“Our values are just as legitimate!” Those words, perhaps more than anything else said during the semi-contentious, nine-hour-long Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission meeting on July 16, reflect the ideological makeup of the state wildlife agency’s governing body.
They came from the mouth of Becky Niemiec, one of three recent at-large commission members appointed by Governor Jared Polis and attending their first meeting since the Colorado Senate rejected two other Polis appointees due to their lack of experience.
Niemiec made the remarks during the commission hearing about trapping immediately after saying, “My desire to see a bobcat alive is just as legitimate as a consumptive user’s desire to trap a bobcat.”
She and her fellow commissioners had already listened to a detailed presentation from CPW researchers and biologists earlier in the day on furbearer management that included populations, participation, quotas, surveys and harvest rates. Colorado does not have a daily furbearer bag limit and CPW staff reiterated there was no biological justification for one due to healthy and abundant populations, and because Colorado law already limits the types of traps that are allowed. Commissioners pushed back, citing the need for social acceptance. As a result, CPW offered two options with its preferred option carrying a daily bag limit of 15 animals per species. Again, commissioners pushed back.
Niemiec, who works at Colorado State University as co-director of the Animal Human Policy Center, proposed her own arbitrary option of two animals per day, per species to “make sure people feel better about hunting and trapping furbearers.” She questioned whether CPW had any data that “the public feels better about the proposed bag limits.” She then touted her higher education credentials as a social scientist and spoke for five straight minutes.
“I actually went out and I collected some data to look at social acceptance around this,” she said. “Anything I talk about here is as an individual private citizen, not in my role as a CSU professor. I’m just referencing that research,” which was posted on the CSU website the day before the hearing and, according to Colorado Politics, was carried out by a company that pays correspondents for their opinions.
Niemiec announced that her survey went to 534 Colorado residents. Sixty-nine percent of whom, she said, believed a daily bag limit between zero and two would be most reasonable and more than three quarters of respondents “reported that their trust in CPW would increase if the agency developed and enforced rules that ensure animals in traps are killed humanely,” as per the survey. She then scrutinized CPW and questioned its harvester survey results presented earlier in the day.
“You talked about how there’s a 40% response rate to these volunteer hunter surveys and then we take that 40% and we extrapolate it to try to understand our harvest estimates,” said Niemiec. “People don’t necessarily respond to surveys truthfully. People could lie on surveys or they could underestimate. They could overestimate, but of course, that could happen in any survey.”
“I think the same flags can be said for social science research, right? It’s important to use peer-reviewed research. I don’t believe, Becky, that’s peer-reviewed yet,” said Michael Quartuch, CPW assistant director for policy and planning as Niemiec shook her head. “We’re being criticized for not having adequate science but you’re bringing up information here that hasn’t been peer-reviewed and to me that is a little bit of a contradiction.”
Quartuch continued: “Our harvest surveys are run by a statistician and our statistician on staff is excellent. We have a representative sample of our 20,000 fur harvesters. Forty percent is representative. Most of our harvester surveys are done with a random sample. Your survey sample size was 543, right? So, is that representative of Colorado?”
Niemiec responded that she generally puts her research through peer-review but also conducts and releases studies “rapidly if they inform discussions.” (The common term for such short-term opinion collection is polling.) She then ironically noted “this is a great opportunity for collaboration” and continued, “My data is better than no data.”
Following an extensive public comment period, individual commissioners had an opportunity to make and place their own comments on the record.
“We have the best staff of biologists and scientists available to a state wildlife agency. Any state wildlife agency in the United States would be glad to have one of ours,” said Commissioner Dallas May. “Honestly, I’m insulted when I continually hear them being degraded that the data we’re getting is not proper.”
“Social acceptance is being confused and conflated with a political agenda that seeks to eliminate the hunting of furbearers. The creation of bag limits is a priority of the governor’s office,” said Commissioner Frances Silva Blaney. “We don’t have a problem with furbearers. We have an abundance of furbearers.”
“We have a very strong track record as an agency of both restoring populations and also hunting populations. They’re not mutually exclusive,” said Brian Dreher assistant director for CPW terrestrial branch, in response to a commissioner question. “Elk abundance...we have grown the largest elk population in the country while also hunting elk in Colorado. We have harvested almost two million elk over the last 50 years. And so, you can do both. It’s not one or the other.”
