded Murphy’s motion. Again, confusion took over the meeting as that second was out of order and there was no opportunity to second May’s motion. Silva Blaney could be heard off mic calling the decision ridiculous.
Clellan attempted to redirect the commission with regard to their desire to begin rulemaking immediately, saying the species is not in peril, there is no emergency, and “If we don’t do this correctly, we won’t have the strategic, long-term solution that we are all looking for.” Clellan said, “I want to make that point really clear that the staff has made a recommendation and it’s based on a lot of thought, understanding, experience of doing this and if we fast track this, we won’t see the long-term solution that we want.”
Silva Blaney seconded May’s original motion and argued that there was no opportunity to second the original motion. Tutchton took a vote on Murphy’s motion to Murphy. Beaulieu, Niemiec, Reading, John Le Coq, and Tutchton all voted in favor, despite repeated explanations that such a timeline would be difficult to meet given the quick turnaround. May and Silva Blaney also withdrew their yes votes from the previous motion to send the petition to rulemaking since those were cast with the understanding that they supported the rulemaking only if begun in January.
“Chair Tutchton, I ask to withdraw my yes vote from the previous motion,” May said. “I would like to state as a matter of decorum, this is the problem with this commission. This is the problem: we had an agreement. We had a polite agreement before this happened and it was turned upside down. I think we have given ourselves all kinds of problems now because the action we have just done was under threat.”
After a break, May moved to reconsider the first motion presented by Commissioner Beaulieu to commence rule making. That motion failed with opposing votes cast by Reading, LeCoq, Niemiec, Beaulieu, Jack Murphy and Tutchton.
DAY TWO
Day two began with Commissioner Dallas May calling for a point of order. He said he would like to go on record with a formal complaint that his order was never considered, discussed, allowed an opportunity to gain a second and then the chair accepted a competing motion and second while May’s motion was pending. May also suggested the commission adopt a simplified version of Robert’s Rules of Order to “try to stem the dissention that has been pervasive in the past several commission meetings.”
“I beg this commission to conduct itself with grace and humility and think about all stakeholders who are being impacted by the decisions we make,” May said. “Rather than a single, narrow focus, please consider courtesy and dignity and integrity in the decisions we make.”
Commissioner Silva Blaney called for a point of order.
“While this commission operates with procedural flexibility, and at times we do follow things that resemble something more like Family Feud rules, and at other times we adhere to Robert’s Rules of Order, regardless, we are bound by the fundamental principles of fairness and equal representation and yesterday during the discussion of agenda item 13 I was subjected to procedurally deficient and discriminatory treatment by the chair,” she said. “The commission had reached an understanding that Commissioner May’s motion would be heard following a vote on Commissioner Beaulieu’s motion and that opportunity never occurred. Despite my objections to the procedural inconsistencies, the chair allowed the commission to proceed with a vote that, under the circumstances, was out of order.”
“The 11 members of this commission represent diverse geographic regions and stakeholder interests across Colorado and by silencing my voice as an appointed commissioner, the chair effectively disenfranchised the constituency that I was appointed to represent,” she said. “The chair’s refusal to recognize me while permitting seemingly unlimited time for preferred members to speak, raises serious questions and serious concerns about unequal treatment and content-based viewpoint discrimination. While I may have no immediate remedy for the unprofessional conduct displayed yesterday, I want my position clearly reflected on the record. I am deeply dissatisfied and profoundly disturbed by what happened yesterday. As chair, you have an obligation to ensure that every member of this commission is allowed to be heard, and this commission has both an implicit and an explicit obligation to fair play, equal representation, and a transparent and orderly process.”
Commissioner LeCoq, following the staff presentation on the Beaver Management Strategy, put forth a motion to cooperate with the Colorado Department of Agriculture to encourage private landowners to explore nonlethal solutions to nuisance beavers prior to authorization of lethal removal and to establish reporting requirements for all take. Counselor Jake Matter recommended that staff draft a resolution to bring back to the commission.
Clellan clarified that all portions of LeCoq’s motion are part of the Beaver Management conversation and she asked for patience as staff works through and allows the strategy to be built.
When the discussion moved to furbearers at Niemiec’s request, Clellan again stepped in and suggested that the topic be revisited when the chapter opens in January. Niemiec insisted that the vote be in January despite the director’s suggestion and said she hears from her constituents about dispatching nuisance animals. She spoke then about electronic calls, a topic she said she heard about in her office hours, and put forward a motion to prohibit electronic calls for furbearers on public lands in the name of adhering to the North American Model, fair chase principles, and earning public acceptance of hunting.
