Whether this mountain lion is hunting or being hunted, passing Prop 127 could make real differences in the lives of big cats and in the balance of nature.
At its simplest, Proposition 127 would prohibit what initiative proponents call “trophy hunting” of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx in Colorado, although the ballot language would effectively ban all sport hunting and trapping of what I’ll call “big cats” unless it’s necessary to specify. The initiative would not ban all killing or wounding of the big cats, for example in cases of danger to life, safety, livestock, or property, or in case governmental agencies are attempting to manage wildlife populations. First-time offenders would face a first-degree misdemeanor and loss of wildlife licenses for five years, and subsequent offenses can disqualify a person from using a wildlife license for life.
Prop 127 is a citizen-initiated amendment. It’s a statutory measure, not a Constitutional amendment, and would pass with a simple majority of votes.
Why Is Prop 127 On The Ballot?
The proponent organization “Cats Aren’t Trophies” (CAT) gathered enough petition signatures to get 127 on the ballot. In their press release after they turned in signatures, they explained that they support ending the practice of hunting big cats solely for their fur and heads, and criticized commercial hunting practices including the use of dog packs and electronic devices to hunt mountain lions, along with the trapping of bobcats, which they say is unfair to the big cats. For example, in the case of mountain lions, the dog packs might chase them and force them to climb a tree, and once the mountain lion is “treed,” the human hunter might have a relatively easy shot.
The anti-127 committee Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better and a number of smaller hunting advocacy organizations typically say hunting is an important part of wildlife management strategies. The CWDB website says passing 127 would force Colorado Parks and Wildlife to alter its population management approaches for not only big cats, but also for other species. For example, mountain lions are predators, and they play a role in determining deer populations.
For very basic information about big cats, CPW says there are “around 3,800-4,400” mountain lions in Colorado that aren’t kittens. According to CPW, neither mountain lions nor bobcats are considered endangered populations. It is currently illegal to hunt lynx in Colorado, so I won’t write much about them in this post, but the statute would cover lynx hunting if 127 passes. CPW says the mountain lion harvest has averaged 505 per year since 2020, along with 808 bobcats per year over the same time period.
Currently, California is the only U.S. state with a recreational mountain lion hunting ban, having passed Proposition 117 (link to information here) by about 52% – 48% in 1990. This ballot measure involved much more than just mountain lion hunting, and it still allows “depredation” hunting permits in case mountain lions kill livestock.
How Does 127 Define “Trophy Hunting?”
The initiative language about trophy hunting is not super-long and I would recommend reading it in full, but I’m going to summarize for brevity here.
For the first part, 127 defines trophy hunting as “killing, wounding, pursuing, or entrapping” the big cats, but there will be exceptions in the next paragraph. The initiative’s “legislative declaration” lead paragraph also says trophy hunting is “primarily for the display of an animal’s head, fur, or other body parts,” not primarily for meat.
Opponents to 127, including groups that are allied with Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better, will generally argue that the phrase “trophy hunting” is being used to sway public opinion, when in fact the 127 ballot language would ban all sport hunting.
Under 127, killing or wounding of big cats would not be considered a violation in cases of: defense of human life, livestock, or property; if it was conducted under the direction of state, federal, or local government agencies such as CPW; if the big cats were accidentally hit by motor vehicles; or if euthanasia is deemed necessary.
There is a market for big cat fur. Readers can search the Web for all kinds of prices on big cat fur and fur products, but for an example from just one outlet, Glacier Wear advertises mountain lion pelts on sale for $695 to $2,550, and bobcat pelts for between $180 and $250. Or, an outlet called The Taxidermy Store advertised mountain lion rugs ranging from about $3,500 to $6,200.
And for a side note on meat, Colorado Revised Statute 33-6-119 says hunters must “reasonably attempt” to provide the edible portions of game they kill for human consumption, but that does not necessarily mean big cat hunting is performed “primarily” for meat. Both mountain lion and bobcat meats are edible, and there are outlets in Colorado that process or sell wild game meats, but Boulder readers won’t find mountain lion meat at Sprouts or Whole Foods.
How Are Big Cat Populations Managed In Colorado?
Colorado Parks and Wildlife deals with species population management as part of its mission, and not just for big cats. Interested readers can find a very large amount of information about mountain lion population management on CPW’s webpage. The webpage includes management plans for given geographical regions, along with data analysis guidelines.
Just for examples, CPW’s West Slope Mountain Lion Plan (132 pages, but with an executive summary) includes a general statement that its objective is maintaining a “relatively stable” population of mountain lions. This plan was dated 2020 and the following quote is not meant to characterize all statewide management strategies, though it does suggest that hunting is one available tool: “It is CPW’s intent to maximize the use of licensed hunters in achieving lion management objectives within the Northwest Region.”
