Braxton Taylor
In Colorado, a ballot initiative (coined “Prohibit Trophy Hunting”) has garnered enough signatures to appear on the November ballot. The initiative—number 91 on the ballot—seeks to ban all hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx in the state.
The move is the latest in Colorado’s growing track record of ballot-box biology. In 1992, voters first sidestepped Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) with a ban on spring black bear hunting, and in 2020, they narrowly approved a controversial measure to reintroduce wolves in the western half of the state. The first two initiatives were relatively clear in their objectives; however, Initiative 91 is slightly more shrouded in misconceptions and misunderstandings.
First off, the name “Prohibit Trophy Hunting” is a bit of a misnomer. While hunters in Colorado can keep the hides and skulls off mountain lions and bobcats, the state’s hunting regulations make it clear that hunters are required to consume all edible portions of meat off either animal. The regs concerning mountain lions are especially specific, reading: “All edible parts of lions must be properly prepared for human consumption, excluding internal organs. At a minimum, this means the four quarters, tenderloins, and backstraps. Internal organs are not considered edible meat.”
Secondly, the inclusion of lynx in the initiative makes it seem as though the species is threatened by hunting, but make no mistake: lynx have been a federally threatened species since the year 2000 and are illegal to hunt in Colorado. In fact, Alaska is the only state where it’s currently legal to hunt the species.
More importantly, however, the initiative negates the science-based management approach that CPW has been taking since 1965—the last year of a nearly decade-long bounty program on the species in Colorado. In the same 1965 session, the Colorado Wildlife Commission also set bag limits, open areas, season dates, and legal methods of take on the species (excluding trapping but including the use of hounds as a legal method of pursuit). At the time, lion populations were as low as 125 animals, according to some estimates. Now, under CPW’s management, populations are stable, with around 3,800 to 4,400 animals in the state.
Sportsmen and conservation groups are quick to point out that the ballot initiative would be a major setback to the decades of management and research since that 1965 pivot point. “Science-based wildlife management decisions help avoid unintended consequences for people, other species, and the entire ecosystem,” said BHA in a press release. “Colorado’s current regulations, which consider the biology, habitat, and natural history of mountain lions and bobcats, have resulted in healthy and abundant populations utilizing hunting as the primary management tool.”
Without hunting, there would likely be a huge uptick in human-cat conflicts, especially near urban areas. Hunting can help alleviate conflicts by keeping populations at low enough levels so the cats don’t have to venture into urban areas looking for food. Former Broncos defensive end Derek Wolfe can testify to this. In 2023, he legally shot an enormous 173-pound mountain lion on the periphery of a semi-urban area, near where an eight-year-old was attacked just a few years earlier.
“People don’t understand how many cats are out here and why we need to hunt some of them,” Wolfe told MeatEater after the highly-publicized hunt. “I’m not saying there’s a million mountain lions out there trying to kill you, I’m just saying, there are a lot of them, and they get into communities and cause trouble.”
At the end of the day, though, Wolfe concluded the interview by saying, “What I’m really looking forward to is the breakfast sausage.” It’s a sentiment easily relatable to hunters and one worth reiterating to those in support of the ban.
But while individual canvasing is important, it’s going to take a larger effort to defeat the initiative—one already being spearheaded by several Colorado sportsmen groups. “The proponents of this initiative are wielding misinformation as their weapon,” says one of the groups—Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management. “They’ve coined the term ‘Trophy Hunting’ to mislead the public and potential voters, veiling their true intentions behind a facade of concern over fair chase, cruelty, and mismanagement.”
Another group, the Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project, weighs in as well: “Regulated and ethical wildlife harvest for legitimate purposes as a basic tenet of the North American Model of wildlife conservation. Regulated hunter harvest is the best tool available to Colorado Parks & Wildlife for managing Colorado’s huntable wildlife populations.”
Indeed, Colorado makes a strong effort to ensure that lion hunters understand the hunting regulations and their prey’s biology. The state requires that all hunters who wish to purchase a tag complete an online training and exam covering lion biology, physiology, and behavior and the importance of determining a mountain lion’s sex, as well as the central tenets of wildlife management. That’s all to say: mountain lion hunting in Colorado is highly regulated and designed to support ethical hunter practices and healthy lion populations.
At the end of the day, Initiative 91 would hurt hunters and mountain communities that coexist with lions. CPW would take a financial loss from lost license sales revenue, and the initiative would also declassify mountain lions as a game species, meaning ranchers who lose livestock to the cats wouldn’t be eligible for damage claims—a lose-lose for everyone.
While the fate of the ban will be in the hands of Colorado voters in November, we can all do our part in supporting Colorado hunters by understanding the facts of the initiative and helping those around us do the same. Let’s fight this one, tooth-and-nail, canine-and-claw.
Read the full article here