Clellan again suggested bringing back a proposal in January.
“Trying to get this done by November just isn’t going to work,” Clellan said. “We don’t have the bandwidth to pile everything into November, so let’s just follow the schedule, do this in January, and we will have something. We’ve already talked about it and I think this could be an easy discussion if you take that recommendation.”
Silva Blaney supported the director’s suggestion to consider the changes within the regulatory schedule. Commissioner Maguire said he, too, would like more time to study this and to hear from stakeholders.
Commissioner May, in response to Niemiec’s apparent unwillingness to begin the discussion in January as scheduled in the regulatory calendar, asked, “what’s the rush?”
Commissioner May called for a point of order and asked why, after Clellan asked not to bring a motion on furbearers until the chapter opens in January, is the commission entertaining Niemiec’s unseconded motion to fast track the conversation. Niemiec amended her motion to abide by the timeline. Commissioner LeCoq seconded the motion. Murphy said he, too, wished to second the motion to begin a proposal on the prohibition on electronic calls in January.
Silva Blaney said the commission was over-directing the staff and said she was uncomfortable piling commission directives upon staff and opposed the motion. Clellan confirmed that stakeholder input about technology would be positive. Opposing votes were cast by Tai Jacober, May, and Silva Blaney.
After the conclusion of executive session, Commissioner Jacober asked whether based on the procedural confusion, if the timeline for beginning discussion about prairie dog take could begin when that chapter opens in January, as suggested by Clellan.
Commissioner LeCoq asked if they could agree to stop the shooting of prairie dogs on public lands but still allowing CPW staff the time they have requested. He clarified his intent.
“I want to stop the recreational killing of prairie dogs on public land,” he said, and asked if an agreement could be made to do so by circumventing CPW procedures for stakeholder. He said he wants assurance that CPW could move more quickly and implement the restriction prior to the completion of the process.
Reid DeWalt, CPW deputy director of policy, explained that the agency can’t commit to prohibiting prairie dog take on public lands prior to completing the process and regardless of whether the discussion occurs in November or January, the rule will not take effect until the season open. Staff again explained that there will not be “much of a stakeholder process, we will not have time” if they are forced to bring recommendations to the November commission meeting.
Niemiec said she would not agree to staff recommendations on the timeline.
“I have a lot of constituents that are quite concerned about this issue,” she said. “They send me their concern almost every day and so I feel like if we continue delaying, that can lead to some lost public trust. We’re delaying electronic calls, which I totally understand, we want to follow your regulatory schedule. We’re delaying methods of dispatch which we talked about today and so if we keep delaying all these decisions to January and March, that’s three different regulatory items that we’re going to have to debate in January and March.”
She said due to the “public outpouring,” the prairie dog vote should be expedited without ample public comment and stakeholder engagement.
Commissioner May said he, too, hears from constituents on the opposite side of the prairie dog issue. He said he doesn’t have just farmer and rancher constituents, but rather every citizen of the state of Colorado. Niemiec appeared to repeatedly check her cell phone while he spoke.
“I’m keen to both sides of this issue,” May said. “The recommendation of the agency yesterday — and I can’t believe we have to go through this again — was clear. Keep this in the regulatory calendar. As to Commissioner LeCoq’s questions, no enforcement will happen, as Deputy DeWalt said, until June. It doesn’t change. You’re not going to save the life of one prairie dog either way we go, but what you will do is you will allow the division to conduct their business in a way they would like to do, which they have asked us to do.”
He said the U.S. Forest Service, county commissioners, and state elected officials have all asked to be engaged. Clellan, again, confirmed that it is not a delay to maintain the schedule. Commissioner Murphy said he didn’t support changing the timeline to allow for a stakeholder process. All members present who voted on the prevailing side refused to consider adhering to repeated requests to maintain the regulatory calendar.
Commissioner LeCoq reiterated his intent and questioned when a vote would be taken. Counselor Matter clarified that the vote the previous day was to send the issue to rulemaking but isn’t the substantive vote, which could come in March after the two-step process.
“This is a real scenario, we have a new administration coming and potentially any commissioner could potentially not be here to be a part of that vote,” Le Coq said. “So just thinking out loud, I’m not sure that my vote will even be heard in March and I think that’s where this idea of pushing it out further, kicking it down the highway, is impactful. The chance with a new administration coming in all of us could flop seats here pretty soon.”