The plan includes a section on mule deer population management, which lists mountain lion population “reductions” as one strategy to protect mule deer populations in given geographic areas. Another section about areas near Glenwood Springs notes that “human safety and social tolerance levels is a higher management priority than lion abundance.” The document recommends that females should only make up a low percentages of the “harvest” (hunting), and suggests adjustments in case that percentage is exceeded.
Formulation of the West Slope Mountain Lion Plan went through a period of public process, including public meetings throughout the region. CPW received input from members of the public, county commissioners from the region, other western states, and animal wellness organizations.
CPW requires mountain lion hunters to be licensed and to be able to pass a mountain lion exam, which includes being able to identify the difference between males and females. The organization monitors populations in given areas, and sets a maximum number of mountain lions that can be harvested for each of numerous geographical Game Management Units (GMU) in Colorado. There are several GMUs that contain parts of Boulder County.
There has until recently been two hunting seasons for mountain lions in Colorado, but in 2024 the CPW Commission voted to end the April hunting season after reports said about 44% of the kills in late 2023 were females. Females are essential to care for kittens, who generally can’t care for themselves and might perish without their mothers. The CPW Commission also banned the use of electronic animal calls to lure mountain lions this year.
The proponents and opponents to Prop 127 are saying different things about what would happen to mountain lion populations if 127 were to pass. The California-based Mountain Lion Foundation claims that mountain lions haven’t overpopulated since their 1990 ballot measure passed. However, the anti-127 committee Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better claims passing 127 “could result in rapid population increases, which would pose a significant threat to other species in Colorado.”
Could The State Government Handle This Issue Without An Election?
In brief, the Colorado state legislature can pass bills and resolutions on nearly any topic. Also, state departments like CPW can adopt rules to guide implementation of state laws through Colorado Code Regulations after public process – in this case through the Parks and Wildlife Commission. Whether any public issue is being discussed in the legislature, state department, or state commission, public input on bills and rules is allowed by email, phone, or live testimony during open public process.
In 2022, the state legislature introduced Senate Bill 22-031. The bill had reasonable similarity to 127 in that it would have basically banned hunting or trapping of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx, but with exceptions. The exceptions were again fairly similar to what’s in 127, such as allowing killing or wounding in case of threats to safety, or if it’s done under the authority of a governmental agency.
However, SB 22-031 was defeated in its first Senate committee on a 4-1 vote. The committee hearing included testimony from organizations that are generally taking part in the debate over 127. Extremely simplified, representatives of a number of pro-hunting groups testified in opposition to the bill, while representatives of animal protection groups testified in favor.
Follow The Money
As of Oct. 28, the proponent organization Cats Aren’t Trophies reported contributions of about $2.77 million, with about $79,129 coming in after this report for a total of about $2,847,997. Top contributions included about $1,005,000 from the Keenesburg, Colorado-based The Wild Animal Sanctuary, about $886,490 from DC-based Animal Wellness Action, $225,000 from Florida-based Big Cat Rescue Corp, $170,000 from the California-based Mountain Lion Foundation, $127,000 from Maryland-based Center For A Humane Economy, and $110,000 from Golden-based Wildlife Protection Solutions.
As of Oct. 28, the 127 opponent committee Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better had reported about $1.88 million in campaign contributions, with $203,000 coming in after this report for a total of about $2,083,000 as of Oct. 31. Top donors included $600,000 from Virginia-based Concord Fund, $237,000 from DC-based Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, $200,000 from Paul Jones of Connecticut, $100,000 from Montana-based Wild Sheep Foundation, $50,000 from Connecticut-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, and $35,000 from Oregon-based Fur Takers of America.
A new group called Western Heritage Conservation Alliance registered fairly late in the election cycle to oppose 127. As of Oct. 30, it has received at least about $871,000 from the DC-based Building America’s Future, and $75,000 from Texas-based Safari Club International.
Despite the major donations listed here, both Cats Aren’t Trophies and Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better reported reasonably large numbers of individual donors giving far less money per person.
Prop 127 Pro:
- The big cats are important and beautiful parts of Colorado’s natural environment, and it’s unfair to them to use dog packs or electronic means like GPS to hunt them solely for their fur or heads.
- The ballot measure does not ban all killing of big cats, since it has exceptions for potential safety issues and governmental population control.
- Mountain lions are predators that help manage deer and elk populations.
Prop 127 Con:
- The big cats are not endangered species, and there is room for managed hunting without seriously threatening optimal population levels.
- Banning this type of hunting would impact economic activity for some companies or some geographic areas.
