Braxton Taylor
Colorado voters have rejected by a wide margin a ballot measure that would have banned mountain lion hunting in the state.
Only 72% of the vote has been reported as of Wednesday morning, but the current 11-point spread is wide enough that the New York Times and local media have declared victory for the “No” vote. The latest available numbers show voters rejected Proposition 127 by about 300,000 votes, 1.3 million (55.5%) to 1 million (45.5%).
“When it came down to it, you showed up and made your voice heard,” said Dan Gates of Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management (CRWM). “We want to thank everyone for the support and the movement that’s been built.”
“Common sense isn’t a guarantee in any election result but we got a big win in Colorado on November 5th,” added MeatEater’s Brody Henderson. “Science-based wildlife management won out over a delusional but concerted misinformation campaign put forth by animal rights extremists and anti-hunting groups.”
Polling results indicate that the strongest opposition came from rural counties in the northwest, west, and eastern portions of the state, while the metro counties surrounding Denver and Boulder voted in favor.
Even in these supportive counties, however, support for the ban wasn’t nearly as one-sided as the opposition in the rural areas. Boulder County, for example, supported the ban 59% to 41% while Jackson County opposed the ban 87% to 13%.
“The voters of Colorado have spoken. By voting NO on Proposition 127 they said their wildlife is more important than out-of-state special interests and animal extremists,” CRWM said in an Instagram post. “We thank them for allowing the experts at Colorado Parks and Wildlife to continue using the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation with a foundation of science based decision making as the cornerstone of management in Colorado.
The 300,000-vote margin comes as welcome news to hunters and science-based wildlife management advocates who have spent over $2.8 million to oppose the measure. Virtually every hunting and angling group nationwide threw their weight behind the effort, including Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Howl for Wildlife, the Mule Deer Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
The opposition also received unexpected support from the Colorado Wildlife Employees Protective Association and the Denver Post editorial board.
“While most Coloradans would not participate in a mountain lion hunt, or feel comfortable killing a bobcat that had been caught in a live trap, we do not find those practices to be beyond the pale,” the Post’s editorial board wrote. “Like all outdoor recreation, it has an impact on wildlife, but CPW’s job is to carefully regulate and manage that balance between hunting and healthy ecosystems and between fishing in Colorado’s rivers and streams and flourishing trout populations.”
Despite all this support, victory was far from certain. Supporters of the ban outspent the opposition (spending totaled over $3 million), and well-known figures like Robert Redford, Jane Goodall, and Carole Baskin also voiced their support. Early survey results indicated that the general public in Colorado was split over the issue of mountain lion hunting, with about 41% approving while 40% disapproved. Nearly 20% of Coloradans said they had no opinion.
The opposition to Proposition 127 secured enough of those undecided voters to secure the victory, and mountain lion hunting will continue to be legal in the Centennial State.
“Hunters should be celebrating this victory but we can’t rest on our laurels. This fight isn’t over. Anti-hunting measures like Prop 127 will continue to be a threat in the future. Stay frosty!” Henderson said.
Colorado wasn’t the only source of good election news for hunters and anglers. A hair over 67% of Florida voters pulled the lever for Amendment 2, which enshrines the right to hunt and fish in the state’s constitution.
Amendment 2 stipulates that hunting and fishing, including by use of traditional methods, “shall be preserved forever as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.” It also clarifies that it does not limit the authority granted to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Read the full article here