He said “the only reason I’m here is to vote my values and my conscious” but if time for the stakeholder process were allowed with an agreement from the agency to preemptively prohibit prairie dog shooting, he could still vote that way. Niemiec agreed with LeCoq and said the commission and the public all agree with the prohibition of prairie dog shooting. She said there would be plenty of time for stakeholder engagement once the rule is already made. DeWalt clarified that with Niemic’s timeline, the draft would be due in less than a week.
May said Niemiec’s portrayal of the commission and public being in agreement is incorrect and allowing only days for stakeholder engagement is unacceptable. Silva Blaney said, “we are not all on the same page here.” May said there is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and shoving this through will result in a management buffer zone around private land parcels that previously resulted in the extirpation of black-footed ferrets. LeCoq again reiterated that he would be willing to maintain the regulatory schedule if he had assurance that when the administration changes in January that he won’t be removed from the commission prior to a vote in March.
“I totally understand this puts the monkey on the back of staff to push this through without stake holdering, and hopefully we can get it done in lieu of the potential of me not being able to have an impact on this, I guess I’m not willing to accept that,” LeCoq said.
Prior to public comment, Chair Tutchton said he wanted to address his fellow commissioners about a packet that is placed before them so “they don’t think I’m a scumbag.”
“There’s a picture in here of some dead buffalo and it says ‘Southern Land Trust buffalo thirst to death’ and this is inaccurate,” Tutchton said.
From the audience, a rancher that neighbors Southern Plains Land Trust could be heard, “sir, no it’s not. I think you’re out of order. They died right by our place.” Tutchton clarified to the speaker, with whom he was familiar, and said the buffalo did die but the land was not owned by SPLT nor were the bison owned by SPLT and someone was charged with animal cruelty and they were not associated with SPLT.
‘OUT OF CONTROL’
Public comment began with State Sen. Rod Pelton who told the commission that if he conducted himself at the state capital the way the commission conducted themselves over the two-day meeting, business would have stopped. He said there has been unacceptable behavior and staff recommendations are being ignored.
“This meeting has been out of control,” Sen. Pelton said. “I’ve wasted two days, but I’ve gathered a lot of information. I’m the ranking member on the Senate Ag Committee. Every member on this commission comes before Senate Ag to be confirmed. My fellow members will hear from me about what I’ve seen and heard at this meeting. I expect you guys to rise above it. You guys are supposed to all represent different segments, not just one person that sits on the first floor of the state capital. It’s very evident he has had a big role to play in this meeting and that’s out of place.”
State Rep. Ty Winter said he shares the sentiments of Sen. Pelton.
“I plead with the commission, this isn’t just a Denver, Boulder, Front Range centric commission,” he said. “The decisions you make have real world implications for the small people in the state of Colorado.” He said the “good people of rural Colorado are tired of having things shoved down their throats.”
Cheyenne County Commissioner RJ Jolly suggested that the commissioners all order a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order and review the guidelines for boards and commissions in the state. He said the action taken on avocational take of prairie dogs was “unprofessional and could appear nefarious to some observers.
“As the petition you are writing rules for is written, it precludes any take on public lands and a conflict between CPW policy and state statute will be created. Keep this in mind as you write your rules on a nonaction item we were not allowed to speak on before a vote was taken.”
Jolly said the only existential threat is the five-month window until a new administration is seated; there is not, he said, a threat to prairie dogs in eastern Colorado.
“Finally, you may not like the sports shooting of some of these animals, but many people do,” Jolly said. “Are they wrong or evil? No. But once again, it leaves condescending do-gooders financed by out-of-state NGOs (non-governmental organizations) forcing their vision of a pristine nature that never existed on the people who live and work and make their living in the country before they go back to the city with smug satisfaction, thinking they’ve fixed something that wasn’t broken.”
Las Animas County Commissioner Tony Hass said that according to CPW’s own data, development is more of a threat to prairie dogs than hunting and the population is currently abundant and thriving. Hass said his main concern is encroachment onto private property, of which his county is 85% privately owned. He asked the commission to allow stakeholders to speak prior to a vote.
Las Animas County Commissioner Felix Lopez asked the commission to include stakeholder engagement in rulemaking rather than eroding the trust in CPW staff.
“You have the time to do the right thing,” Lopez said.