“I feel like our tendency should be towards science of these animals, not the social tolerance. If we follow the science, we will end up with the proper result,” said Commissioner Tai Jacober.
In the end, commissioners ignored CPW staff recommendations and voted 6-5 in favor of Niemiec’s two-animal bag limit for 17 species, which will take effect Sept. 1.The vote emboldens animal rights advocates and their agendas.
CPW Commission during its July 16 meeting
“The bag limit is a big step forward, but there’s more work to do to protect Colorado’s shared wildlife,” Samantha Miller, senior carnivore campaigner with Center for Biological Diversity, told KKTV. “Colorado doesn’t require basic reporting on pine martens, ringtails, foxes and other animals, and we’ll be advocating for the state to address clear data gaps.”
The Center for Biological Diversity is a well-known anti-hunting organization, and the same one that presented the commission with a petition to ban the commercial sale of wild fur, which the commission did not advance on a 6-5 vote.
Breaking Down Niemiec’s “Research”
According to the National Library of Medicine, “Research that is not published is not worth doing.” Niemiec’s survey is not peer-reviewed and, therefore, is not considered rigorous, meaning it may not meet the standards for a quality publication and may be subject to misinformation, poor execution and/or bias.
Below is her breakdown of Niemiec’s survey:
- No biological data was given to respondents. They were not shown population trends, harvest rates or sustainability thresholds — just asked what number "feels reasonable." That is a values question, not a yield question. For example, how can they make an informed decision with no evidence to weigh?
- The 'stimulus' of wording primes low numbers. Respondents are told animals can be confined "up to 24 hours without food or water" and are shown examples like Indiana's one-bobcat limit right before being asked to pick a number. That’s anchoring with emotion, not neutral information. This violates the rigor of the survey outputs.
- Harvest models — not opinion — are the right input for limits. CPUE (catch per unit effort), age structure, reproductive data, population modeling. That's the science; this is sentiment.
“The methodology appears intended to get a result,” said Ryan Bronson, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation director of government affairs who graduated with a B.S in biology (wildlife focus) from Bemidji State University. “I would call this a push-poll, where the pollster supplies background information to sway the response in a desired direction. Colorado State should be ashamed.”
Not Niemiec’s First High-Profile Rodeo
During the recent CPW Commission meeting, Niemiec claimed to have nearly three dozen peer-reviewed publications but also emphasized the need to make decisions based on “social acceptance.”
Perhaps her most well-known social survey went public in January 2020, 10 months before Colorado residents voted on Proposition 114, a ballot initiative to forcefully introduce wolves into the state despite four earlier objections from CPW biologists and administration. The survey received extensive statewide media attention.
In it, Niemiec’s team sought to gather public beliefs and attitudes related to possible wolf introduction and management by surveying 734 Coloradans. Results showed 84% of those asked intended to vote in favor of introduction, including 84.9% of Front Range residents, 79.8 Western Slope residents and 79.3% of residents who live on the Eastern Plains.
“And this poll says 80% of Western Slope residents want wolf reintroduction? And 78% want them in farming and rural areas? I’m not buying it,” Rick Enstrom, a former CPW commissioner, told the Colorado Sun. “If 80% of Western Slope residents want wolves reintroduced, I will eat the governor’s hat.”
Heading into election night, 39 county commissions had passed resolutions opposing the measure and 51 of 64 counties ultimately voted “no.” However, Prop 114 proponents gathered the bulk of votes from the population centers of Aurora, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, Fort Collins and Lakewood to eke out a victory with 50.91% voting in favor verses 49.09% in opposition.
Was Niemiec’s 2020 social survey accurate? Election night votes seem to indicate it was anything but that. Are the results of her most recent furbearer non-peer-viewed survey scientifically accurate? And should statewide wildlife management decisions be made based on its results? You be the judge.
About Hunt 2 Conserve
Hunt 2 Conserve is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization affiliated with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Its mission is to advance a legacy of hunting and conservation by educating, activating and developing stewards and defenders of these fundamentally American ideals. For more information, go to hunt2conserve.org.