- Hunting or culling are among long-standing ways to manage wildlife populations, whether it’s done through commercial entities, by governments, or by residents with hunting licenses.
Richard’s Take
I will vote against this measure, with apologies to some of my friends who feel differently, but it’s not because I want big cats killed needlessly. My most significant problem is with the process, in which large numbers of voters who just won’t be deeply familiar with the details only get to choose “yes” or “no” as options. My second major problem is that Prop 127 goes straight to banning a long-established practice in a state that’s known for hunting, as opposed to seeking collaborative efforts that might produce incremental yet beneficial changes.
The more I research initiatives in general, the stronger my belief becomes that no ballot measure has to be a be-all or end-all, and they don’t always have to enact radical change. With 127, I posed a lot of rhetorical questions to myself. Is it necessary to have a complete ban on big cat hunting? If we don’t like given practices, couldn’t we just go after them instead of enacting a complete ban – like dog packs, use of GPS, or sales of the fur to China? Couldn’t CPW just limit the numbers of licenses or commercial operations or harvest totals?
To partially answer some of my rhetorical questions, CPW actually made changes in 2024 by ending the April hunting season and banning electronic mountain lion calls – and CPW includes full-time staff with access to decades of accumulated research and the time to gather more information. Good public process might lead to any of a number of solutions or changes to current practices, which could be discussed or implemented over time, but that’s not what we’re doing with 127.
There has been discussion about how 127 might have one major similarity to 2020’s Prop 114, in which a very narrow majority of Coloradans passed a measure to re-introduce gray wolves into Colorado. I don’t want to directly compare the two different measures, except to say 114 was basically supported more by Front Range voters who might never actually encounter a gray wolf, while the most vocal opposition came from the rural areas in which the wolves would be introduced, partially because wolves are predators that will kill and eat livestock if possible. I suspect this urban-rural dynamic will be somewhat similar with 127 in 2024, though I’m not claiming it will be monolithic on either side.
Simply regarding physical presence, mountain lions and bobcats are present in certain Front Range counties (including Boulder County) where gray wolves are probably not, so that’s one significant difference between 114 and 127. But I do see that 127 could set up a situation in which large numbers of non-hunting voters, or people who don’t live in areas where hunting is a generational way of life, might be making a decision for smaller numbers of voters who are hunters or live in rural areas. And there’s a side issue I don’t think a lot of people are considering – would 127 even keep big cats from being “culled” – a nicer way of saying “killed” but on behalf of governmental agencies – for population control? I asked and CPW couldn’t tell me if culling would or wouldn’t happen, but I do know there are current local/regional population management plans in place and they’re there for legitimate reasons.
In fairness, I also think it was legitimate for proponents to put 127 on the ballot, and it would be completely legitimate for people to vote in favor of 127 for whatever reason they see fit. I’m appreciative of the proponent arguments, and I can understand voting based solely on animal rights or animal population concerns. The cats are to me undeniably beautiful creatures and they play an important role in Colorado’s ecosystem. While the big cats are hunters themselves, I can totally see how people think human hunters have unfair advantages with modern technology and dog packs. Readers who didn’t visit CAT’s website in my earlier section might still wish to try it at this link, because you’ll get a chance to see images and videos about the results of big cat hunting. It’s not for the squeamish.
But having worked at the State Capitol, I regularly interacted with people who live in rural Colorado. Many of them are hunters, ranchers, and farmers who lead different ways of life than most Front Rangers. I also know there’s a fair amount of resentment over Front Rangers trying to dictate what rural Coloradans can or can’t do, and I’d like readers to try imagining what it’s been like for ranchers who had cattle they raised and cared for killed by gray wolves thanks in part to certain largely uninformed Front Range voters who made snap decisions. In my opinion, rural residents or long-time hunters deserve more of a say on this issue than they’ll get with a binary yes-no ballot measure when people who don’t hunt have a vastly larger voting population.
Back to the state legislature – they frequently turn issues where they’re not really ready to make binding decisions into “study bills,” in which they form some type of study group and devote a year or two toward preparing a final report with recommendations for action. Then, the legislature might turn recommendations into bills, possibly crafted with input from animal rights organizations, hunters, and professionals available to or employed by CPW. Members of the public could also weigh in to legislators and during public hearings. That approach appeals to me here, since there would be broad-based input and room for debate over smaller details.
Personally, passing or defeating 127 won’t change my life one whit. I’m just trying to think about people whose lives will change if it passes because big numbers of voters with no real stake in the issue can steamroll right over them. I’d generally prefer a more nuanced and comprehensive decision-making process on most complex issues than a “yes-no” ballot initiative.
