Dear Editor,
Here we go again, another attempt to manage wildlife by the ballot. Proposition 127 would ban hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx, and criminalize killing of those species except in self-defense or to protect livestock, but not pets. It would still be ok to run over them with your car.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is a leader in science-based population management of wildlife. They've been doing an outstanding job for many decades. Mountain lion (cougar) populations have increased since the species has been managed as a valuable big game species. Our cougar population is healthy and thriving, as are the populations of deer and elk that are the big cats’ primary prey. Science-based wildlife management by wildlife scientists works - maintaining the balance of nature in ecosystems increasingly impacted by humans in myriad ways, while also balancing the desires of diverse Coloradans who love, enjoy and utilize wildlife in diverse ways.
Colorado hunters harvest around 500 cougars annually. The hunt is highly regulated, with quotas in each hunting unit. Cougar hunters take a special education course, including sex identification to minimize harvest of adult females. Cougars are big game, and the same rules apply as they do for ungulates - all edible meat must be taken from harvested animals. If you want to be an educated voter on this, read the mountain lion hunting regulations on the CPW website, or google-up the January 2024 report to the CPW Commission.
The history of wildlife management by ballot, instead of science, is not a great story. In bygone days, voters wanted predator bounties and eradication programs. That’s how we lost our wolves in the first place. Colorado voters banned the most effective methods of bear hunting in 1992, and by taking those tools from science-based management we now have excessive bear conflicts on the urban/wildland interface. CPW is encouraging deer and elk hunters to buy a bear tag - “in case you see one.” We’ll see how the voter approved (by less than 1%) wolf reintroduction program works out - the first year hasn’t been pretty. Science issues should not be determined by ballot. Should we abolish FDA and vote on what vaccines are approved for humans?
What is truly egregious about Prop. 127 is that a lot of mostly urban people - who will never see (or be seen) by a cougar in the wild, are hoping to tell a smaller number of mostly rural Coloradans what they should eat, and how they can recreate or make a living. Prop. 127 is an attempt to impose “Tyranny by the Majority” - “we don’t like what you do - so we’ll make it illegal.”
Prop 127 will destroy the livelihoods for those few rugged souls who love, feed, train, and condition those packs of big Plott and Walker hounds, true working dogs that hunters follow in extreme terrain. It will harm rural counties that rely on hunting season sales tax revenue to provide basic public services, and further alienate rural Coloradans who produce the food and energy the urban masses consume. It will do nothing for the conservation of wild cats.
The word “trophy” is absent in the ballot initiative. Proponents advertise 127 as a ban on “trophy hunting”. I hunt for meat, or to make my spaniel happy. Other hunters seek both meat and a “trophy.” There is nothing wrong with that. What’s next? Will we have to remove the elk mount from Ace Hardware? Will display of “stuffed” elk heads, in public buildings, lodges, restaurants and resorts across Colorado be banned? We purport to value art in all forms. Taxidermy is art. Millions of visitors to the Smithsonian and Denver Museum of Nature and Science appreciate wildlife through the art of taxidermy. A “trophy” to memorialize a lifetime outdoor experience or accomplishment could be a photo, a painting, or taxidermy - leave each to their own preference
So, let's leave wildlife science to the wildlife scientists, and value diversity of values, ideas and lifestyle as much as we value physical diversity of all people.
Dean Rundle
Nederland
